Government Shutdown

[Random Precision]

I've seen several instances of protests by Federal workers over the shutdown, but this has got to be the cleverest one.

[Tuckerfan]

According to the Daily Show, Smokey the Bear has been reduced to giving handjobs for money.

[Chocodile]

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

According to the Daily Show, Smokey the Bear has been reduced to giving handjobs for money.

He should go to San Francisco. I hear they're bear-friendly.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

I've seen several instances of protests by Federal workers over the shutdown, but this has got to be the cleverest one.

ha! I would never have noticed that.

it's fun to have Bob Newhart posting!

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

I've seen several instances of protests by Federal workers over the shutdown, but this has got to be the cleverest one.

What's "clever" about federal workers making puzzles, instead of doing their jobs?

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by Brian

What's "clever" about federal workers making puzzles, instead of doing their jobs?

Hey, if the ones who've just been given a vacation are going to be paid for the time anyway (as it looks like will be the case), then why shouldn't the ones who are stuck at work have some fun too?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

Hey, if the ones who've just been given a vacation are going to be paid for the time anyway (as it looks like will be the case), then why shouldn't the ones who are stuck at work have some fun too?

They work for you. You are paying them. Acrostics on the job is OK?

Personally, I think they should be fired for malfeasance.

[Brian]

Gotta love when Democrats pander to the voters. They just passed retroactive pay for the furloughed workers (no work, and get paid? must be nice). Now they're passing a bill to continue religious services for the military. Isn't religion supposed to be bad?

[Kat]

No. Mandatory, government-supported religion is bad.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Kat

No. Mandatory, government-supported religion is bad.

If Congress is voting to provide funding for religious services in the military, how is that not government supported?

[Kat]

They're making the religious services mandatory?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Kat

They're making the religious services mandatory?

They are supporting them, with public money.

[Kat]

Did you miss the word "mandatory"?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Kat

Did you miss the word "mandatory"?

No, but why is the government funding religion at all?

[Kat]

Also, does the funding bill indicate that the government is actually supporting the religious principles of the religious services?

[Kat]

Originally Posted by Brian

No, but why is the government funding religion at all?

For the same reason they fund other amenities for service members? Are they actually funding services for only one religion, and supporting that religion's principles?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Kat

Also, does the funding bill indicate that the government is actually supporting the religious principles of the religious services?

I don't know, the text is not online yet. Government funded religion just sounds wrong, to me.

[Random Precision]

Originally Posted by Brian

What's "clever" about federal workers making puzzles, instead of doing their jobs?

Which part of his job didn't get done? Are you trying to quash this person's right to free expression? Why do you hate America? How long have you been a member of the Communist Party?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

Which part of his job didn't get done? Are you trying to quash this person's right to free expression? Why do you hate America? How long have you been a member of the Communist Party?

Oh be quiet. You don't have a right to free expression on the job.

[Random Precision]

Originally Posted by Brian

I don't know, the text is not online yet. Government funded religion just sounds wrong, to me.

In order that the right of service members freedom of religion and free expression thereof not be abridged while they are required to be away from their chosen places of worship, the US government makes clergy of all applicable faiths available to them. If they were required to attend religious services, that would be unconstitutional.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

In order that the right of service members freedom of religion and free expression thereof not be abridged while they are required to be away from their chosen places of worship, the US government makes clergy of all applicable faiths available to them.

They are not required to be away, they all volunteered.

[Random Precision]

Originally Posted by Brian

Oh be quiet. You don't have a right to free expression on the job.

Sorry, a fascist then, not a Communist.

[Random Precision]

Originally Posted by Brian

They are not required to be away, they all volunteered.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

Sorry, a fascist then, not a Communist.

You have the right to free speech on your own time, using your own resources. You most certainly do NOT have the right to free speech on someone else's dime.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Random Precision

These two statements are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe.

Democrats constantly crow about the Separation of Church and State, when it comes to funding birth control, abortion, and even school vouchers, but they're perfectly fine funding religion when it comes to the military.

[Lounsbury]

This is not really hard, the only hand slap one can see is how fundamentally incompetent your reasoning skills are.

Provision of a non mandatory service to soldiers who are presumably always 'at work' imposes no religious duty, it merely facilitates their service. The argument that such persons are bearing as soldiers a particular burden for the benefit of the state, it is sensible to provide, much like health care and other social services, religious service. In contrast banning certain things based on religious or religiously derived principals on a general public differs substantially, in that they owe no duty as such to the State in modern terms in re service and that a person subject to such ban may or may not share does logically impose such a burden.

You may hold that this is reasonable, or not. However, the important part here is that there is absolutely no contradiction in position, although anyone with the reasoning skills beyond that of an 8 year old should be able to discern.

For the same of all non-Left persons here, just shut your bloody trap. You're an embarrassment of incompetence in reasoning and argumentation.

[Brian]

You're wrong, again. Leftists People have sued the government over crosses, crèches, and Christmas trees on public property. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Same with prayers opening Congress or City Council meetings. But providing religious services to the military? Ok, because, military. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by Brian

They work for you. You are paying them. Acrostics on the job is OK?

Personally, I think they should be fired for malfeasance.

You see, it's stuff like this that sometimes makes me wonder if you've ever held a serious job. It is absolutely common for workers - even government workers - to complete all of their assigned tasks and sometimes find they have a little time on their hands. And to judge from the actual content of that Forecast Discussion (the only convective action in that area was wimping out), it was a pretty slow day in the Anchorage NWS Office.


By the way: how to you feel about people being obliged to work when they know they will not be paid for that work for an indeterminate period of time? Is that fair?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

You see, it's stuff like this that sometimes makes me wonder if you've ever held a serious job. It is absolutely common for workers - even government workers - to complete all of their assigned tasks and sometimes find they have a little time on their hands. And to judge from the actual content of that Forecast Discussion (the only convective action in that area was wimping out), it was a pretty slow day in the Anchorage NWS Office.

I do have a serious job, for over 25 years. It's against policy to surf the web, or use the phone for personal business on company time.

I'm also going back to school. My textbook in "The Principles of Fraud Examination" states that the following are considered abuse:

Use equipment belonging to the organization
Surf the internet while at work
Attend to personal business during working hours
Take a long lunch or break without approval
Come to work late or leave early
Use sick live when not sick
Do slow or sloppy work
etc.

[Harry]

Chaplain is a recognized specialty of each branch of the Armed Forces, as is Doctor, or Finance Officer. Chaplains are being paid to do a job, which is to provide spiritual guidance to the rank and file. No one is compelled to use this service, but as been noted many times, there are generally no atheists in a fox hole. No matter how you feel about military service, to argue against making this spiritual guidance available is stupid, even for you.

It took me awhile to finish this post and I see you've moved on. Sorry for the delay, but it seems obvious your attention span is shorter than mine.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Harry

Chaplain is a recognized specialty of each branch of the Armed Forces, as is Doctor, or Finance Officer. Chaplains are being paid to do a job, which is to provide spiritual guidance to the rank and file. No one is compelled to use this service, but as been noted many times, there are generally no atheists in a fox hole. No matter how you feel about military service, to argue against making this spiritual guidance available is stupid, even for you.

It took me awhile to finish this post and I see you've moved on. Sorry for the delay, but it seems obvious your attention span is shorter than mine.

How do you justify it? Once placed, a Cross or a crèche doesn't cost the government (the people) anything. Ongoing funding for chaplains is OK, how? I'm guessing that the answer is because, military. Even Democrats don't want to be seen as dissing our soldiers. Hypocrites.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Brian

No, but why is the government funding religion at all?

I think I just changed my mind about permaboxing you.

How the fuck does someone become an adult in the United States unaware that we have a large military deployed around the world and that that military needs, deserves and receives religious services?

That's a serious question, by the way. How precisely the fuck did you become an adult in the United States unaware of that?


Also, what's going to happen when someone tells you about the Chaplains in the prisons?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

I think I just changed my mind about permaboxing you.

How the fuck does someone become an adult in the United States unaware that we have a large military deployed around the world and that that military needs, deserves and receives religious services?

That's a serious question, by the way. How precisely the fuck did you become an adult in the United States unaware of that?

See above. I am aware that we have a large military deployed around the world. It's the Left that thinks that people don't need religion. Hence lawsuits against City Councils opening with prayer, or schools having a moment of silence. But religion for the military? Let's fund it! Lest we seem unpatriotic!

It's ridiculous in its hypocrisy.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Bullshit, you liar. You just made multiple posts claiming not to know about it and wondering if it was a good idea.

You need at least a month in the box.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Bullshit, you liar. You just made multiple posts claiming not to know about it and wondering if it was a good idea.

Cite one post where I didn't know about it. One.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

I think I just changed my mind about permaboxing you.

How the fuck does someone become an adult in the United States unaware that we have a large military deployed around the world and that that military needs, deserves and receives religious services?

That's a serious question, by the way. How precisely the fuck did you become an adult in the United States unaware of that?


Also, what's going to happen when someone tells you about the Chaplains in the prisons?

One has to conclude that Brian is a living embodiment of the Argument Clinic.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Brian

It's ridiculous in its hypocrisy.

Anyone other than you can see there is no hypocrisy involved. In fact one rather suspects even you can, but you have some queer belief that argument and debate means the automatic gainsaying of any statement (and then the tedious extension of said gainsaying to boring and largely incompetent attempts at nitpicking and gotcha).

[Harry]

There is no special funding for the Chaplain Corps. It all comes out of the Defense Budget, which buys us food, and bullets, and prays for our souls, and then buries us.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Harry

There is no special funding for the Chaplain Corps. It all comes out of the Defense Budget, which buys us food, and bullets, and prays for our souls, and then buries us.

I've got it. It's the have your cake and eat it too theory. I'm not seven, so I'll pass.

"Prays for our souls" is good for the military, but not the City Council, or the local high school? You can't have it both ways.

[rayh]

Do you know what the 1st amendment actually says, and what that implies? You do know the difference between providing religious services to people in the military and allowing crosses on government property? Tell me you are not that stupid.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by rayh

Do you know what the 1st amendment actually says, and what that implies? You do know the difference between providing religious services to people in the military and allowing crosses on government property? Tell me you are not that stupid.

You tell me. What part of the 1st Amendment allows the government to provide religious services?

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Brian

I am aware that we have a large military deployed around the world. It's the Left that thinks that people don't need religion. Hence lawsuits against City Councils opening with prayer, or schools having a moment of silence. But religion for the military? Let's fund it! Lest we seem unpatriotic!

It's ridiculous in its hypocrisy.

It's one thing to promote religion using government facilities. It's another to follow the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

As a government entity, shouldn't they be required to abide by that law? Or do you think they should curtail or deny a soldier's right to worship just because he's a federal employee?

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Brian

You tell me. What part of the 1st Amendment allows the government to provide religious services?

You posted ahead of me.

The government is under no obligation to provide, or endorse, any religion or practice. But they cannot deny anyone their right to worship.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

It's one thing to promote religion using government facilities.

The Chaplain on the Navy carrier, or on the Marine base, isn't using government facilities?

[rayh]

No part of the 1st amendment or the constition prohibits the government from providing religeous services, particularly voluntary ones. If it is not prohibited then it is allowed. The government cannot make these services mandatory or endorse one religion over another, but there is nothing that prohibits the government providing them.

It is a basic legal principal, if it is not prohibited, then it is allowed.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Brian

The Chaplain on the Navy carrier, or on the Marine base, isn't using government facilities?

Where else can those soldiers/federal employees go to worship?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Where else can those soldiers/federal employees go to worship?

Why is that important? Government shouldn't be funding any religion, right?

[rayh]

The stupid is strong in this one. Providing services to people who are unable to get those services any other way, while employed by the government, is not establishing a state religion. The government either funds all religions or none.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Brian

Why is that important? Government shouldn't be funding any religion, right?

So it's okay to deny a soldier, serving their country, the right to worship?

[ryevermouthbitters]

You people actually engaging Brian in argument are every bit as stupid as he is.