Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.

That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.

Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

Negative on me myself taking a chance at 200 hundred a month on lake front property on Federal Land. Sounds great to have a back up house/ vacation home but with the housing market today if it becomes your primary and the government goes through another BS shutdown again your out on your arse in 24 hours. Do you really want to take the chance with that with your family?

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

But it's a lot different than the "they kicked them out of their primary residences" tone that the initial reporting implied.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.

That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.

Earliest I can find is October 4th.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.

If it went down just like that, then I agree.

But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.

Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.

To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.

If it went down just like that, then I agree.

But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.

Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.

To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!

Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.

If it went down just like that, then I agree.

But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.

Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.

To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!

Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.

If for no other reason they should be mad about the loss in income from the folks that would normally be spending their money in the area right now who had to leave.

That's why the impact of the shutdown/slowdown/whatever down is much larger than the "only x% of federal employees are not working" talk that goes around.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Sorry bout that, d-usa, I was thinking about how upset my sisters friend got at the way they were kicked out of their home and went of on a different track.

I can imagine that they were upset, and I don't fault them for that. I would be just as upset if I had planed a camping vacation there and spend money to get there and everything. It's a situation that sucks alot, I'm not denying that.

It was quite a rousting for sure in the heavy handed way it was carried out and being enforced.

If it went down just like that, then I agree.

But I also think of every story ever told by my grandmother and the way everything becomes ten times as bad as it actually was. Not because she lies, just because in her head it was a much bigger and much worse deal.

Not saying that this is what is going on in that case, just that it gives me some reservations about it.

To bad it's old people and not young folks with their phone cams on twitter!

Yep, the story was only hours in her mind and when she told my sister. There really should have been some considerations given due their age so it wasn't so bad in their minds. People in Overton are pretty pissed about it, though.

If for no other reason they should be mad about the loss in income from the folks that would normally be spending their money in the area right now who had to leave.

That's why the impact of the shutdown/slowdown/whatever down is much larger than the "only x% of federal employees are not working" talk that goes around.

That's one reason here in Utah, the state is taking charge of keeping the parks open for a bit. It's definitely a deep loss on many levels.

 Ouze wrote:
I think his broken promise to close Guantanamo bay is horrible

To touch on this part for a second, to be fair, he tried to close it, which would require moving the detainees somewhere, and then Congress went "OMG no, Not In My BackYard!!" as though these people were supervillains. Can't get rid of them, few countries are willing to take any of them, so there they stay.

I'm not saying he or his administration are blameless, but much like the current cluster...shenanigans, a lot of the blame falls Congress.

As an aside, I find these childish nicknames for the President to be unbecoming. I sure hope there aren't any "HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND YOU WILL SHOW THE PRESIDENCY RESPECT" style posts in the past of anyone using them ever so 'cleverly'. I certainly recall plenty of that from Republicans during Bush's terms.

I've seen a few states step up for that, but I have not looked at the details.

I think I saw that some of them will get money back that isn't spend, but will they get reimbursed for money they pay after everything opens again?

 d-usa wrote:
I've seen a few states step up for that, but I have not looked at the details.

I think I saw that some of them will get money back that isn't spend, but will they get reimbursed for money they pay after everything opens again?

Not sure how it will play, but here's what the local news has to say about it.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56984686-82/parks-utah-federal-open.html.csp

Didn't mean to jump out in our convo D. This one is out in far left field. I mean really far left but kind of cool. I've like three Park Rangers coming to check something out. I am not involving LEO's because I am not taking a chance to have more guilt on my conscious. I've two wolf pups in my backyard. Its a fenced in backyard. How the Hell do I have two wolf pups in my backyard....

Take them, raise them, train them, wait for the emperior to come along and challange you to a drinking competion and then punch you in the face.

Screw that Airborne. Last thing I want is my scent on them. My scent on them might make mom not want them. Or mom out back to rip me a new one if I go out there and "play" with them. Besides the DNR guy says to ignore them and not screw with them at all. So my dogs are in the two port garage to do their business.

 Forar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think his broken promise to close Guantanamo bay is horrible

To touch on this part for a second, to be fair, he tried to close it, which would require moving the detainees somewhere, and then Congress went "OMG no, Not In My BackYard!!" as though these people were supervillains. Can't get rid of them, few countries are willing to take any of them, so there they stay.

I'm not saying he or his administration are blameless, but much like the current cluster...shenanigans, a lot of the blame falls Congress.

As an aside, I find these childish nicknames for the President to be unbecoming. I sure hope there aren't any "HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND YOU WILL SHOW THE PRESIDENCY RESPECT" style posts in the past of anyone using them ever so 'cleverly'. I certainly recall plenty of that from Republicans during Bush's terms.

Dude, don't interrup them, this is too fun to watch!

I'm over in Japan and am quite busy most of the time, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the divide is growing wider and deeper in America. The politicians have got to learn to work together or this country is heading for some worse problems.

Also, for people arguing politics, don't assume the other side is lying, or trying to hurt whatever group of people, or hate America or are evil. That kind of thinking makes a rational debate impossible. Both sides see a problem and have very different ways of solving those problems. Unfortunately the paradigm gulf is growing wider every day. Soon we won't be able to discuss anything rationally without going into an argument about Democrats versus Republicans.

I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?
As for OW, I liked them until they turned racist. These vets at the Mall, you go! (I'm a vet, btw.) However, the real problem is with the both parties in the congress and senate. If you think one side is angels and the other is evil, then you're deluded. This mess could have been prevented or solved much sooner if either party was acting like grown ups.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?

Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.

Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.

I mean, unless veterans are above the law...

OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have a very hard time believing that there actually was only 24 hours notice.

That part, I think is plausible. The stories started going up on October 6th, and presumably they didn't go to the media and get stuff published immediately, and presumably the NPS didn't do it the very first day of the shutdown. I'd say that's pretty possible. I bet you can play with google and find an article even earlier than the 6th, an article zero if you will, to prove it if you were so inclined.

Very plausible, actually. It's quite possible they didn't even realize they had to remove residents from the federal land until someone randomly noticed it in the law. While all agencies had to plan for the shutdown, I don't think any actually expected it to go beyond a day or two, and thus didn't really plan for anything beyond that. I know my own agency kept revising the furlough plans every day for that first week as they realized this might go on awhile. We don't have many supplies stockpiled, so things could get interesting if this goes on for another week.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm over in Japan and am quite busy most of the time, but from where I'm sitting it sounds like the divide is growing wider and deeper in America. The politicians have got to learn to work together or this country is heading for some worse problems.

The problem is that both parties keep gambling on a coin toss. They keep hoping that, come the next election cycle, their side will come up on all three coins (House, Senate, President) and then they can remake America into their personal perfect vision. And, until that happens, they're content to circle the drain and let the country slide even deeper (they're all rich, so what do they care?). I just hope that, when that final coin toss comes, it lands on edge and both parties get screwed.

 MWHistorian wrote:
OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.

And that is why we have the concept of jury nullification.

 MWHistorian wrote:
OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.

She was, in fact, arrested.

A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.

After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.

It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.

You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.

 d-usa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.

She was, in fact, arrested.

A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.

After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.

It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.

You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.

You do have a point there, the willingness to be arrested is a must.
But what I was originally trying to say was that we have got to find a way to discuss matters and come up with compromises or this country will sink.
I don't know if this would work, but for example: "Hey, Democrats, we'll let ya have your Obamacare if you stop trying to inact gun control. Deal?" Lame example I know, but SOMETHING has to happen soon and in a major way.

 d-usa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
OW broke the law numerous times. The law isn't an absolute. Sometimes it has to be broken to make a statement. Unless you think that Rosa Parks woman should have been locked away. She did break the law after all. It would serve her right for thinking she was above the law.

She was, in fact, arrested.

A willingness to be arrested is required in civil disobedience. If you are not okay with that then you should not be doing it.

After the arrest people then decide if the laws that got you arrested were stupid/petty/immoral and should be changed.

It's not the civil disobedience that changes laws, it's the response to it that decide if things change.

You might think that you are protesing some great American injustice, but the opinion of the person breaking the law doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is what people think about you after you break the law and face the result.

This. When it comes to civil disobedience, you have to be willing to pay the price for your actions.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I don't know if this would work, but for example: "Hey, Democrats, we'll let ya have your Obamacare if you stop trying to inact gun control. Deal?" Lame example I know, but SOMETHING has to happen soon and in a major way.

From what I've read, it seems like they went "Hey Democrats, we'll let ya have your policies if you adopt a more sane budget plan, like this one that Ryan put together". After what I assume was a while of haggling, that budget plan got passed. Now they are saying "Actually, you can't have your policies and what not like we talked about, unless you also do this". I know the ACA probably wasn't directly linked with the talks before, but that is basically what it seems like is happening.

"Hey Democrats, you can have your plan (which was really our plan) if you also do this for us, and this, and this, and trim back like most of the stuff you want to do."

"So you want us to just do what you want to do..."

"You finally noticed! That'd be just swell. Also, a sandwich and something to drink, and don't be stingy on the mustard."

How is anyone blaming the House of Representatives for this government shut-down? The House passed 6 budgets, the Senate passed 0. The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill specifically to fund the Veterans' Death benefits, the Senate blocked it. This shut-down is created and perpetrated by the Senate & Executive Branch (Who decides where cuts take place, yet choose to leave all 100+ Federally operated Golf Courses open.)

On todays episode of President Barry Boo Boo, ole Stompy Feet orders barrycades replaced and reinforced.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The House passed 6 budgets, the Senate passed 0.

The House repeatedly sent a budget with an addendum that the Senate refused. Sending it back 5 more times with the same language in place is evidence of poor pattern recognition from the House.

The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it.

Sorry, but no, they don't get to fund just the little parts they like or are getting some bad press over.

The House passed a bill specifically to fund the Veterans' Death benefits, the Senate blocked it.

Funny, according to another thread on this very forum, both sides worked together to get this sorted out. You should let them know the benefits are being missed again.

This shut-down is created and perpetrated by the Senate & Executive Branch (Who decides where cuts take place, yet choose to leave all 100+ Federally operated Golf Courses open.)

Far as I've read, nobody 'chose' to leave the courses open. There are services and locales that are partially government funded, or that have funding remaining due to a recent influx of funding, but regardless of the cause it's all a red herring. It's misdirection. In a country and government the size of the US, there will ALWAYS be something else to point at. "OMG the vets are suffering but X is still open! Y is shut down but NObama still has his Z!"

Let's see who is talking about these courses... Heritage, TheBlaze, the Examiner... yeah, I'm smelling manufactured outrage. I thought that was "the Left's" job?!

On todays episode of President Barry Boo Boo, ole Stompy Feet orders barrycades replaced and reinforced.

Oh you are a special little snowflake alright.

 Forar wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The House passed 6 budgets, the Senate passed 0.

The House passed bills specifically to fund the children cancer research, the Senate blocked it. The House passed a bill to specifically fund National parks & Monuments, the Senate blocked it.

Sorry, but no, they don't get to fund just the little parts they like or are getting some bad press over.

Why not? Besides the last five years... that is pretty much how it was done. Usually, you'd pass a budget with 13-18ish appropriate bills.

I'm glad i'm not a politician. Thats all i really have to say. Both sides have agendas that they are trying to get through and neither is letting the other side pass. Hopefully in the future we can avoid shutting down the government over political fighting.