If the parks are closed because of government shut down, then who will enforce the closure of the parks? Fuck your damn cones!

Our representitives on both sides have gerrymandered themselves to the point they no longer fear losing re-election no matter what they do (like, say, holding the government hostage to stop the implementation of a law they don't like).

When they have no fear of losing their jobs, they resort to aggressive tactics. Guns won't help anything.

I'd want to say 50% or more of the locations blocked off where i was, had a guard. Or someone in a vehicle to enforce.

I go running on a section of the Appalachian trail by my house. There was a sign that said "Because of the federal government shutdown this national park service area is closed" I'm not really sure how they can shut down something that is completely maintained by volunteers. In fact there were some people doing maintenance when I was there, and I passed a large group of hikers too...Just seems like a waste to try and shut down something that they never cared about to begin with...

Like most of the government?

Huh.

Well, using federal employees to block access to private homes and businesses on public land does seem to be something resembling a misuse of power, especially when the reason for same is that the government is in a financial hold and can't afford to pay the employees who are doing the blocking of access.

Which makes me wonder: is said blocking of access actually a legitimate action of the government, or is it something more akin to picketing by unionized private-sector workers during a strike?

what part of protect man's rights did you not understand?

This seems like it should be a movie or something. It's so dumb.

They actually spent more money to close both the WWII memorial (buying barricades) and the Marine memorial than if they had left things alone.

Spoiled little brats, not getting their way. Pass a farking budget you asshats, then you can whine about the Rebubs being jerks. You know, do your damn job before pointing fingers at the other side.

My guess is it's both sides playing politics. The Repubs are shutting down the government, and the Dems want to make that shutdown as publicly noticeable as possible.

Also I'm guessing there are liability reasons to keep parks and such shut down (can't speak for mountainside viewing places). Paying one person to stand out front and stop people from going in is cheaper than paying multiple to be on hand in case something happens.

House republicans passed numerous bills:

Senate democrats failed them. So who closed down the government?

I'm not arguing politics, that's what got us in to this fucking mess in the first place Brain.

no, what got us in this mess was delaying the implementation of a bad law after a new congress came into power that had a different vision than o's soviet america.

I guess I don't understand the relevance of the second question to the first.
See? The two don't really mesh well. If Q2 had been something like "Well, do the constitution or the Federal statues give the federal government the power to restrict access to federally-owned lands?" then I could see how it would jive, and I'd be able to follow the conversation. As it stands, however, I'm lost. :dunno:

In Soviet America, Government rules YOU!!!

Spending Problem? What spending problem?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1381174602

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1381174602

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1381174602

That's a pretty badass looking vehicle.


So, I guess the underlying questions are:

1: Whether it is reasonable for the federal government to control access to land which is owned by the federal government, and

2: Whether it is reasonable for a private citizen to expect unrestricted access to chattel which is owned by them but which is situated on land which is owned by the federal government and to which they have no easement.



Neither is an easy question.

For #1, we have to ask ourself what the federal government is in the first place. Is it an actual entity, with enjoys rights and protections in the same or similar manner to those afforded a corporation? Or is it merely a proxy for "we the people"?


#2 is a little more straightforward, and is probably just a matter of contract law. Clearly one cannot expect the same freedoms of access to a timeshare property as to a condominium, nor to a condominium as to an estate in fee simple. I'm not even sure what sort of title or deed is attached to a private residence erected upon a public park, and I'm having a dickens of a time finding any information here.

I didn't know people lived on federally owned land. But I assume there have to be park rangers there if you want to have people there at the same time. A museum wouldn't be open with no security or curators staffing it, why should a national park?

Step 1. Hold general elections. One side will win with a small majority.
Step 2. Small majority tries to pass laws that the minority doesn't like.
Step 3. Minority holds US financial system hostage until it get's what it wants.
Step 4. Make bad system oscillate into positive moron feedback until everything is ruined.

Is this the general plan? I stand to loose much more money from one side hijacking the financial system than I do from the law that the other side wants to pass. Childish...

The Dems did it to W too, and it was bullshit then (threatening funding from the Iraq war).