Government shutdowns and public relations

[BlueHen86]

That's not true. They are only blocking the view of Lincoln as he is the only Republican. It's part of Obama's park-by-park shut down plan.

And there are posts on Facebook of people tossing aside the traffic cones and going up to Mt Rushmore...

The NPS does not have enough police to keep this politically motivated action by the Administration going...unless they bring in the military...

... or drones.

[Col Hogan]

And there are posts on Facebook of people tossing aside the traffic cones and going up to Mt Rushmore...

The NPS does not have enough police to keep this politically motivated action by the Administration going...unless they bring in the military...

... or drones.

And who has the armed versions???

[HI54UNI]

That's not true. They are only blocking the view of Lincoln as he is the only Republican. It's part of Obama's park-by-park shut down plan.

And there are posts on Facebook of people tossing aside the traffic cones and going up to Mt Rushmore...

The NPS does not have enough police to keep this politically motivated action by the Administration going...unless they bring in the military...

I wonder if the chosen one is directing a carrier group to the Florida cost to enforce the shutdown of the ocean that has been ordered.

[93henfan]

This is the worst I've read yet during this whole boondoggle.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/2923169/

Near MOUNT PISGAH, N.C. — At a spot 5,000 feet above sea level and 20 miles from the nearest town, an innkeeper decided Friday to defy the federal government and reopen his lodge.

That stand lasted about two hours as National Park Service rangers blocked the entrances to the privately run Pisgah Inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway after owner Bruce O'Connell decided to reopen his dining room, gift shop and country store at noon Friday for lunch. The federal government had forced the inn, in a leased building on federal land, to shut down at 6 p.m. ET Thursday at the height of fall foliage — and tourism — season...

[Bronco]

Such A-Holes
No NFL for the troops today

Obama Blacks Out Sports, Entertainment Programming to Overseas Troops - The American Forces Network (AFN) that provides American sports and entertainment programming to our troops stationed abroad, has been shut down. For some reason, though, AFN News will still broadcast news, just not any of the popular and fun stuff.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/arme ... own-100213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Col Hogan]

I'd love to hear an Administration supporter justify all these closings...open air memorials...parts of the ocean...whole parks...cutting off NFL broadcasts to overseas troops...

IMHO, this is politicizing the shutdown at the same level as the TP Republicans...

[93henfan]

I'd love to hear an Administration supporter justify all these closings...open air memorials...parts of the ocean...whole parks...cutting off NFL broadcasts to overseas troops...

IMHO, this is politicizing the shutdown at the same level as the TP Republicans...

Still haven't received my come back to work call yet.

The reason I came across the article I linked about the Blue Ridge Parkway is because I was considering a drive on Skyline Drive tomorrow if I'm still furloughed. One problem: Skyline Drive is closed. So then I looked at Blue Ridge Parkway and saw that article.

[93henfan]

Such A-Holes
No NFL for the troops today

Obama Blacks Out Sports, Entertainment Programming to Overseas Troops - The American Forces Network (AFN) that provides American sports and entertainment programming to our troops stationed abroad, has been shut down. For some reason, though, AFN News will still broadcast news, just not any of the popular and fun stuff.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/arme ... own-100213" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's OK to send SEALS to take out terrorist leaders on Sunday (see raids in Libya and Somalia) but not OK to let them catch the game after the debriefing. Pathetic.

[Bronco]

-
There are many many cabins on Fed land in Montana.
You pay the lease and you can use your improvements on their land for the year
Don't know how they can do this if you are current on your payments

Wonder if they will try this here and will Harry Reid come to these folks rescue

Via Las Vegas Review Journal:

Bob Hitchcock is in his “least favorite place” these days — inside his landlocked Las Vegas home instead of at his cabin on the North Shore of Lake Mead, tooling around with old engines in his garage.
He’s one of an estimated 60 families with vacation homes along the lake who were given notice by the National Park Service earlier this week to gather their stuff and leave, according to Christie Vanover, a spokeswoman for the Lake Mead Recreational Area.

The homes — from Stewart’s Point on the north to Katherine’s Landing and Temple Bar on the south — sit on federal land.

As a result, the federal government shutdown left Hitchcock just 24 hours to evacuate his two-bedroom, two bath cabin in Stewart’s Point, about 70 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Although Vanover couldn’t put an exact number on how many residents were actually living in their vacation homes at the time of the government’s closure, she wanted to make one thing clear: “They are all vacation homes and everybody who lives in them are considered visitors,” she said. “If anybody needs to gather their personal belongings, we’re not going to deny them access. They can go do that. They just can’t spend the nights there or have barbecues during the day.

“They need to get in and get out.”

[93henfan]

Still haven't received my come back to work call yet.

Disregard. I've been recalled.

[Ibanez]

Apparently 10/15 starts my furlough.

[JohnStOnge]

I haven't read all the posts so someone may already have said this but I'm been meaning to:

I keep hearing this thing about how the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court so that means people should accept it. No it doesn't. Yeah, sure they can accept it if they want. But a law getting passed, signed, etc., does not make it sacred. There is no "rule" that says that people have to stop fighting it and forget about once it passes. The idea that it automatically has to be left alone because it was passed is a specious argument.

Congress holds the power of the purse. There is absolutely nothing illegal or "innately" wrong about Congress choosing not to fund the implementation of a law. And there is nothing innately wrong with Congress trying to work towards repealing the law in the meantime.

In this case it's not all of Congress. It's the House of Representatives. But there is nothing wrong with the House of Representatives wielding its share of the power of the purse either.

The Affordable Care Act is not divine law sent down by God. No law is. People fight to get laws changed all the time. And people fight to de-emphasize enforcement and/or implementation of laws all the time. The fact that the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nobody is arguing that that is not the case. The issue is whether or not the country will go ahead with it or not. If a person thinks the country should go ahead with it because it's a good law, fine. Oppose what the Republicans are doing on that basis. But don't say the Republicans in the current House of Representatives should stop fighting it just because a previous House of Representatives passed it. T

[Col Hogan]

Still haven't received my come back to work call yet.

Disregard. I've been recalled.

Excellent...

[BlueHen86]

I haven't read all the posts so someone may already have said this but I'm been meaning to:

I keep hearing this thing about how the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court so that means people should accept it. No it doesn't. Yeah, sure they can accept it if they want. But a law getting passed, signed, etc., does not make it sacred. There is no "rule" that says that people have to stop fighting it and forget about once it passes. The idea that it automatically has to be left alone because it was passed is a specious argument.

Congress holds the power of the purse. There is absolutely nothing illegal or "innately" wrong about Congress choosing not to fund the implementation of a law. And there is nothing innately wrong with Congress trying to work towards repealing the law in the meantime.

In this case it's not all of Congress. It's the House of Representatives. But there is nothing wrong with the House of Representatives wielding its share of the power of the purse either.

The Affordable Care Act is not divine law sent down by God. No law is. People fight to get laws changed all the time. And people fight to de-emphasize enforcement and/or implementation of laws all the time. The fact that the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Nobody is arguing that that is not the case. The issue is whether or not the country will go ahead with it or not. If a person thinks the country should go ahead with it because it's a good law, fine. Oppose what the Republicans are doing on that basis. But don't say the Republicans in the current House of Representatives should stop fighting it just because a previous House of Representatives passed it. T

Seems to me that if they are successful in stopping Obamacare by these means, then this will become the modus operandi from now on. I don't think that's a good thing. Sometimes it's best to admit defeat and pick your battles elsewhere.

That said, fuck the donks too. They need to give Boehner and the GOP something. The country was founded on compromise.

[grizzaholic]

Still haven't received my come back to work call yet.

Disregard. I've been recalled.

So much for your day drinking Monday

[SDHornet]

You mean like the six weeks of 20% unpaid furlough that I just got done with?

Think before you talk man.

Plenty of people still out there without a job.

Think before you talk man.

[BlueHen86]

You mean like the six weeks of 20% unpaid furlough that I just got done with?

Think before you talk man.

Plenty of people still out there without a job.

Think before you talk man.

Who cares about that, they are closing parks!

[HI54UNI]

Seems to me that if they are successful in stopping Obamacare by these means, then this will become the modus operandi from now on. I don't think that's a good thing. Sometimes it's best to admit defeat and pick your battles elsewhere.

That said, fuck the donks too. They need to give Boehner and the GOP something. The country was founded on compromise.

Interesting read about how this has become what it has and how Obama and Reid not giving a little made it worse.

GOP congressman: We stumbled into war over Obamacare

On Thursday afternoon, as the government shutdown entered its third day, a Republican member of the House sat down with a group of reporters in an office building not far from the Capitol. He spoke on the condition that he be referred to only as a House lawmaker, but without betraying the agreement it's fair to say his was a perspective well worth listening to.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-congr ... le/2536874

[93henfan]

Plenty of people still out there without a job.

Think before you talk man.

Who cares about that, they are closing parks!

[Skjellyfetti]

Congress holds the power of the purse. There is absolutely nothing illegal or "innately" wrong about Congress choosing not to fund the implementation of a law. And there is nothing innately wrong with Congress trying to work towards repealing the law in the meantime.

There's a way to do that. They can defund the law.

They've tried 42 times now to defund it... and they've failed 42 times... so, they've decided to shut down the government because they can't get what they want.

[JohnStOnge]

They've tried 42 times now to defund it... and they've failed 42 times... so, they've decided to shut down the government because they can't get what they want.

No. They explicitly said they did not want to shut down the government. They said it over and over again. Implementation cannot be funded unless the House agrees to funding it. They don't have to "try" to defund it. All they have to do is refuse to consent to funding it.

Again: Why do the Democrats not agree to fund everything the two sides agree on funding?

Seems to me like if you have two parties who decide on spending you should go ahead and spend on what the two agree on. If both do not agree to fund something it shouldn't be funded. Pretty simple really.

It makes sense to refuse to fund something. It does not make sense to say you won't fund ANYTHING unless EVERYTHING you want funded is funded.

[JohnStOnge]

All the Democrats had to do was just go with it and say, "There will be a delay in implementing certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act because those nasty Republicans in the House refused to agree to funding." Then, if they think the Affordable Care Act is something the People want, they could make that an issue in the next election. They could have made it clear that they need to re take the House in order to get rid of the problem. Then the People could give the Democrats control of the House if they chose to do so.

There's absolutely no good reason for the Democrats to do what they're doing now unless the reason is that they think/thought a government shutdown would play to their political advantage. It's not like waiting another two years for full implementation, assuming they can get control of the House, would be the end of the world. The country has gone more than two centuries without the Affordable Care Act already.

[Grizalltheway]

They've tried 42 times now to defund it... and they've failed 42 times... so, they've decided to shut down the government because they can't get what they want.

No. They explicitly said they did not want to shut down the government. They said it over and over again. Implementation cannot be funded unless the House agrees to funding it. They don't have to "try" to defund it. All they have to do is refuse to consent to funding it.

Again: Why do the Democrats not agree to fund everything the two sides agree on funding?

Seems to me like if you have two parties who decide on spending you should go ahead and spend on what the two agree on. If both do not agree to fund something it shouldn't be funded. Pretty simple really.

It makes sense to refuse to fund something. It does not make sense to say you won't fund ANYTHING unless EVERYTHING you want funded is funded.

Regardless of what they said publicly, this is exactly what they wanted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- ... itics&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Regardless of what they said publicly, this is exactly what they wanted.

I think that what that article shows, assuming it is accurate, is that they were willing to risk a shutdown. I don't think it shows that they wanted it. And I think the fact that they were willing to risk a shutdown was already obvious.

[BlueHen86]

All the Democrats had to do was just go with it and say, "There will be a delay in implementing certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act because those nasty Republicans in the House refused to agree to funding." Then, if they think the Affordable Care Act is something the People want, they could make that an issue in the next election. They could have made it clear that they need to re take the House in order to get rid of the problem. Then the People could give the Democrats control of the House if they chose to do so.

There's absolutely no good reason for the Democrats to do what they're doing now unless the reason is that they think/thought a government shutdown would play to their political advantage. It's not like waiting another two years for full implementation, assuming they can get control of the House, would be the end of the world. The country has gone more than two centuries without the Affordable Care Act already.

You're biased. The Dems could compromise, but they are not. The GOP could allow and up/down vote, but they are not.

I think the blame falls pretty evenly on both sides at this point. We're in this position because both parties are trying to gain a political advantage.