Hired aholes with guns to block citizens from Independence Hall

[Guest ThePunisher]

Well, didn't he say it? Now, the money thing may be way off, but the statement is on record. It is what he wants. You
should know, by now, how much he loves the military.
 
Actions do speak volumes. His actions have supported Al Qaeda more than others in the Middle East. If you consider what
the Arab Spring was all about, and how Benghazi was handled, I'd say he wanted those men at the compound dead. That
probably is why the cover up is still working.
 
Anyway, everything Obama does is a ruse to get something passed while we are paying attention to something else.
Never has added up, has it?

6.8
You're using logic in your thinking about the commie-in-chief and his policies.

[Jonnin]

I cannot blame the guards for taking the job and standing there.  It does not make them a government goon or anything -- just a guy taking one of the few jobs available right now, in most cases.   So I have to mildly object to calling the actual workers names etc; they are just doing a job.   I also doubt they fire upon a bunch of 90 year old vets if the vets decided to test the situation.  

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I do. Guarding "government property" with private security? And who is paying for that? There comes a point in time

to stop letting people off the hook for their actions. This government is trying to do anything it can to spend every

bit of money it can to make people's lives miserable. Those people were probably taken off of a private job, anyway.

That doesn't mean I want to call them names, though.

 

You take money from one place, that might be called "non-essential" and spend it somewhere else to make it essential?

Now, how is that shutting down anything? It's just using up what is there another way. If it is so essential to guard, then

the guards must be essential.

 

This is all political, nothing else.

[bersaguy]

Lets look at the money issue on the debt. Obama said is was a  shame that Bush spent almost 4 trillion in 8 years and was fighting two wars. Obama doubled that amount in only 4 years and is fighting what is left of one war in Afghanistan. He as been asked a dozen times to explain his spending policies and he refuses to do so and a not even discuss it. I think it is time for the House to make him explain his spending policies before they give him another blank check. Now if he is building a private army (FEMA and Homeland Security) that he says must be equal to our military. That is going to be expensive along with keeping our military funded along with funding Al Quada with weapons.  Notice the Sequester defunded a lot of our military yet his spending didn't slow any. Also where is he getting all of this civilian army from. I don't know of anyone that is a member of it???..........jmho

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know that the two have anything to do with another, but I do know Obama voted against the spending like was

going on during the Bush administration, yet he outspends him hand over fist. Hypocrisy.

 

As far as the civilian National Security Force goes, that dog won't hunt. In the end, if it were to happen, there would

be a bloodbath. The blood being from those who joined it. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a Stazi-

like national police force. You could hide behind all the toys the government gave, but it wouldn't succeed.

 

There are other things to consider when that kind of force is used, or even thought of. Money. Too much money would

have to be taken from the private sector to fund it, and Obamacare already has dibs on that. A natural disaster would

justify use of the National Guard, but only limited to where the disaster occurred. He has a long way to go before he

can get away with that much tyranny. Too many good people would stand in the way of that kind of progressive political

thinking.

 

I'm concerned about our government, but not to that extent. Just the words he used should have kept him out of the

White House the first election, but too many were playing with their minds, instead of using them to think.

Edited October 11, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[wjh2657]

Privatizing all of the government jobs has been on the Conservative agenda from about 1982 on. Now that somebody has done it with some of the jobs  we're upset? We were all for the showdown and government shutdown and now we are upset when the government shuts down.  Either you are for something or you are not, you can't have it both ways. Once we get what we want we either have to live with it or we look and sound like idiots.

[Guest TankerHC]

The problem is the government has not shut down. If it were more than 17% of the government, like 100% and the tiny portion of the government that is shutdown was not targeted directly at the people who made this country what it once was, soldiers, veterans, people who work and have money to spend on vacations, it would matter. The only people this matters to are the press for their bs news stories, the President who is using it to his advantage and the Congress who are using it to make it look like they are doing something. The very purpose of a shutdown which this is not, is to shutdown government. You can't very well call sending 800,000 people to the house then paying them while they stay home a shutdown. This has turned into nothing more than a dog and pony show benefiting no one but the left. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2 Edited October 12, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, that isn't privatizing. Privatizing would be for a permanent move. This was only to provide a way to spend the money

in a non-essential world. I wish they would go on and privatize.

 

"Privatizing all of the government jobs has been on the Conservative agenda from about 1982 on. Now that somebody has done it with some of the jobs  we're upset? We were all for the showdown and government shutdown and now we are upset when the government shuts down.  Either you are for something or you are not, you can't have it both ways. Once we get what we want we either have to live with it or we look and sound like idiots."

 

I am all for it. Put it in a budget. :D Oops, no budget since Bushhhhhh!

Edited October 12, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest TankerHC]

There is no "privatizing government". There are only contracts and that money is only spent with the approval of Congress. Left and right. They are no more interested in privatizing government than they are giving themselves a pay cut or putting themselves on Obamacare.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2