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.

 whembly wrote:
KK... this is just bizzaro world here. Can you imagine the media had this happened during the Bush administration?

I mean... there's a report that the National Park Services are removeing handles from trail water fountains. ** What. The. feth! o.O

**EDIT: not sure if real or an Onion-like spoof.

Actually, I'm retracting that...

That's an area that get's cold and it's common to remove the handles before the freeze. Makes sense because you don't want to run the water up the pipe to give the cold a chance to freeze and bust the pipe.

I though a good portion of the American public were against ACA/ObamaCare.....

On closing the monuments; one person slips without a ranger nearby and their silly asses die out in the woods and we'd never hear the end of it.

Having spent a majority of my life in and around national parks, it's not like there's a lot of rangers around any way. Six dudes and one lady in funny hats for a couple thousand square miles they rarely go into past the visitor center doesn't really make a difference to the average individual going walkabout.

We live in the same country right? :-) Somebody would probably sue if the caught a cold out there.

 Jihadin wrote:
I though a good portion of the American public were against ACA/ObamaCare.....

Well, the ACA is pretty good. It's Obamacare that's terrible.

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I though a good portion of the American public were against ACA/ObamaCare.....

Well, the ACA is pretty good. It's Obamacare that's terrible.

Good find!

That's AWESOME!

Well, even the Republicans in Congress are realizing more and more that the whole ACA thing was a lost cause and pretty stupid.

That's why their message is shifting more and more to the usual "fiscal responsibility" rallying cry instead of the "Have we voted to repeal ObamaCare this week yet?" cry.

 Jihadin wrote:
I though a good portion of the American public were against ACA/ObamaCare.....

Polling generally breaks down as slightly more against it than for it. Neither side has a majority, but more dislike it than like it.

 Jihadin wrote:
I though a good portion of the American public were against ACA/ObamaCare.....

It's my understanding that there is a massive discrepancy between their dislike of "Obamacare" and their dislike of what the legislation actually does.

Which is to say that at least for some people polled, the name had been poisoned.

Also, people like to trot out statistics about what percentage of Americans dislike Obamacare, however they often neglect to mention that a sizable contingent of those expressing disapproval do so because they don't think it goes far enough.

Edit: yeah, basically Ouze's video, and I'll see if I can drum up the linked info I saw regarding the breakdown. I know I saw it recently on another forum...

I know whatever news source is going to go with the best poll they can find to go with the article. I think the issue is the "packages". That and the 93 million dollars website that's having issue.

edit

I'm wondering how many senators and reps are going with what their district wants vs what they think is right for their district. I've a feeling the Tea Party members that are in Congress are more likely to be re-elected again.

I'm not surprised by the issues in the least.

No matter how good your code or robust your infrastructure, nothing this big survives contact with millions of users hitting it at once. Around a decade after we watched WoW's server system collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane, and even with scaling server resource providers like Amazon, some shenanigans in the first week are, imo, to be expected.

I've seen states reporting thousands and tens of thousands of people creating accounts since it went live, and suspect it'll all balance out in the coming weeks.

Assuming the US doesn't crush the global economy next week.

... I really wish I didn't have to make that addendum, like, ever.

Edit:

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling the Tea Party members that are in Congress are more likely to be re-elected again.

Possibly, and that thought is terrifying.

The way I found out about this whole aspect was from two relatives who've been working without pay since the shutdown started. They've both been told that by their superiors that the aforementioned bill will ensure that they receive their pay after the shutdown ends. (The particular people they work for are some especially loathsome examples of our Fedgov, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were misinformed or even lying outright.)

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Having spent a majority of my life in and around national parks, it's not like there's a lot of rangers around any way. Six dudes and one lady in funny hats for a couple thousand square miles they rarely go into past the visitor center doesn't really make a difference to the average individual going walkabout.

Of course it makes a difference. Even if they don't leave the visitor center much they're still doing two very important jobs:

1) Giving out information to hikers. You know, minor details like the fact that the bridge 15 miles up the trail is washed out and the river is too deep to ford safely at this time of year, or that the freezing level has dropped far enough to put some dangerous snow and ice in that pass you were planning to use. Or even obvious things like warning you that the nice straight line on the park map is really a 5000' climb on a trail that hasn't been cleared after the last winter storm dropped a few dozen trees across it, so you should go hike that nice one mile loop through the parking lot instead.

2) Organizing a search if anything goes wrong. If your family calls on monday afternoon and says you were supposed to be back sunday evening who do you think is going to go hike up the trail and see if you've just fallen a bit behind schedule? Or tell the search parties where to start looking? If you aren't carrying a locator beacon you're putting a lot of trust in those six guys hanging around the visitor center.

Sure, you can always walk around the barriers or hike in from some random trail that only the locals know about, but by closing the park officially they hopefully make sure that the only people wandering around in there are the ones who know what they're doing. And if anything happens they can always say "sorry, not our fault, we closed the park".

Wonder what/who Bonehead decided to close parks that receive no Federal funding....

 agnosto wrote:
We live in the same country right? :-) Somebody would probably sue if the caught a cold out there.

You can't sue the government unless the government lets you.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
We live in the same country right? :-) Somebody would probably sue if the caught a cold out there.

You can't sue the government unless the government lets you.

Happens fairly frequently too. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows for this and leaving the park open without anyone there to warn the idiots who just want to go in and kill themselves that jumping 3000 feet down a ridge could result in bodily harm, the park service would be open for a lawsuit.

Sounds like a little needed cleansing of the gene pool if you asked me.

I don't know much about national parks. Texas has state parks. Our parks have alligators that insure you stay on the path, or you will not be missed...

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like a little needed cleansing of the gene pool if you asked me.

I don't know much about national parks. Texas has state parks. Our parks have alligators that insure you stay on the path, or you will not be missed...

Oh comon, I've been to west Texas and there are some nice, tall mountains there must asking for somebody to take a dive.

Nah there's signs all the hell over the place at most national parts that inform you all activity is at your own risk.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Having spent a majority of my life in and around national parks, it's not like there's a lot of rangers around any way. Six dudes and one lady in funny hats for a couple thousand square miles they rarely go into past the visitor center doesn't really make a difference to the average individual going walkabout.

So 'Brickleberry' wasn't that far off the mark then?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
For real amusement, I was talking with my father about this.

His view on the House GoP:

They're traitors to the United States for aiding and abetting it's enemies in the interest of personal gain.

His reasoning was that because of this, the remains of US servicemen KIA could not be transported home unless the family paid for it, and the blow to moral from this was a comfort to the enemies of the US.

Isn't a bigger blow to morale being told you can't visit your own nation's monuments and memorials, being threatened with arrest if you try to, and then watching the same people who told you this allowing illegal immigrants to protest under foreign flags in that same space you are barred from?
I'm referring to the pro-amnesty march recently at the National Mall.

Except the vets got to be there, and under the exact same rules and decision anothe group was allowed to be there as well.

Does anyone have an AP or Reuters or other reputable link for this whole "omg immigration rally" thing?

Because I've been punching variations into Google for a bit and the sites it spits back at me at Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and various flavours of hard Right blogs.

Surely if it was something so egregious someone else has something to say on the matter.

It happened, because first amendment. Same reason the veterans were allowed to visit. Same rules, same decision.

Well that's anti-climactic.

 d-usa wrote:
Except the vets got to be there, and under the exact same rules and decision anothe group was allowed to be there as well.

The vets had to force their way through and were threatened with arrest initially. The protesters were pre-approved and organizers were able to set up the day before - no last minute turnarounds there. Quite a different scenario.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It happened, because first amendment. Same reason the veterans were allowed to visit. Same rules, same decision.

Freedom of speech? The veterans were there to honour their comrades who fell in battle. They went to memorials dedicated to their personal wartime service. They weren't protesting anything so where does the first amendent come into it? Freedom of assembly? Then why are the parks closed to people wanting to assemble peacefully there? It also only refers to 'the people' meaning citizens. While that could be extended to residents and even visitors, it certainly does not include people in the country illegally.
I assume the Mall is now open to the public again if allowing a pro illegal immigration march is acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
Does anyone have an AP or Reuters or other reputable link for this whole "omg immigration rally" thing?

Because I've been punching variations into Google for a bit and the sites it spits back at me at Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and various flavours of hard Right blogs.

Surely if it was something so egregious someone else has something to say on the matter.

Fox is hard right? You're having a laugh. What about CNN, the Washington Examiner? Or are you looking for sources from places like People's Voice?

Fox is hard right, CNN is middle left. You might have left and right a bit confused there.

 Forar wrote:
Does anyone have an AP or Reuters or other reputable link for this whole "omg immigration rally" thing?

Because I've been punching variations into Google for a bit and the sites it spits back at me at Fox, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and various flavours of hard Right blogs.

Surely if it was something so egregious someone else has something to say on the matter.

CNN okay?

Local NBC affiliate?

Whembly, are you ok? First you're posting US issues in a UK political discussion and now you're ignoring Forar's request related to some immigration rally..