Due to the government shutdown

1. 54

   AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago

   Due to the government shutdown, we had to pay people to make new websites telling you that we can't afford to run our websites. The new websites are using the same already-paid-for domains and already-paid-for hosting that the old websites were using, but we still can't keep them up because we need you to know how bad the world would be without government.
   
   Due to the government shutdown, we couldn't afford to pay for the minimal staffing needs of national monuments and parks. This forced us to send people to erect barricades and stand guard to make sure nobody enters the areas that we don't have enough people to keep operational... because they are too busy guarding the closed areas.
   
   Due to the government shutdown, we had to send people to erect barricades around statues that are open air and available to the public 24/7 without any staff. We also had to leave guards to keep people out.
   
   Due to the government shutdown, we tried to close private attractions, run by private individuals, and private funds.
   
   Due to the government shutdown, we have been forced to close 'nature'. Please stay tuned and we will let you know when 'nature' opens again.
   
   This is ridiculous, most of it is pure theater, politicians trying to make things more painful to the public than they need to be. These are enemies.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I hear there were some bears at a natl park, that had to be put on furlough because of the govt shutdown.

      replyreport
2. 54

   AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago

   Haha, even better.
   
   Due to the government shutdown, Obama has told us that it would be wrong for a worker to shut down a manufacturing plant unless he gets his demands met.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And here I thought it was only the stereotype of a Repub that hated unions!

      replyreport
3. 54

   AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago

   Due to the government shutdown, there aren't enough Park Rangers to patrol the Blue Ridge Parkway, so the government is forced to send 2 Park Rangers to stand around all day blocking off the entrance to an inn that is on the Blue Ridge Parkway(which is open).

   replyreport
4. 54

   AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago

   I defy anybody to state Obama is being reasonable in this. The parkway is open, but because of funding, rangers are sent to block off the entrance to a private business?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If only the Republicans would stop breaking the law by opposing the ACA, then there would be no shutdown.
      
      It's already been passed into law. Shutting down the government to try to delay it is just a childish temper tantrum. "Poor people should just die in a ditch if they're sick! Why won't they just die already?! Waaahhhhh!!"

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Which law did the Republicans break, if you don't mind?
         
         The one that requires they provide a budget for the country?  That they followed and accomplished?  Is that the law you refer to?
         
         Who shut down the govt?  The people (R's) that proposed a budget to run it or the (D's), having a tantrum because it wasn't as much as they wanted?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Do you really want the government to operate in this manner?  If the Dems cave, then it will happen again.  Supposedly, this "tactic" was to force the defunding of Obamacare.  Well, golly gee, it's moving forward anyway.  Now, the Repubs are not even mentioning Obamacare and desperately trying to find some way to save face.  Stupid.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Do you really want the government to operate in this manner?  For the Senate to control what the house does?  Or for the President to order the house to produce a budget according to his dictates?
               
               We have a three branch government for a reason; reducing it to two or even one does not seem productive.
               
               No reason to mention Obamacare - they did their job and funded the government.  The Senate and President don't like the budget; let them make their own and submit it to the House for consideration.  That's how the system works, not to simply shut down 'cause they don't like the budget provided them.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I want them to be rational.  It is not rational to hold up a continuing budget resolution (you know, a resolution to continue the government as is without policy changes) by trying to blackmail the opposing party (and members of their own, by the way) into agreeing to defund a law (not a bill) that was enacted over three years ago and has been subject to many failed attempts at repeal as well as appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was upheld.  It is not only not rational, it harms the economy, hurts our people, and damages our reputation around the world.
                  
                  It is a childish, short-sighted, and STUPID way to conduct the people's business.  No, the Democrats should not agree to such a thing; when they made concessions in 2011 during the debt ceiling fiasco it only emboldened the selfish ideologues. 
                  
                  Government by crisis must stop, and that means not letting the instigators of this bull$hi| have their way.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     They did not hold up a budget resolution - they provided one just as they were supposed to.
                     
                     It just didn't satisfy the Dem's or Obama.  But what you actually mean is that you want them to be rational, with rational being defined as whatever the Dem's want to see.  That IS why we have three branches, you know - as a check and balance system.
                     
                     Can you explain how not spending more govt. money harms the economy, hurts the people OR damages our reputation?  Without, that is, the idiocy of the Dem's shutting down the government?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        A continuing resolution is, by definition, a resolution to continue funding the government at existing levels without policy changes.  It is used when the Senate and House cannot agree on a budget.
                        
                        Checks and balances occur using normal legislative procedures as outlined in the Constitution.
                        
                        So, you are fine with a legislative process where the House and the Senate cannot agree on a budget, so instead of enacting a CR to continue to fund the government at existing levels without policy changes, which is its purpose, they use the CR to demand what they could not get in the lawful legislative process?
                        
                        Really?  Why have a legislative process to begin with?  If the Dems give in, this will happen every year.  Oh, wait, it almost has happened every year since the Tea Party patriots (I use that word sarcastically) were voted into Congress.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Seems that's what happened; current levels were continued.  Obama and the Dems wanted a huge increase to take care of their new project, didn't get it and threw a hissy fit, shutting down the country.
                           
                           Actually, I think this is a pathetic way to cancel out a program.  Almost as pathetic as the blackmail shutting everything down.  Both sides are behaving in a pitiful, childish manner, unworthy of the offices they hold.  Including the President of the greatest country on earth, throwing a temper tantrum and intentionally harming everyone he can reach.  By stupidly closing things that produce income and are not funded at all.  By violating government contracts with leaseholders. 
                           
                           If this is the best our legislators can do, every single one needs thrown out on their arse and never allowed in that town again.

                           replyreport
5. 54

   AnalogousMethodposted 10 years ago

   Due to the government shutdown, the AmberAlerts website has been closed. This is because we are too busy paying people to put up traffic cones, barricades, blocking off private businesses, standing guard at locations to keep people out, and posting on Twitter, to be able to operate the website.
   
   It's really sickening to see President "If we can save just one child" Obama shut down AmberAlerts.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's odd, because I just went to the website and it is operating just fine. Whose talking point are you parroting?
      
      www.amberalert.com

      replyreport
      1. 54

         AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         amberalert.gov is shutdown. Amberalert.com is a private company that works with the DoJ. The DoJ is in charge of coordinating the program, and without them the program won't function correctly.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Really?  It's working for me.
            
            www.amberalert.gov

            replyreport
         2. 54

            AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Looks like they brought it back up, they probably didn't like the news outlets all reporting on it.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Uh huh.

               replyreport
               1. 54

                  AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, keep your head in the sand.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Hahahhaha
                     
                     So many talking points, so little truth....

                     replyreport
                     1. 54

                        AnalogousMethodposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        So you don't believe the website was taken down yesterday?

                        replyreport
6. 61

   freecampingaussieposted 10 years ago

   We are on holiday over here and was planning on visiting Yellowstone NP- Grand Canyon etc. Will be staying in Canada until they open . I hope it is soon while we are still here . More concerned for those not being paid tho .

   replyreport