Reply With Quote
Remember that he is, above all else, a politician.I'm pretty sure the SecDef isn't going to fearmonger his own troops.
LOL...Yes LnGrrrR, we're going to need you to provide photocopies of paychecks you're not getting before we can be sure you're not getting paid.
That would be excellent proof!
Remember that he is, above all else, a politician.I'm pretty sure the SecDef isn't going to fearmonger his own troops.
No need to get crazy here. Its not like he's applying for a passport.Yes LnGrrrR, we're going to need you to provide photocopies of paychecks you're not getting before we can be sure you're not getting paid.
I don't buy it. Not with Robert Gates - a republican serving under a democratic administration. I can't possibly see what he stands to gain by lying here. More over if he was wrong I can't imagine that people who know he's wrong are just sitting around not telling anyone.
LnGrrrR, I beginning to think you might be right...
Sorry to start believing that...
Government Shutdown: Operations of the
Department of Defense During a Lapse in
Appropriations
Robert Gates is not a politician. He is a Civil Servant.
Sorry, guys, but I'm still concerned about folks who have mortgages and car payments and other bills that don't actually work for the military but are still considered 'essential' government workers. They have to keep working for no pay, too.
By all means, you should be. That's another reason why Obama will veto the proposed bill; I doubt he wants to give off the idea that only the military need paychecks, and that other civil servants must go without.
That's right. Find a reason to defend Nobama.
Oh, and a small tangent, but every article/author that says, "If government shut down, would we miss it?"
The only answer to that question is "Yes, you ing idiots."
I'm not defending either side. I've said upthread: both sides have their goals, and neither currently has blinked. One eventually will. I don't fault either party for doing what their cons uents want.
All I can say is that I'm ing glad I don't get as much government as I pay for.
Personally, I blame all of these assholes for not governing, because that is what they are failing to do. They are all playing to their bases while the business of governance is ignored royally.
Well said.
Why is this not governing though? This situation is a direct result of the last election and what those cons uents who should up to that election wanted. Its not a good situation, but I don't believe that governing consists of only good situations.
This is not governing, IMHO, because to govern is to provide for the functioning of the government. This is the opposite of having the government function. It is the very definition of having the government NOT function.
This is political functioning, not governmental functioning.
+100
btw, anarchism and anarchy are two completely different terms.
The separation of politics and governing is impossible. Government is still functioning but its functioning at a lower level. What you have is gridlock reflective of our society. We have different viewpoints on how to tackle the current situation and that is being reflected by those in power.
Governing in a representative democracy means representing the views of your cons uents. I think that is happening right now and while the results aren't good I don't think that precludes it from actually being governing.
America's CHICKENNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS have come homeeeeeeeeeeee to RooOOOooooOOOooossssssTTtttt.
Why I'd never.
Just not in that case.
Concur. Both sides spend the two years between federal elections doing everything but that for which they were elected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
