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.

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

CNN isn't even middle left, nor is is it right, it's sensationalist crap from across the spectrum. One of the worst news sources out there.

 agnosto wrote:
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..

Huh... I was responding to another posters.

But, hey... Forar, check these:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/visiting-veterans-storm-closed-wwii-memorial/2013/10/01/0fc2a376-2ab4-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/01/why-was-the-world-war-ii-memorial-barricaded/


Just to see how ridiculous all of this is... consider Mount Rushmore in South Dakota:

Police ordered to place cones so viewers can't pull off and view Mt. Rushmore...

Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

 Maddermax wrote:

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

CNN isn't even middle left, nor is is it right, it's sensationalist crap from across the spectrum. One of the worst news sources out there.

Which is why I get all of my news from The Onion, America's finest news source (see, it even says so in the title).

http://www.theonion.com/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not sure what Mt. Rushmore has to do with an immigration rally....

 whembly wrote:
Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

Actually it is. You have to consider they are worried that a massive amount of peo0ple would try and stop on the side of the road, which would cuase problems. They aren't worried about people looking at it, they are worried about traffic accidents and congestion.

What is ridiculous is trying to use all this monument bs to distract from the bigger problem of why they are having to do all this in the first place.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

Actually it is. You have to consider they are worried that a massive amount of peo0ple would try and stop on the side of the road, which would cuase problems. They aren't worried about people looking at it, they are worried about traffic accidents and congestion.

What is ridiculous is trying to use all this monument bs to distract from the bigger problem of why they are having to do all this in the first place.

I agree!

I mean it's outrageous that the Senate hasn't voted on a budget (except voting down the one from their leader in the White House) in 5 (FIVE) years! Then outright refusing to negotiate at all with the other side? I mean just like old Harry said "Why would I want to do that?", yeah screw those kids with cancer!

 SickSix wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

Actually it is. You have to consider they are worried that a massive amount of peo0ple would try and stop on the side of the road, which would cuase problems. They aren't worried about people looking at it, they are worried about traffic accidents and congestion.

What is ridiculous is trying to use all this monument bs to distract from the bigger problem of why they are having to do all this in the first place.

I agree!

I mean it's outrageous that the Senate hasn't voted on a budget (except voting down the one from their leader in the White House) in 5 (FIVE) years! Then outright refusing to negotiate at all with the other side? I mean just like old Harry said "Why would I want to do that?", yeah screw those kids with cancer!

The Senate passed a budget in March.

The Senate then tried 19 times to enter formal negotiations to reconcile the different budgets with the house, as should happen in these circumstances. Each time they were blocked by Repbulicans each and every time. Thats right - Republicans refused to negotiate, and kept refusing for 7 months, because they wanted the leverage of a shutdown. This was their plan all along, a plan they put into writing by the way.

 whembly wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
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..

Huh... I was responding to another posters.

But, hey... Forar, check these:

I am aware of the world war 2 memorial situation.

I asked for a less biased source regarding the "immigration rally" that purportedly happened on/in/at (?) the national mall.

Variations googling for said info brought plenty of outrage from Beck, Limbaugh, Fox and others, but nothing from the Associated Press, or Reuters, or CNN, etc.

It seems to be "an issue" purely for right wing blog sites and Fox, but surely something this sizable would be worth others reporting on it...

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

Actually it is. You have to consider they are worried that a massive amount of peo0ple would try and stop on the side of the road, which would cuase problems. They aren't worried about people looking at it, they are worried about traffic accidents and congestion.

What is ridiculous is trying to use all this monument bs to distract from the bigger problem of why they are having to do all this in the first place.

O.o

You act like folks wouldn't do that ON A NORMAL DAY...

It's a popular pull off...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
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..

Huh... I was responding to another posters.

But, hey... Forar, check these:

I am aware of the world war 2 memorial situation.

I asked for a less biased source regarding the "immigration rally" that purportedly happened on/in/at (?) the national mall.

Variations googling for said info brought plenty of outrage from Beck, Limbaugh, Fox and others, but nothing from the Associated Press, or Reuters, or CNN, etc.

It seems to be "an issue" purely for right wing blog sites and Fox, but surely something this sizable would be worth others reporting on it...

Everything from right wing sites are bunk. Got it.

Just as everything for left wing sites... bunk. Got it.

Now... who's left?

Can you really not understand the difference between some people pulling over when the park is open and the number of people pulling over when the park is closed and the only decent way to see Mt Rushmore?

 Maddermax wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Evidently, it's a hazard to look at Mt. Rushmore...

Actually it is. You have to consider they are worried that a massive amount of peo0ple would try and stop on the side of the road, which would cuase problems. They aren't worried about people looking at it, they are worried about traffic accidents and congestion.

What is ridiculous is trying to use all this monument bs to distract from the bigger problem of why they are having to do all this in the first place.

I agree!

I mean it's outrageous that the Senate hasn't voted on a budget (except voting down the one from their leader in the White House) in 5 (FIVE) years! Then outright refusing to negotiate at all with the other side? I mean just like old Harry said "Why would I want to do that?", yeah screw those kids with cancer!

The Senate passed a budget in March.

The Senate then tried 19 times to enter formal negotiations to reconcile the different budgets with the house, as should happen in these circumstances. Each time they were blocked by Repbulicans each and every time. Thats right - Republicans refused to negotiate, and kept refusing for 7 months, because they wanted the leverage of a shutdown. This was their plan all along, a plan they put into writing by the way.

Well, ok then. This just reinforces my dislike for both sides. However, two wrongs don't make a right. So now, the Democrats feel the need to save face by not negotiating at all?

 Ahtman wrote:
Can you really not understand the difference between some people pulling over when the park is open and the number of people pulling over when the park is closed and the only decent way to see Mt Rushmore?

Really? O.o

and I've been accused of having a firewall of hatred lately. o.O

 whembly wrote:
Everything from right wing sites are bunk. Got it.

Just as everything for left wing sites... bunk. Got it.

Now... who's left?

If you think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are unbiased sources of information...



That said, the thread title has recently become even more appropriate;

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/reid-wont-negotiate-while-govt-partly-closed

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Democrats will not negotiate with Republican lawmakers as long as the government is still partially closed.

Reid spoke to reporters following a meeting on Thursday with President Barack Obama at the White House that lasted nearly two hours. Reid says Senate Democrats want the government open and want the nation to be able to pay its bills.

Earlier Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner (BAY'-nur) proposed a short-term increase in the federal debt limit if Obama agrees to negotiate with Republicans on a broader budget deal. But the Boehner proposal would not end the government shutdown.

When asked whether he would negotiate with Republicans while the government is closed, Reid said it's "not going to happen."

Man, even the AP is getting a bit snarky.

Glad to see the Democrats have found their testicles and managed to retain them for more than half an hour.

So no response to this?

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

If you think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are unbiased sources of information...

When have I ever said/posted anything from those two blowhards? o.O

At least I ain't BrassScorpian.

No, because I've read all about the photo op outrage that Bachman and others made about veterans suffering as political pawns, and please ignore their use as political pawns... it was heart warming.

That's not what I asked about. I'm kind of surprised you don't have any better links, a bunch of people seem really angry about it, and man, BBC News and AP and Reuters all love them some stuff that makes people angry.

When have I ever said/posted anything from those two blowhards? o.O

At least I ain't BrassScorpian

I asked for some sites, because all I'm finding are sites that are generally outraged about, well, the fact that Obama woke up in the morning.

Because if you go Google for news about an immigration rally at the national mall in the past few weeks, it's wall to wall right wing.

 whembly wrote:
So no response to this?

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Of course not.

It's not like it's costing as much to keep rangers on duty to keep people out as it would to keep rangers on to let people in!

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So no response to this?

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Of course not.

It's not like it's costing as much to keep rangers on duty to keep people out as it would to keep rangers on to let people in!

Rangers would be essential, they are on the clock either way. It's stupid to pretend that they wouldn't be.

But the rest of the staff needed to keep it safe, clean and open are not working. That's what everybody is ignoring.

 Forar wrote:


I asked for some sites, because all I'm finding are sites that are generally outraged about, well, the fact that Obama woke up in the morning.

Because if you go Google for news about an immigration rally at the national mall in the past few weeks, it's wall to wall right wing.

Lemme ask you a honest question...

Do you think there is any news site that are totally unbiased?

 whembly wrote:
So no response to this?

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/siz

An Editorial? In the Moonie Times? The paper founded to combat Communism in the "Liberal Mainstream Media", and to uphold conservative and Judeo-Christian values?

And It's saying bad things about Obama you say? This is my shocked face. Let me show it to you.

 whembly wrote:
Lemme ask you a honest question...

Do you think there is any news site that are totally unbiased?

Of course not.

But there is a spectrum of bias. Some, like the BBC, manage to keep pretty well reigned in.

Others, such as Fox, you can utilize as ballast if it were ever needed.

So if I search up a story on Google, and the results come back as glennbeck.com, rushlimbaugh.com, foxnews.com and redstate.com, I'm going to suspect the bias is a wee bit one sided.

But hey, further googling led me to this;

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-rally-20131009,0,315074.story

And while I'm sure the LATimes has bias, it also had interesting things to say, about 200 people being arrested, including several democratic congresspeople (one of whom was on the Colbert Report and seems to be something of a legend in the civil rights movement).

So... cool. A bunch of vets went to closed memorials and were let in, and a bunch of people held a rally somewhere they weren't supposed to an got arrested.

Man, that was hard. I am furious.

 Maddermax wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So no response to this?

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:[/siz

An Editorial? In the Moonie Times? The paper founded to combat Communism in the "Liberal Mainstream Media", and to uphold conservative and Judeo-Christian values?

And It's saying bad things about Obama you say? This is my shocked face. Let me show it to you.

So... you'd think it's likely that the writer created a fictional park ranger to say that...

Cool.


[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Lemme ask you a honest question...

Do you think there is any news site that are totally unbiased?

Of course not.

But there is a spectrum of bias. Some, like the BBC, manage to keep pretty well reigned in.

Others, such as Fox, you can utilize as ballast if it were ever needed.

So if I search up a story on Google, and the results come back as glennbeck.com, rushlimbaugh.com, foxnews.com and redstate.com, I'm going to suspect the bias is a wee bit one sided.

But hey, further googling led me to this;

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-rally-20131009,0,315074.story

And while I'm sure the LATimes has bias, it also had interesting things to say, about 200 people being arrested, including several democratic congresspeople (one of whom was on the Colbert Report and seems to be something of a legend in the civil rights movement).

So... cool. A bunch of vets went to closed memorials and were let in, and a bunch of people held a rally somewhere they weren't supposed to an got arrested.

Man, that was hard. I am furious.

Furious?

Outrage?

Nah... it's ridiculous.

 SickSix wrote:
Well, ok then. This just reinforces my dislike for both sides. However, two wrongs don't make a right. So now, the Democrats feel the need to save face by not negotiating at all?

That is incredible. You have an actual plan, written up for everyone to see, in which the Republicans say that will create a financial crisis in order to extort a de-funding of Obamacare... and you read that and conclude 'both sides'.

Incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
Of course not.

But there is a spectrum of bias. Some, like the BBC, manage to keep pretty well reigned in.

Or more to the point, bias doesn't matter but accuracy and honesty do.

I don't care if you have a personal opinion on the subject, I just care if what you're typing is accurate, and an honest representation of the event.

There are, believe it or not, some pretty decent news sources around the world that have political convictions at least as strong as FOX, but remain excellent services... because they make their argument honestly and with accurate information.

Similarly CNN wanders around the centre and centre left in its bias, but remain utterly useless as a news service because its journalistic standards are next to zero, as it happily lies and misrepresents to make stories sound as exciting as possible.

They're spending a lot more money keeping people out of these parks/monuments that it would cost to just pay the Dept of Sanitation to clean up nightly.

 Breotan wrote:
They're spending a lot more money keeping people out of these parks/monuments that it would cost to just pay the Dept of Sanitation to clean up nightly.

That might be so, but cleaning up the parks would be against the law (Anti-deficiency Act) and a punishable offense, while protecting life or property is specifically exempted. That is to say, they can legally spend as much money as is deemed necessary to protect and close the parks, but they cannot spend any money, even if it would be far cheaper, to just keep them running as normal. The Anti-deficiency act is nearly 150 years old, so this isn't exactly unexpected.

http://www.livescience.com/18869-bigfoot-belief-americans-canadians.html

According to the new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, nearly three-in-ten Americans (29 percent) and one-in-five Canadians (21 percent) think Bigfoot is "definitely" or "probably" real.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

With the Republican-controlled House of Representatives engaged in a tense, government-shuttering budgetary standoff against a Democratic president and Senate, the Republican Party is now viewed favorably by 28% of Americans, down from 38% in September. This is the lowest favorable rating measured for either party since Gallup began asking this question in 1992.

Bigfoot is more popular/believable than the Republicans then ?!



Perhaps it is time for Bigfoot and the Hendersons : The next generation.

With the advances in SFX we could be onto a winner here !

 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.

NO
The vets basically kicked their way in there and refused to leave.

The illegal immigrant suporters were permitted to set up, including porta potties etc.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

NO
The vets basically kicked their way in there and refused to leave.

The illegal immigrant suporters were permitted to set up, including porta potties etc.

So you are saying our vets are criminals and illegal immigrants are law abiding visitors? Why do you hate our troops?

60% would vote their own Congressman out (including me):
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903531-nbcwsj-poll-60-percent-say-fire-every-member-of-congress?lite


I am looking forward to 2014.

 Frazzled wrote:
60% would vote their own Congressman out (including me):
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903531-nbcwsj-poll-60-percent-say-fire-every-member-of-congress?lite


I am looking forward to 2014.

Anyone want to lay odds to the incumbency rate stays at or above 75% when the time comes?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
60% would vote their own Congressman out (including me):
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903531-nbcwsj-poll-60-percent-say-fire-every-member-of-congress?lite


I am looking forward to 2014.

Anyone want to lay odds to the incumbency rate stays at or above 75% when the time comes?

It won't fall below 85%, probably be over 90% going on past trends. People want to "fire all of congress", because congress is terrible, but they love their congressman, who definitely isn't the problem, it's those other people don't ya know.

 Maddermax wrote:
It won't fall below 85%

I agree, but I was trying to be generous.