Can I call someone Cowboy? After all that’s what someone called me, is that ok? How about Buckaroo? I promise I won’t call anyone Cowgirl anymore if no one calls me Cowboy anymore, is that ok? I just want to get the jerk rules enumerated. Thx.
The rules were already enumerated: act like a jerk and you’ll get warned. Bricker didn’t insult you, and he also didn’t follow you around to three different threads to call you a name over and over.
Not only that, but, under the Constitution, only Congress could vote to do it.
Let us not hold our breath.
I’m not sure I do need a fact to connect them; their relationship itself is the point. Effectively my point is similar to sinjin’s; you can’t look at a failure in security and therefore conclude no improvement in security arragements has been made. Citing an example of a security breach does not invalidate that argument. 95% is higher than 90% but lower than 100%.
If your response to that, much like yours to sinjin’s, is to ask for a cite for an increase in security - i’m making no assertion except that your logic is flawed. I think you need to restate that argument.
Everyone seems to be purposely missing the original question: Is the administration picking & choosing to close certain things based on the amount of inconvenience it would inflict on people? Blocking off scenic routes, for instance. How is this saving money? Choosing to shut down the Amber Alert web site (yes, I know it is back up now. Doesn’t change the fact they shut it down), but leaving the First Lady’s Let’s Move web site up. Allowing the National Mall to open for a pro-immigration rally today. Is anyone under the illusion that if the Tea Party had a planned event today that they would allow that to take place? But since it’s something the administration is on board with, then it’s Ok. How is this not clear to people?
They didn’t shut down the Amber Alert site. They shut down the DOJ page describing the site, along with the rest of the DOJ’s website. The Amber Alert system is a series of state systems and never went down for a moment. So it’s not a fact.
The Let’s Move website was likely so small it was forgotten. Do you honestly think they were rubbing their hands together evilly and saved it on purpose? That’s stupid.
Blocking off scenic routes is reasonable if you have no trash service, and if people would hack new dirtbike trails (for instance) if no one is there to stop them.
If you think blocking off scenic routes or the Mall is a bigger inconvenience than closing Head Start, WIC, NASA and the NIH, then you’re really not qualified to participate in political discussions.
My favorite part is the idea that the administration isn’t on board with recovering kidnapped children, that there’s a political motivation behind shutting down Amber Alerts. Seriously, can we just draw a curly mustache on a picture of Obama and get it over with already?
A friend of mine has a pretty high-up position in a small Federal agency. She was one of the people responsible for writing their shutdown plan, which was reviewed and updated in the months leading up to the sequester and reviewed again last month. Probably everyone in the agency knows what the plan says. The people responsible for creating and implementing the plan are not politically appointed --this is their career. If the White House were to call them up and have them change the plan for maximum bad publicity, literally dozens of people would be aware that a last-minute change was made, and why it was made. And at least one person would know why asked for it. And this is one tiny agency. JustBecause14, what seems more likely to you: that thousands – hundreds of thousands – of people are keeping mum on these requests for changes to their shutdown plans that came right from the White House, or that a government shutdown contains innumerable unfair and inconvenient situations by its very nature?
They’ve been drawing a toothbrush mustache on him for five years now.
Good point, OK, I’m not asking for a cite because there was a security incident, and the existence of that incident somehow disproves the aggregation of security.
I’m asking for a cite because there was a claim that ground security on monuments was increased following 9/11, and the proponent of any claim bears the burden of production of proof for that claim.
The NPS appears to have its own document reflecting post 9/11 security expansion here, but amusingly you can’t see it because the website is down.
I’ve seen some other posters try to do this dance too, but let’s take a moment to reflect on how it’s pretty silly in this context.
The proponent of the claim has offered evidence–the fact that security was increased at most public places. You just don’t think that evidence is very persuasive (and I would agree). What you want is more or better or more specific evidence. But that’s always true for every claim anyone disagrees with or questions. Presumably, if you didn’t want more or better evidence, you wouldn’t disagree with it or be questioning it. You didn’t ask for evidence that 9/11 happened, for example, so presumably you agree with that premise.
So this whole “I’m withholding judgment until the proponent meets his burden of production” dance doesn’t really make sense in the context of this message board. You should just say you doubt that the claim is true and that you’re not convinced by the evidence put forward so far. That’s all you’re really saying anyway.
No. Not particularly out of fear of what the cop might have done if he caught me, but out of the certain knowledge that my father would have … well, “Wrath of God,” comes to mind.
No crime for me as a kid.
Um…yes, that’s precisely what I’m saying.
And no reason to call it a dance. I am saying that the mere fact the was general interest after 911 in increased security proves little about public monuments’ security.
I detected two distinctions between what you actually said and what you now claim to mean: suggestion that no evidence has been offered from your use of the phrase “burden of production” (which is false, you just thought not enough evidence had been offered to persuade you) and a suggestion that you had no position on the matter from your talking in abstract terms about the proponent of the claim (which is false, since you have a position and simply haven’t been persuaded to shift positions).
Obviously, this is all pretty in the weeds, and you are the arbiter of your own meaning. So feel free to take my post as a misguided suggestion.
The original proponent of the claim is the OP, who contends that monuments were not shuttered during the last government shutdown.