National Park Service Shuts Down MT. Rushmore

[PoisonousIvy]

Luckily you can't actually close down dirt. For those that remain inclined to connect with nature, they still can. Imaginary lines can't stop as many people as you would think. This is america for goodness sakes. To respect the principal behind America remaining idealistic at all costs, we must break the rules. America exists so idealism doesn't die.

[frumper]

Litter and maintenance sound like legitimate reasons to me. Call me crazy. EDIT: I think they could easily function without funding for a short period. However, there's no reason to keep them open and let the Republican suicide caucus off the hook. If there's a legit reason to close them, then close them. Maintenance is as close to legit as I've heard. I see no reason to go looking for reasons to absolve the Republicans of the consequences of their ineptitude.

That said, if it's such a problem to have inconvenienced tourists the solution is to take a vote in the House on the clean CR. Which will pass, incidentally.

I live near Yosemite. I'm sure our vistas are very similar. There are no trash cans, or anything to maintain other than the asphalt, if its not just a dirt patch. The only way to "close" them would be to erect a barrier to block the entire pullout, which is apparently what someone did with cones. It is beyond silly. Shouldn't they close the interstates then?

[Bridgetjones]

Because Conservatives are like a pig in shit right now, almost everything that comes with a government shutdown is what they want. EPA? FDA? CDC? FEMA? Barely exist in structure. Government assistance to those in need via Medicare/Medicaid? Federal Work Studies? Cut. Still getting paid to hold the country hostage? Yep.

It seems the only thing the Conservatives give a shit about are National Parks because, hey ... they need to stand up for something...

And the most laughable part of all this is that Republicans/Conservatives opposed the creation of all the New Deal parks in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

I live near Yosemite. I'm sure our vistas are very similar. There are no trash cans, or anything to maintain other than the asphalt, if its not just a dirt patch. The only way to "close" them would be to erect a barrier to block the entire pullout, which is apparently what someone did with cones. It is beyond silly. Shouldn't they close the interstates then?

Interstates are deemed essential.

[Reg]

Alright, there's clearly no point in discussing this with you since you are taking such a hardliner stance on it. You apparently think nasty politicians only come in one flavor, I get it.

When both sides are EQUALLY to blame, I will EQUALLY blame. It isn't Democrats holding the nation hostage right now. It's just hard to take anyone who sides with a Republican seriously right now when their last line of defense as a dying breed is to take their toys and not play with the other children.

A shut down is beneficial to no one but themselves right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay... and Democrats are the exact opposite. They identify a new victim group every 5 minutes for us to throw federal tax dollars at to get them more votes.

I'd rather a Federal Tax Dollar go to feeding an American than bombing a Muslim. Apparently I am a bad person.

[Kellhound]

And the most laughable part of all this is that Republicans/Conservatives opposed the creation of all the New Deal parks in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



Interstates are deemed essential.

Interstates exist for national defense, thus they are essential.

[frumper]

And the most laughable part of all this is that Republicans/Conservatives opposed the creation of all the New Deal parks in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



Interstates are deemed essential.

You've got to be extremely partisan to think it makes any sense to put up barriers to public spaces not even inside the national park because they can see the monument. There is no maintenance, no litter, no costs, no oversight, no staff, no expenses that these incur.

[Bridgetjones]

Okay... and Democrats are the exact opposite. They identify a new victim group every 5 minutes for us to throw federal tax dollars at to get them more votes.

Force these people to come to an agreement. If the ONLY option is compromise, then we'll see what happens. Allowing this divide to grow larger will only mean the ending of our government. The people will only live with dysfunction for so long.

Do you have an example of your first accusation that's emblematic of either creating new "victim groups" or giving them money?

Also, there will not be any agreement on the horizon. The Republicans will lose. They overplayed their hand, there's only one of dozens of polls remotely in their favor. The party is in civil war of their own making, and the Democrats are rock-solid. Demographic trends are going against them. This is their Alamo. What you're seeing is not so much a "divide growing larger" as it is a last gasp of desperation for a party that has outlived its purpose and needs to restructure. The Republican party will always be around, but this current unholy alliance of billionaires, big business, and big religion is eating itself alive. The social conservatives are desperate. The libertarians are making their power plays. The establishment has lost control of its factions. It's a shitshow.

So I'm not expecting compromise, I'm expecting suicide.

[Spraxle]

It's funny that in a government shut down the only things that get shut down are the things WE THE PEOPLE have access to. What has actually shut down? Parks, museums, etc. Nothing has closed that would actually save the government money. If they wanted to save some money they'd shut down the drone program, close DARPA and their monster laboratory, stop sending money to Jihadist militant groups in Syria, and the list goes on. But nope, gotta make it so people can't see the things their tax payer money pays for.

[Bridgetjones]

You've got to be extremely partisan to think it makes any sense to put up barriers to public spaces not even inside the national park because they can see the monument. There is no maintenance, no litter, no costs, no oversight, no staff, no expenses that these incur.

That's true of some parks, but it's not true of most monuments.

You have to be extremely partisan to shut down the government and then complain about inconvenienced tourists. If it's such a big hairy deal, just fund the government. The votes are there, just bring it to a vote. Not hard.

[mizeri]

so did they hire security to make sure no one is getting inside

[Bridgetjones]

LOL, expecting, rather you are hoping. Reading your all's posts is like reading "this is why I'm a Democrat". And you have the nerve to call other people extremists. Nothing new to see here. Bye.

I'm sure my posts do read that way since I'm describing all the reasons Republicans keep giving the American people to not vote for them.

I would gladly move to Canada or England or France or Scandinavia, but law is a terrible profession when moving abroad. I should have stuck with engineering.

[frumper]

That's true of some parks, but it's not true of most monuments.

You have to be extremely partisan to shut down the government and then complain about inconvenienced tourists. If it's such a big hairy deal, just fund the government. The votes are there, just bring it to a vote. Not hard.

You're right about being partisan to shut down the government. I never argued that they should or it was a good idea. Step out of your political box and stop being so partisan. It's not good for America to shut down the government anymore than its good for America to go out of your way to create work during the shutdown to prevent the non-spending of money. I can totally understand locking gates and not manning the ticket booths, that at least prevents the spending of federal dollars.

[PoisonousIvy]

I'm sorry but I'll be forced into an existential crisis if a Government official says I can't walk on whatever part of God's earth I'm so inclined to walk on.

[frumper]

I'm sorry but I'll be forced into an existential crisis if a Government official says I can't walk on whatever part of God's earth I'm so inclined to walk on.

Yea, I'd do the American, turn on my hazards and park, pop the hood and take some photos of the beautiful place so I can remember where my car needed a break.

[Bridgetjones]

You're right about being partisan to shut down the government. I never argued that they should or it was a good idea. Step out of your political box and stop being so partisan. It's not good for America to shut down the government anymore than its good for America to go out of your way to create work during the shutdown to prevent the non-spending of money. I can totally understand locking gates and not manning the ticket booths, that at least prevents the spending of federal dollars.

Well, there's definitely a political element to the parks. Like I mentioned earlier, the closing of parks is the least popular/tolerable element of a shutdown per opinion polling. Closing them ALL and going above and beyond to make them inaccessible as a symbol of shutdown is the political path to ending the shutdown sooner. It's demoralizing; people hate it. It's a national embarrassment. Gutting ACA was never an option, so the strategy is to twist their arm until they give in and fund the government. That will happen long before ACA disappears in exchange for nothing.

[ptwonline]

Why would you be explaining those reasons unless you had an interest in seeing people not vote for them? I'm not even talking about votes here, I'm talking about enacting legislation that forces the government to compromise on a budget rather than pass a CR. If you can't agree with that, then you have failed the litmus test for keeping your ideology from blinding you from what's actually good for the country.

But let's deflect with more arguments about why you think Democrats are inherently good and Republicans are inherently evil.

The problem is that you are attacking the problem at the wrong level. The problem is the TYPE of people and how they got there. Trying to force them to agree at that stage isn't going to accomplish anything.

The problem is how these people get nominated and elected. Between gerrymandering and all of the money in politics now everything is distorted, and you're getting candidates who are more and more extreme representing more and more extreme views instead of more moderate views. THAT problem has to be fixed first, otherwise no forced solution process is ever going to accomplish anything.

[ptwonline]

And as long as people spew hyperbole, they will have an excuse for not focusing on the actual problem.

Oh come on, admit it: the Tea Party are idealogues and not truly interesting in governing. They even say it themselves when they talk about how they were sent to Washington to accomplish A and B, and are so happy to shut the whole thing down when they can't get it.

- - - Updated - - -

What a very Democrat-friendly way to look at it. First we need to remove anyone from office that doesn't agree with me, then I'll compromise (snicker).

Why is that a "Democrat" thing to say? After all, the way that gerrymandering works for Republicans is to make Demcorat districts even MORE extreme by pushing as many Dems in there as they can, so that the Repubs can win the other districts. And it's not like Democrats don't get money in politics.

Oh yeah, now I remember: because Democrats don't elect anyone with anything close to that kind of idealogicial attitude with no actual interest in governing.

[Bridgetjones]

Why would you be explaining those reasons unless you had an interest in seeing people not vote for them? I'm not even talking about votes here, I'm talking about enacting legislation that forces the government to compromise on a budget rather than pass a CR. If you can't agree with that, then you have failed the litmus test for keeping your ideology from blinding you from what's actually good for the country.

But let's deflect with more arguments about why you think Democrats are inherently good and Republicans are inherently evil.

I don't get it. A compromise budget can't get passed, so you think the same legislators should write a law forcing them to pass a compromise budget they can't pass? You'll have to explain how that would work.

I would very much like to see a congress that's capable of passing a budget. We are long since past that point. In fact, I would argue that statements like "we need to just pass a budget instead of relying on a CR" expose ignorance of the current situation, how it came about, and what it means for the future. The last budget was passed in 2009, and that is the budget that has been continued under the CRs for the past 4 years.

Both parties have an interest in keeping the current budget in place. To pass a compromise budget, Republicans would have to break a boatload of campaign promises regarding austerity and entitlements, and moderate and establishment Rs would face punitive primaries. Democrats, in turn, get to keep their full-control budget from the solid-blue 2009.

Basically what I'm saying is that there's literally no point in even discussing the passing of a budget because it is impossible. We may as well talk about Martians.

[ptwonline]

I don't get it. A compromise budget can't get passed, so you think the same legislators should write a law forcing them to pass a compromise budget they can't pass? You'll have to explain how that would work.

I would very much like to see a congress that's capable of passing a budget. We are long since past that point. In fact, I would argue that statements like "we need to just pass a budget instead of relying on a CR" expose ignorance of the current situation, how it came about, and what it means for the future. The last budget was passed in 2009, and that is the budget that has been continued under the CRs for the past 4 years.

Both parties have an interest in keeping the current budget in place. To pass a compromise budget, Republicans would have to break a boatload of campaign promises regarding austerity and entitlements, and moderate and establishment Rs would face punitive primaries. Democrats, in turn, get to keep their full-control budget from the solid-blue 2009.

Basically what I'm saying is that there's literally no point in even discussing the passing of a budget because it is impossible. We may as well talk about Martians.

He seems to miss the obvious point: that a CR is actually a compromise because it is a continuation of a previous agreement when you can't come to a new agreement.

[Kalis]

Perhaps they are blocking the view because they are carving another president's face into it.

I think Obama deserves it.