Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jonnyboy said:
I initially read this and thought you were making a broad comparison of Democrats and Republicans. I thought it was brilliant in that context.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The interesting thing is, it can work both ways... depending on your perspective.

But they are different.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Lauren Boebert escorted out of “Beetlejuice” musical in Denver after “causing a disturbance”
Boebert campaign manager says congresswoman was just “enthusiastically” enjoying Sunday’s show

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert was escorted out of a Sunday night performance of the “Beetlejuice” musical in downtown Denver, accused by venue officials of vaping, singing, recording and “causing a disturbance” during the performance.

In an incident report shared with The Denver Post on Tuesday afternoon, officials with Denver Arts & Venues wrote that two patrons were asked to leave the city-owned Buell Theatre during the performance of the touring Broadway show. They previously were issued a warning during the intermission regarding behavior that prompted three complaints from other theatergoers, the report says.

The report does not name Boebert as one of the patrons or identify the other person. But her campaign office — while disputing the behavior alleged — confirmed that she was escorted from the Buell on Sunday night during the “Beetlejuice” show.

The incident report states that after receiving the intermission warning, about five minutes into the second act security officials received “another complaint about the patrons being loud and at the time (they) were recording.” Taking pictures or recording is not permitted at shows.

The report quotes one of the ushers: “They told me they would not leave. I told them that they need to leave the theater and if they do not, they will be trespassing. The patrons said they would not leave. I told them I would (be) going to get Denver Police. They said go get them.”

The Republican from Silt is running for a third time in 2024 to represent the 3rd Congressional District, which covers much of western and southern Colorado.

Drew Sexton, the campaign manager for Boebert, told The Post that the second-term congresswoman denied vaping during the show. She did use her cellphone to take a picture of the performance, unaware that photos weren’t allowed.

“I can confirm the stunning and salacious rumors: in her personal time, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is indeed a supporter of the performing arts (gasp!) and, to the dismay of a select few, enthusiastically enjoyed a weekend performance of ‘Beetlejuice,’ ” Sexton wrote in a statement. He noted that The Post’s review of the show last week described it as “zany,” “outrageous,” and a ‘lusty riot.”

Boebert, he wrote, encourages everyone to see the play and its “fantastic cast, tremendous visuals and plenty of loud laughs” — but, he added, “with a gentle reminder to leave their phones outside of the venue.”

The report also said after the two patrons were escorted out and reached the building’s vestibule, they resisted leaving and said “stuff like ‘do you know who I am,’ ‘I am on the board’ (and) ‘I will be contacting the mayor.’ ”

Police arrived and stayed in the lobby of the Buell until Boebert and her companion left, according to the report.

While Sunday’s incident was resolved without much trouble, Boebert has found herself in trouble before. She was arrested and summonsed at least four times in the years leading up to her election to Congress in 2020.

In her first month in office, Boebert — known as an avid defender of the Second Amendment — reportedly attempted to walk through newly installed metal detectors, which sounded as she did. She then refused to turn over her bag to Capitol Police, who in turn refused to let her enter House chambers, according to reporters on the scene.

Last summer, her family made headlines when her husband reportedly threatened their neighbors during what the Garfield County sheriff described as a neighborhood disturbance. No arrests were made. In May, Boebert announced that she and her husband were divorcing.

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/09/12/lauren-boebert-removed-beetlejuice-musical-denver/
Click to expand...

Jesus, she’s still escorting? And at a concert with children and families around, wow, just wow.
 
Largest Healthcare Worker Strike in US History Set to Kick Off on Oct. 4

"We're burning ourselves out trying to do the jobs of two or three people, and our patients suffer when they can't get the care they need due to Kaiser's short-staffing," said one Kaiser Permanente worker.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/kaiser-strike

Go get them bastards!
 
Next Stop for Most Retired US 4-Star Military Officers? Arms Industry C-Suites

"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/four-star-generals-revolving-door

Even America's military leaders are owned by corporations...
 
Road Ratt said:
Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to allow border wall construction in South Texas

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b...n&cvid=6a47346d79f3403ab4edbfe66d4db866&ei=17

Anyone who ever says: "Biden can't do it all". Is a fucking moron. This prick can clearly do more than most of us truly know.

If he can pull this off, he can get Americans off of our sidewalks...
Click to expand...

Does @Road Ratt ever check facts?
The funds were allocated by Congress in 2019, during Trump administration. By law, money allocated by Congress must be used for the purpose for which it was allocated unless Congress votes to use the funds elsewhere. Biden asked Congress to reallocate the funds, Republicans blocked the request. He sought legal advice and was told under the law there were no other options. Even though he opposes building a wall and considers it wasteful and ineffective.

But I guess someone really misses Trump. At least it sounds like it.
 
crandc said:
Does @Road Ratt ever check facts?
The funds were allocated by Congress in 2019, during Trump administration. By law, money allocated by Congress must be used for the purpose for which it was allocated unless Congress votes to use the funds elsewhere. Biden asked Congress to reallocate the funds, Republicans blocked the request. He sought legal advice and was told under the law there were no other options. Even though he opposes building a wall and considers it wasteful and ineffective.

But I guess someone really misses Trump. At least it sounds like it.
Click to expand...

Some people seem to be human news aggregators, they read some nonsense, don't stop to think or research it and just need to press the send button. Sad.
 
jonnyboy said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-border-wall-touted-donald-trump/71071470007/

Another neoliberal ideology fails miserably when the chickens come home to roost. Add it to the list.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you got that take, as it has absolutely nothing to do with "neoliberal ideology" and everything to do with complying with federal law. Weird that folks are condemning a president who actually obeys the law as opposed to praising a former president for violating it........just sayin'.......
 
Last edited:
The Telltale Heart now being banned. Too gruesome for teens. Who love gruesome.
 
Road Ratt said:
Do you ever bring a link to back up your bullshit?

Leave me alone if you can't bring a link with facts of your own.
Click to expand...
Leave me alone if all you know how to do is throw insults at the wall I assure you, I am immune.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Not sure where you got that take, as it has absolutely nothing to do with "neoliberal ideology" and everything to do with complying with federal law. Weird that folks are condemning a president who actually obeys the law as opposed to praising a former president for violating it........just sayin'.......
Click to expand...

He can obey the law all he wants, that is great. It becomes hypocritical however when he previously said “Not another foot of border wall will be constructed under my administration” (direct quote) then, along with the entire leftist establishment, proceeded to use the border wall as ammo to call people racist. They are putting their foot in their mouth and it’s a bad look. Every claim they made now gets turned back on them quite easily. The immigrants finally showed up in places and in numbers where it inconveniences Democratic leaders now they want to change their tune. That is what this is. They no longer get to make border towns deal with it out of sight out of mind, it’s on their doorstep and they don’t like it.
 
jonnyboy said:
He can obey the law all he wants, that is great. It becomes hypocritical however when he previously said “Not another foot of border wall will be constructed under my administration” (direct quote) then, along with the entire leftist establishment, proceeded to use the border wall as ammo to call people racist. They are putting their foot in their mouth and it’s a bad look. Every claim they made now gets turned back on them quite easily. The immigrants finally showed up in places and in numbers where it inconveniences Democratic leaders now they want to change their tune. That is what this is. They no longer get to make border towns deal with it out of sight out of mind, it’s on their doorstep and they don’t like it.
Click to expand...
I guess you’re correct from the conservative viewpoint but the law is the law. At least they are obeying it. And come election time the fact that that section of wall was built will matter more to conservatives than to liberals. Might even buy Joe a few unexpected votes just for being lawful….
 
Road Ratt said:
Do you ever bring a link to back up your bullshit?

Leave me alone if you can't bring a link with facts of your own.
Click to expand...
You realize adults have talked and speculated about politics and topics of controversy for centuries without internet links right? I can tell you all about my experiences and travels but there was no internet to trot out as evidence back then. You don't have to believe anyone's speculation or personal views if you don't want to...choices No need to insult anyone over it.
 
andalusian said:
Not bullshit. GAO-16-464SP, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. It's the law.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing where it says the President is bound to waive dozens of federal laws in order to expedite the will of congress.

Can somebody point that part out?
 
Phatguysrule said:
I'm not seeing where it says the President is bound to waive dozens of federal laws in order to expedite the will of congress.

Can somebody point that part out?
Click to expand...

I am not sure exactly where the thing is in the regulations, but I had access to multiple companies that worked as Government contractors that explained that this is how it works.

The house's own web site defines it as follows (cliff notes, basically):

"An appropriation allows the agency to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. Appropriations are definite (a specific sum of money) or indefinite (an amount for "such sums as may be necessary").

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/open-government/statement-of-disbursements/glossary-of-terms#:~:text=Appropriation: A law of Congress,as may be necessary").

I believe that in this bill case this was a specified purpose (thus the bolded part) - which means that the government had to, by law, use it for this purpose.

Again, if anyone really wants to scour the specifics - you are welcome to it, but that is what I heard many times before when discussions of government contracts (both at the state and federal levels) came - is that there are very specific parameters of how money can be appropriated and you can not change it even if the subject experts disagree with it being the smartest, most efficient way of using that money (*).

(*) Often, as you can imagine, agencies / contractors will use that money even if it is not the most efficient way to do it because it is a "use it or lose it" situation.
 
Last edited:
riverman said:
You realize adults have talked and speculated about politics and topics of controversy for centuries without internet links right? I can tell you all about my experiences and travels but there was no internet to trot out as evidence back then. You don't have to believe anyone's speculation or personal views if you don't want to...choices No need to insult anyone over it.
Click to expand...

See, this is where I’m at. If someone wants to state an opinion, or even something they think is fact, then they are completely entitled to throw it out their citations or not. If somebody else takes issue with it, it’s perfectly acceptable for that person to then present whatever they can dig up to prove it wrong.
I get annoyed when someone in an armchair demands I lay facts at their feet or else everything I said is negated. It just seems lazy, argue your point if you feel you must, don’t expect your opponent to do it for you.
I’m not accusing Road Ratt of that btw just going off on a tangent. I ran into this a lot with another poster who’s since disappeared off my radar.
 
You’d think somewhere in the liberal discourse you find some opposition to this move by Biden. After all, there did seem to be a strong anti-wall consensus pretty much across the board on the liberal side. Like enough consensus to call other people racists over it. Where are the anti-wall people now? Are you still out there? Or does everyone just jump to defend power when the policies flip flop? Where’s people’s principles on this one? Not trying to call people out but genuinely curious what liberals think and how this move is defended, if it is.
 
andalusian said:
I am not sure exactly where the thing is in the regulations, but I had access to multiple companies that worked as Government contractors that explained that this is how it works.

The house's own web site defines it as follows (cliff notes, basically):

"An appropriation allows the agency to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. Appropriations are definite (a specific sum of money) or indefinite (an amount for "such sums as may be necessary").

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/open-government/statement-of-disbursements/glossary-of-terms#:~:text=Appropriation: A law of Congress,as may be necessary").

I believe that in this bill case this was a specified purpose (thus the bolded part) - which means that the government had to, by law, use it for this purpose.

Again, if anyone really wants to scour the specifics - you are welcome to it, but that is what I heard many times before when discussions of government contracts (both at the state and federal levels) came - is that there are very specific parameters of how money can be appropriated and you can not change it even if the subject experts disagree with it being the smartest, most efficient way of using that money (*).

(*) Often, as you can imagine, agencies / contractors will use that money even if it is not the most efficient way to do it because it is a "use it or lose it" situation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I understand that the money can't be used for something else. And even that it must be spent. I don't see the mechanism that forces Biden to waive other federal laws to expedite the process though.

This comes off as the executive branch being incredibly dishonest, incredibly weak, or incredibly limited intellectually. As well as incredibly out of touch.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
I understand that the money can't be used for something else. And even that it must be spent. I don't see the mechanism that forces Biden to waive other federal laws to expedite the process though.

This comes off as executive branch being incredibly dishonest, incredibly weak, or incredibly limited intellectually. As well as incredibly out of touch.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I honestly do not know enough to know what federal laws were waived or if there is an order of operations one can or can not work, but the appropriations item is to my understanding 100% correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top