Whose blinkin' now, Jarod.

Dungheap said:
What I read was that Obama was looking for a way to make the payments consistent with the bill that passed on Sept. 30 to permit the government to continue to make payments to members of the Armed Forces and civilian DoD personnel who support them but his hands were tied by that legislation. So why would Obama signing a bill that passed the House 425-0 and the Senate by unanimous consent that permis Obama to do something he wanted to do anyway but could not be "blinking?"

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You're fixated on Obama....Reid said, in no uncertain terms, he would not bring the House bill up in the Senate for consideration....

Obama, embarrassed enough by this shit, must have told him to get his act together and pass the House bill to end it....

It was the DOJ and DOD lawyers that found a way to refuse the benefit payments ... supposedly because the bill passed before the shut down was ambiguous....

Well, if it was ambiguous, they could just a rightfully erred on the side of paying the benefits....wtf was going to complain?

The refusal fits right in with the rest of the White House bullshit antics...

Closing the WH tours
Closing the parks
Hiding the monuments
Refusing entry to open air monuments
closing private businesses on public land
throwing people out their homes that are within public parks
trying to close Mount Vernon, a privately owed landmark
blocking access to roads that go through parks
etc.
 
The previous bill funded this, they had to go through twists and spin to pretend that it didn't. VA funding is now approved. Let's move on to the next item. Over time they'll take up the bills that the house passed and sign them as they get complaints from the recipients of the panem et circenses.
 
Damocles said:
The previous bill funded this, they had to go through twists and spin to pretend that it didn't. VA funding is now approved. Let's move on to the next item. Over time they'll take up the bills that the house passed and sign them as they get complaints from the recipients of the panem et circenses.
Click to expand...


I doubt military families will forget the loathing that Democrats apparently still harbor for our men and women in uniform.
 
Damocles said:
The previous bill funded this, they had to go through twists and spin to pretend that it didn't. VA funding is now approved. Let's move on to the next item. Over time they'll take up the bills that the house passed and sign them as they get complaints from the recipients of the panem et circenses.
Click to expand...


No, the previous bill did not fund this. It was "supposed to" but the House Republicans fucked up drafting it and so it didn't. There's a whole thread on it Damo. Find it. I'll pose the same challenge to you that I posed to the other leading Republican intellectuals on the board: show me the statutory language authorizing payments to survivors of member of the Armed Forces.
 
Also, too, to my knowledge VA funding, separate from mandatory spending, has not been approved. Just pay and allowances for active military, and DoD civilian staff and contractors supporting active military. And now death benefits and allowances payable to survivors of active military who are killed.
 
Dungheap said:
No, the previous bill did not fund this. It was "supposed to" but the House Republicans fucked up drafting it and so it didn't. There's a whole thread on it Damo. Find it. I'll pose the same challenge to you that I posed to the other leading Republican intellectuals on the board: show me the statutory language authorizing payments to survivors of member of the Armed Forces.
Click to expand...

why were DoD lawyers charged with blocking it in the first place?.....why did Obama try to get a private foundation to fund the expenditure temporarily instead of telling Reid to solve it immediately?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your own statements admit that they approved allowances and these were allowances.....
Click to expand...

Apparently you are unfamiliar with what "and now" means. The Sept. 30 bill didn't authorize benefits to survivors. The recently passed bill does.

But if you'd care to take a stab at the challenge I've posed t the other leading lights, be my guest and show me the statutory language in the Sept. 30 bill that authorizes the payments. You're a lawyer, right? So this should be a lay-up for you.
 
Dungheap said:
No, the previous bill did not fund this. It was "supposed to" but the House Republicans fucked up drafting it and so it didn't. There's a whole thread on it Damo. Find it. I'll pose the same challenge to you that I posed to the other leading Republican intellectuals on the board: show me the statutory language authorizing payments to survivors of member of the Armed Forces.
Click to expand...

Why don't YOU show us the "statutory language" PROHIBITING payments to survivors of members of the Armed Forces

If it was ambiguous, then the benefits should have been paid, like I said, who the hell would have complained ?

You're a lame apologist for the pinheaded Democrats that CAUSED this entire fiasco..
 
And the Democrat-controlled Senate passed it without noticing this alleged "fuckup" and the Harvard-educated constitutional scholar signed it into law without noticing the supposed "fuckup", too.

But it's totally the fault of the GOP....
 
Dungheap said:
Apparently you are unfamiliar with what "and now" means. The Sept. 30 bill didn't authorize benefits to survivors. The recently passed bill does.

But if you'd care to take a stab at the challenge I've posed t the other leading lights, be my guest and show me the statutory language in the Sept. 30 bill that authorizes the payments. You're a lawyer, right? So this should be a lay-up for you.
Click to expand...

at the time they passed the bill they believed it provided funds for this......again, explain why the administration directed its lawyers to block it?.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top