Congressman Confronts Park Ranger

[Andara Bledin]

AB, you better watch your self you just might loose that Commissar status and wind up in a re-education camp!!!

Hey, Gk, looks like I'm some official for a party I'm not even a member of!

Wonder if it comes with any perks... >_>

[ngc_7331]

...Still not sure if serious or some sort of bizarre performance art.

I'm hoping performance art because I'm not sure if my faith in humanity can take another hit like this without having to jettison its warp core.

[s_stabeler]

wow... yeah, I'm guessing we have a member gone troll here... only thing that makes sense. GT Obvamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing it's juts the Republican Only-care-about-the-rich brigade wanted to tie it to Obama to make it see more political than it was.

[Barracuda]

Baracuda, could you be so kind as to explain how saying "this law was passed by both houses, signed into law, challenged in the supreme court and found to be constitutional, and then still discussed and voted on 40 times after that with the same outcome every time, it's time to stop beatingthis dead horse and move on" being so unreasonable?

At one time, slavery was established law and had survived Supreme Court challenges. So was "separate but equal" (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) Just because a law is legally passed and survives Constitutional review does not mean it is a good law, a fair law, or a just law. It is the right of any American to speak up against and oppose any law they find immoral or unjust. It is the duty of any engaged voter to vote their conscience and support representatives for office that will do the same. "Majority rules" is not the only way it works in the United States. The minority's opinions and rights are represented in Congress and government as well. You cannot tell me you've never found yourself on the opposite side of the equation, supporting people who oppose an established law that has passed court review and are willing to fight it any way they can within the system. Frankly, I find it absurd to insinuate people should be disallowed from participation in the political process simply because you believe they're wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

[ngc_7331]

Wait, wait, wait. You're seriously equating people like me being able to get coverage (I have several pre-existing conditions) without getting screwed to slavery? Really? That's your argument?

[s_stabeler]

Barracuda... While you have a point, there is a time and a place for opposing a law. That is either in congress, bu putting forth an attempt to repeal said law. Or at the ballot box, in trying to elect somebody who will repeal said law. It is NOT reasonable to hold the entire government to ransom over a law that, when stripped of various bullshit surrounding it ( like when it is called by it's actual name, the Affordable Care Act) actually does enjoy public support. In short, yes, the rights and opinions of the minority are allowed and respected in congress. That does not mean that said minority's rights are more important than those of the majority, with the sole exception of fundamental rights. In short, feel free to oppose the ACA. However shutting down the entire government over it, something that has happened extremely rarely? smacks of saying "well, if I can't get my way, nobody can have anything"

Not to mention, 70% of the american public OPPOSE the shutdown. Your poijt oif view means that hte opinion of the 24% who actually back the shutdown are more important than the rest?

[Nyoibo]

Wanted to chime in when I had a computer, but not happening for a while, barracuda, at least one of those stories you posted is false, I haven't been able to check the others for veracity, but catholic priests in the military have not been forced, or warned, or anything else about holding services.

[Hyena Dandy]

Wanted to chime in when I had a computer, but not happening for a while, barracuda, at least one of those stories you posted is false, I haven't been able to check the others for veracity, but catholic priests in the military have not been forced, or warned, or anything else about holding services.

Some of them are true. People being forced to leave their homes is true, because those homes are legally required to be vacation homes. People maintaining parks with private funds, okay, that's fine... But those are still being operated through the NPS. The NPS has suspended practically all of their stuff. Those actually WERE shut down under the Gingrich shutdowns (Whether they were shut down under Tip O'Neill is going to be iffy. Those first five of 12 definitely didn't, the remaining seven lasted at most three days, and most fewer than that.)

(To classify the five shutdowns between 1976 and 1980 as shutdowns the way we see them today is really a misnomer. It wasn't until 1980 that the Justice Department issued an opinion stating that the shutdowns needed to close ALL operation. Additionally, the shutdowns through the '80s when Tip O'Neill was speaker are hardly comparable. All together, those seven lasted a total of 13 days. None of them were similar stark divides to this. Most were resolved by the next day, or were weekend shutdowns resolved by Monday. The longest was three days.

My dad is in the park service. He's not a major person, but he's not minor, either. He runs transportation in the northeast. I talked to him about it, and, at least with the state parks shutting down and people being forced off their land, that either happened or was supposed to happen in those 26 days in the '90s as well. I actually lived in a historical park at the time. I can tell you that we did have to leave our home due to the shutdown.

Yes, the federal land that surrounds Mount Rushmore is closed. That's kind of what happens when the government shuts down. You're not allowed on Federal land, unless it's an emergency related to human life or the destruction of property. Mount Rushmore, the WWII memorial, are beautiful, important parts of our nation's history and culture. However, I'm yet to hear anyone explain why someone would die if they can't go there. I don't know why it seems to shock people that when the government shuts down, it actually, you know, stops doing things.

[Gravekeeper]

At one time, slavery was established law and had survived Supreme Court challenges. So was "separate but equal" (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) Just because a law is legally passed and survives Constitutional review does not mean it is a good law, a fair law, or a just law.

As a Canadian with universal healthcare, I find this analogy fucking absurd and genuinely worry about the ignorance you have on display here. We're taking about health care coverage here. Not fucking slavery. Health care coverage is not "immoral" or "unjust'. The fact that you support the economic destruction of your own country over 25 million people getting health care is apaling and grossly negligent.

The very core function of democracy rests on everyone involved being able to accept the outcome whether they agree with it or not.

ACA has gone through every check and balance the American legal system offers and it still stands. It has survived some odd 40 attempts to repeal or defund it which have done nothing but waste time and tax payer money so a bunch of assholes can grandstand. Even the GOP acknowledges they have to stop it now because if it goes into effect it will be too popular to repeal.

So don't give me this bullshit and take off the fucking Gorn mask.

/rant

[smileyeagle1021]

You cannot tell me you've never found yourself on the opposite side of the equation, supporting people who oppose an established law that has passed court review and are willing to fight it any way they can within the system.

You are right, I cannot say that I've never found myself on the opposite side of the equation... hell, I am on the opposite side of the equation when it comes to LGBT equality. And you know what I do about it? Everything within the system. I write my representatives, I voice my opinions in public forums, I have even gone door to door talking to neighbors to try to convince them to support changing the discriminatory laws against LGBT persons in this country. I have friends who have participated in public protests. I have friends who donate money to legal groups that challenge discriminatory laws in the courts. You know what none of us has ever done? Shut down the government because we didn't get our way. We haven't even suggested to our representatives that they should force a shut down to get our way.
You think the ACA is a bad idea, fine, that is your right, and continuing to fight it is your right as well. At the same time, it is likewise the right for others to tell you that they think that you are being irrational. It is the right of your representatives to vote on the law as they feel best represents their constituents. You have the right to vote, to advocate to representatives, to advocate to neighbors. But, to say that shutting down the entire government, ruining people's livelihoods and destroying our international image is the right thing to do, while still your right to say it, is frankly absurd.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I shall go explain to my mother that as a participant in the civil rights movement that she is betraying everything she stood for fighting for all of her friends to have the same rights that she had by receiving health care.

[Daskinor]

1. Shut down private parks run entirely with private funds Park Shutdown

2. Tried to shut down STATE parks Wisconsin refuses to close state parks

3. Given orders for federal workers to, according to one Park Service employee, "make life as difficult for people as they can" Ranger quote

4. Threatened Catholic military chaplains with arrest if they minister to their troops during the shutdown Priests threatened with arrest

5. Ordered the closing off of 1,100 miles of ocean off Florida to fishing Fishing shutdown

6. Ordered not only the closing of Mt. Rushmore, but the blocking off of all scenic overlooks on roads (still open, by the way,) that can see the mountain Scenic land closure photo

7. Evicted people, including senior citizens, from their private owned homes on federal land with only 1 day's notice Lake Mead Owners Forced Out

1. Article is inaccurate, the government does pay for the land upkeep of the area. http://1771.org/?page_id=667 Scroll down to A Public/Private Partnership

2. Reading comprenhention fail. Federal Parks are Closed, State are open. Accept for the ones that are joint funded. Once again its the federal government is paying for it. Since its not they ordered it closed.

3. Quote is taken out of context and not presented whole. Especially since the whole article was talking about how difficult it is to close a monument when some are very easy to access.

4 . More reading comprehension fail. Military Chaplains are not affected, its the civilian priests they contract out. Its not illegal for them to minister, its illegal for them to be on a base without an escort. The escorts have been furloughed. And no, not anyone can escort, you need a special DoD badge.

5. Once again, federal land. People can still boat over the area, just cant get a fishing permit to fish. Same issue is going on in the bearing sea. No fish and wild life people are getting paid to draw up the quota numbers. So no 'deadliest catch' this year if it goes on much longer. Plus the coast guard needs to inspect commercial ships before these permits can be issued. So guess what else is not being done.

6. The roads rest on federal land, and are technically part of the park where the monument sits. Technically, the federal government could of shut those down too. Plus the state police in the area did not want people stopping for periods of time on the side of the road.

7. The lease terms of the property are three fold. They are considered vacation property, you must own another house somewhere else and they are only allowed to stay in the home when the park is open. Park closed they need to leave. The owners signed paperwork to this effect. Hotels on federal land, the owners signed agreements to that effect. This old lady is violating the terms of her agreement. And technically they do not own the property, they own a lease.

And that info is in the linked article.


This is not vindictive stuff the Obama thinks up with a Mr. Burns finger gesture. Its spin that republicans are trying to use to make it seem like they are not being the assholes.

[Barracuda]

Healthcare itself may not be immoral or unjust, but healthcare forced upon people at the barrel of a gun, IS. If the government can force us to buy healthcare, the government can force us to buy ANYTHING. What's next? Requirement for Americans to purchase war bonds? To purchase certain goods since it's "good for the economy"? Maybe we should all be required to have savings or checking accounts at certain banks. You know, because they're too big to fail. Never before has the government claimed that its power to regulate interstate commerce allows it to compel citizens to take part in commerce. Where does it end? And are you really blind enough to history and to reality to think that there will NEVER be a politician or a President who will let that happen or get behind it and push? This country is already drowning in debt. Where is the money for "free healthcare" going to come from? Is "free" healthcare really worth collapsing the economy and bringing the national debt house of cards tumbling down? I have a pre-existing condition myself, diabetes. But I think forcing all of us, including those who don't need it, to buy healthcare so they subsidize those of us who are already sick is immoral and unjust. Not to mention the moral quandaries in FORCING Americans to financially support things like abortion regardless of their personal views on it. And quite frankly, if you are going to say something I posted is "false", you need to do your due diligence. Kindly post links to back up your claim.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, god. Not another ill-thought-out, nonsensical, paranoid slippery slope argument.

God forbid this country should join the twenty-first fucking century and do something about our astronomical health care costs that result in most of the poor not getting care at all until their ailments are so great that they cost the state millions instead of thousands.

Do you have any idea how much money this is going to save everybody, particularly businesses?

[Gravekeeper]

Oh my god, we're in full on "Gay marriage = Turtle fucking" territory.

Do you not know how your own farking government operates? ACA went right up to the supreme court and was ruled constitutional. Just because one thing you don't like went up to the supreme court and didn't go your way doesn't mean that anyone can just pass anything now no matter how absurd.

You're the only first world country without universal healthcare. You have the highest medical costs and the worst patient outcomes vs the money you spend. You have not had any major reform to this terrible system since 1965.

This country is already drowning in debt. Where is the money for "free healthcare" going to come from?

Half of the point of ACA is to REDUCE costs for both people and the government. The Congressional Budget Office projected it will lower future deficits and Medicare spending. Do an *ounce* of research.

Not to mention the moral quandaries in FORCING Americans to financially support things like abortion regardless of their personal views on it.

As opposed to all the other horrible shit your taxes fund that you're perfectly okay with? Whether or not an insurance plan on the exchange is permitted to cover abortion is actually up to individual states and from there, up to the private insurance companies practicing that free market thing you like so much.

Even ignoring that, the Lozier Institute ( a big pro-lifer lot ) estimates 71,000 to 111.500 abortions could possible end up being subsided indirectly with federal funding. AKA people who recieve said medical tax credits may CHOOSE, har har, to get a plan that covers abortion in a state that allows such plans.

81.9% of Americans pay either income tax or payroll tax. The US population is 313.9 million. So 257,084,100 are paying into Federal tax in one way or another. The median cost of an abortion is $470. So, assuming the highest estimate of 111,500 per year and spreading that cost around everyone paying income tax or payroll tax....

The amount of "funding" you might individually provide for abortion is 0.209 of a cent per year. Conversely, 10.26% of your federal income tax is going to shooting brown people in other countries and 7.62% is going to developing new types of weapons to better shoot brown people with.

But that possible 0.2 of a cent is the one you have a moral objection too?

[Hyena Dandy]

As opposed to all the other horrible shit your taxes fund that you're perfectly okay with? Whether or not an insurance plan on the exchange is permitted to cover abortion is actually up to individual states and from there, up to the private insurance companies practicing that free market thing you like so much.

Even ignoring that, the Lozier Institute ( a big pro-lifer lot ) estimates 71,000 to 111.500 abortions could possible end up being subsided indirectly with federal funding. AKA people who recieve said medical tax credits may CHOOSE, har har, to get a plan that covers abortion in a state that allows such plans.

81.9% of Americans pay either income tax or payroll tax. The US population is 313.9 million. So 257,084,100 are paying into Federal tax in one way or another. The median cost of an abortion is $470. So, assuming the highest estimate of 111,500 per year and spreading that cost around everyone paying income tax or payroll tax....

The amount of "funding" you might individually provide for abortion is 0.209 of a cent per year. Conversely, 10.26% of your federal income tax is going to shooting brown people in other countries and 7.62% is going to developing new types of weapons to better shoot brown people with.

But that possible 0.2 of a cent is the one you have a moral objection too?

While I agree with your sentiment, GK, that's not actually what Barracuda is referring to. The Affordable Care Act is not a government-run healthcare system like what Canada has. What Barracuda is referring to is not taxpayer funded healthcare, but rather, the fact that it requires employers to provide insurance, and the insurance might cover abortions. Therefore, this is being portrayed as "Forcing people to fund abortions."