The Trump Shutdown

[/dev/null]

22 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Federal government.  Department of Army.  We are funded through 2019.

 

Be careful broadcasting to the Internet that you work for the Army.  There are trolls and bots all over the Internet and in the unlikely event a nefarious entity is perusing TSW you might flag yourself as a target

[ExiledInIllinois]

14 minutes ago, westside said:

Like I said. Cushy job.  When was the last time you actually had to work? Government jobs like yours is one small step up from welfare. 

Who did you know to get that job? Was there a test to determine if you could mentally and emotionally handle doing nothing for how many hours you have to be there?

They Must let any idiot off the streets to work on the canal. I'm definitely not going to sleep better knowing the type of people handling that job.

I am wage grade... Hourly.  Not GS, salary.  We do everything in house.  Old school.  Most of the labor is done on day shift, daylight hours. 

 

It's like this:

 

 

We actually have opening... We do have it easy... But you have to be handy in all trades.  Vets preference too.

 

 

 

[boyst]

24 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

God knows what fine line he’s drawing in his passionate defense of Roy Moore. 17, 16, and 14 (!) is not pedophilia? 

 

no, its not, idiot.

22 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Not in his mind.  #sad.

or, you 3 don't know what you're talking about.

 

ya know, democrats and liberals like to throw insults at people that don't fit just because they don't agree with their viewpoints which is why everyone is a raysis, etc.

 

so you, beginnersmind, NPCinphili... truly are ridiculous.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Boyst62

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Be careful broadcasting to the Internet that you work for the Army.  There are trolls and bots all over the Internet and in the unlikely event a nefarious entity is perusing TSW you might flag yourself as a target

Thanks... It's been years since I logged on through work. Never use the network.  Only my personal phone.

Edited January 5, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Thanks... It's been years since I logged on.through work. Never use the network.  Only my personal phone.

doesn't matter if you're posting from home or work, you still waved your arms in the air and screamed out for bad actors to look in your direction

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, /dev/null said:

doesn't matter if you're posting from home or work, you still waved your arms in the air and screamed out for bad actors to look in your direction

Yeah... My problem is my honesty.  Not the misconceptions that people like @westside seem to want to think to fill the void in their life.

 

Scary times being honest.  I just thought everybody knew after these many years.

10 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

no, its not, idiot.

or, you 3 don't know what you're talking about.

 

ya know, democrats and liberals like to throw insults at people that don't fit just because they don't agree with their viewpoints which is why everyone is a raysis, etc.

 

so you, beginnersmind, NPCinphili... truly are ridiculous.

Don't take it so personal.

 

We all go through it, get attacked... Look how the liberals in ShoutBox were attacking me this past summer... The conservatives ganged up too...

 

Speak with honesty.  Judge one's character.

[boyst]

4 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Yeah... My problem is my honesty.  Not the misconceptions that people like @westside seem to want to think to fill the void in their life.

 

Scary times being honest.  I just thought everybody knew after these many years.

Don't take it so personal.

 

We all go through it, get attacked... Look how the liberals in ShoutBox were attacking me this past summer... The conservatives ganged up too...

 

Speak with honesty.  Judge one's character.

uh, it's not being taken as a personal attack.  have you not noticed i don't care about it?

 

my point is to call out @WhitewalkerInPhilly NPCinPhilly for doing what he just bitched about in quoting someone and using the incorrect language.

 

Moore would have been an ephebophile - which is, iirc, about 1/4 of all men in some studies and 1/2 of all men under 24.

 

so, just because moore is a douche and creep doesn't make him a pedophile.

[BeginnersMind]

57 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

 

 

Moore would have been an ephebophile - which is, iirc, about 1/4 of all men in some studies and 1/2 of all men under 24.

 

so, just because moore is a douche and creep doesn't make him a pedophile.

 

You seem well versed.

 

Douche and creep doesn’t cut it though. Moore wasn’t a guy looking at a couple of seventeen-year-olds who happen to be walking past at the beach. He was actively pursuing young girls and using his position to do so. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[B-Man]

FORGET THE WALL — DEMOCRATS NOW HATE THE BORDER ITSELF.

by Rich Lowrey

 

 

It’s a wonder that Democrats haven’t staked out a negotiating position demanding the ­destruction of already-existing barriers along the US-Mexico border.

 

Their opposition to President Trump’s border wall — or, more properly, his so-called wall — is now so total as to be nearly indistinguishable from opposition to any serious infrastructure at the border at all.

 

The partial government shutdown is fueled by a clash of ­visions over, ultimately, the legitimacy of borders and, proximately, physical barriers to make our southern border more secure.

 

Trump has the better part of the argument, but his lurch into the shutdown with no discernible strategy and his scattershot pronouncements make it unlikely that his view will carry the day.

 

Obviously, a 2,000-mile-long border wall rivaling the best work of the Ming Dynasty never made any sense and was never going to happen. And short of Trump finding a latter-day Gen. Winfield Scott to go occupy Mexico City, Mexico wasn’t going to suffer the humiliation of funding a Yanqui border wall.

 

This was all lurid fantasy, and Trump has conceded as much, ­although he will, at times, deny having conceded as much. His ­ambitions are now much more reasonable, involving the kind of ­up-to-date bollard or “steel slat” fencing that already exists in places. But he’s running into an opposition that is much less reasonable.

 

Triggered as always by Trump, and growing more dovish on ­immigration almost by the hour, Democrats are treating the notion of a wall as practically a human-rights abuse.

 

President Barack Obama routinely droned people without generating as much high dudgeon as Trump does asking for $5 billion to better fortify our southern border.

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer calls the wall “medieval.” It’s true that the core idea — a physical barrier to impede the movement of people — isn’t a new technology. The basic concept proved out so long ago that there hasn’t been any need to revisit it.

 

Nancy Pelosi deems the wall “immoral.” She sounds like West Berlin mayor Willy Brandt condemning the Berlin Wall as the “Wall of Shame” — when the East Germans built their border barrier to keep people in, whereas we only want to keep illegal entrants out.

 

If a wall is immoral, what standing does the current 350 miles of primary fencing have? Isn’t it just as hateful as what Trump proposes? The $5 billion the president wants wouldn’t even match what we already have — it would construct about 150 miles of new barriers where none currently ­exist.

 

A wall or fencing is relatively mild as far as immigration ­enforcement goes. It doesn’t ­involve deporting anyone. It doesn’t separate families. It doesn’t prosecute and detain anyone. It doesn’t deny any illegal immigrant currently working in the US a job.

 

All it does is seek to avoid getting in a situation where these other things are necessary in the first place.

A wall doesn’t close down the border or close us off to the world. There are still ports of entry. People can still travel to and from Mexico. People can still, for that matter, fly to Paris. A wall only diminishes illegal entry at certain strategic points.

 

Robust fencing made an enormous difference in stopping illegal crossings in Yuma, Ariz. The area had only about 5 miles of fencing in the mid-2000s, then saw the extent of its fencing ­increase 10-fold. Illegal crossings plummeted.

 

Yuma got that additional fencing thanks to the passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006 on a ­bi-partisan basis, prior to the Democratic Party becoming ­unsettled by the prospect of putting physical barriers in the way of illegal entrants.

 

The wall isn’t the most important immigration enforcement measure. Requiring employers to verify the legal status of their ­employees would be much more consequential. But the wall has taken on great symbolic significance. What it denotes, perhaps more than anything else, is the growing irrationality of the Democrats on immigration.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, they are transnational “Progressives,” after all.

As Bertolt Brecht famously asked about an East German populist uprising in 1953, “Would it not be easier, in that case, for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

You seem well versed.

 

Douche and creep doesn’t cut it though. Moore wasn’t a guy looking at a couple of seventeen-year-olds who happen to be walking past at the beach. He was actively pursuing young girls and using his position to do so. 

Obviously I'm well versed. I'm not retarded.

 

Moreover, it doesn't make him a pedophile as NPCPhilly claims.

[Warren Zevon]

This thread is ***** disgusting 

[njbuff]

Is there legislation that prohibits the President from declaring a national emergency on this issue?

 

If not, he should just bypass the Democrats and do what he needs to do.

[Doc Brown]

If I'm the Democrats I push for DACA in exchange for 5 billion in wall funding and say that they hope Trump spends it the right way.  Make sure the press knows about their proposed deal.  Then watch as the lawsuits pile up preventing any new wall or barrier from getting built.  I don't think the Democrats are that smart though.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, njbuff said:

Is there legislation that prohibits the President from declaring a national emergency on this issue?

 

If not, he should just bypass the Democrats and do what he needs to do.

No he shouldn't.  

30 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If I'm the Democrats I push for DACA in exchange for 5 billion in wall funding and say that they hope Trump spends it the right way.  Make sure the press knows about their proposed deal.  Then watch as the lawsuits pile up preventing any new wall or barrier from getting built.  I don't think the Democrats are that smart though.

DACA is wrose than Obamacare. Both are failed and only half assed attempts to fix something that the former President was incapable of doing. 

 

There needs to be full on legislation to fix this *****.

[3rdnlng]

8 hours ago, peace out said:

This thread is ***** disgusting 

Hitting too close to home and bringing up uncomfortable memories?

[Nanker]

On 1/3/2019 at 5:46 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:

1) He needs to do more of this. The Press will cover it if Trump is there (even if they sound-bite and snippet it later).

2) He needs to stay ON TOPIC (shesh)

3) Is hair optional for Border Patrol Agents?

 

A high percentage of regular patrol officers have very short hair or shaved heads. They deal with a lot of unhealthy scum and can get infected or contaminated by direct contact with them. Long hair is also something that a suspect can grab on to in a scuffle. So many officers don that look. 

I heard that at the Citizen’s Police Academy. 

[B-Man]

Isn't it to Trump's credit that only 3 have died in the National Parks during the shutdown?

 

The anti-Trumpism of The Washington Post is on display in "Three dead in national parks as shutdown wears on":

Three days after most of the federal workforce was furloughed on Dec. 21, a 14-year-old girl fell 700 feet to her death at the Horseshoe Bend Overlook, part of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area in Arizona. The following day, Christmas, a man died at Yosemite National Park in California after suffering a head injury in a fall. On Dec. 27, a woman was killed by a falling tree at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles the borders of North Carolina and Tennessee.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls?

The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation.

 

Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation.

 

 

 

If the parks and monuments were closed............what would keep people out ?............................WALLS ??

 

 

 

 

.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Isn't it to Trump's credit that only 3 have died in the National Parks during the shutdown?

 

The anti-Trumpism of The Washington Post is on display in "Three dead in national parks as shutdown wears on":

Three days after most of the federal workforce was furloughed on Dec. 21, a 14-year-old girl fell 700 feet to her death at the Horseshoe Bend Overlook, part of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area in Arizona. The following day, Christmas, a man died at Yosemite National Park in California after suffering a head injury in a fall. On Dec. 27, a woman was killed by a falling tree at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles the borders of North Carolina and Tennessee.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls?

The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation.

 

Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation.

 

 

 

If the parks and monuments were closed............what would keep people out ?............................WALLS ??

 

 

 

 

.

A lot of times those massive 700 ft high  cliffs are just past the entrance booth to the parking lot, or just out the back door of the gift shop.  The guard warns you, hence guard gone people fall 700 feet.

 

and damn that is one sad story. 

[BeginnersMind]

4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hitting too close to home and bringing up uncomfortable memories?

 

Why would you add this to the cesspool?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Isn't it to Trump's credit that only 3 have died in the National Parks during the shutdown?

 

The anti-Trumpism of The Washington Post is on display in "Three dead in national parks as shutdown wears on":

Three days after most of the federal workforce was furloughed on Dec. 21, a 14-year-old girl fell 700 feet to her death at the Horseshoe Bend Overlook, part of the Glen Canyon Recreation Area in Arizona. The following day, Christmas, a man died at Yosemite National Park in California after suffering a head injury in a fall. On Dec. 27, a woman was killed by a falling tree at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which straddles the borders of North Carolina and Tennessee.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls?

The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation.

 

Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation.

 

 

 

If the parks and monuments were closed............what would keep people out ?............................WALLS ??

 

 

 

 

.

 

Counterpoint: three people died for the Democrats' principled stand.  How many more lives are the Democrats' principles worth?

 

I mean...this finger-pointing cuts both ways.