Slashdot Mirror


National Parks Face Years of Damage From Government Shutdown (nationalgeographic.com)

When the government eventually reopens, park experts warn reversing damage won't be as easy as throwing out the trash. From a report: National parks are America's public lands, but right now they're America's trashcans. That's because the U.S. federal government, embattled over funding for a border wall, has shut down, leaving national parks open and largely unattended. Since the shutdown began, brimming trashcans, overflowing toilets, and trespassing has been reported at many parks locations. "Never before have I seen the federal government tempt fate in national parks the way we are today," says Diane Regas, president of the Trust for Public Land. "It's not about what has happened already. It's about what could happen if you don't have the appropriate staffing."

According to the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), staffing varies by park, but some 16,000 parks service employees are furloughed, leaving a small number active for policing and security. The government shut down three times in 2018, but only three days last January and less than a day that following February. As of Friday, the government had been partially shut down for 13 days.
Further reading: Government Shutdown is Putting a Damper on Science in Seattle and Elsewhere.

654 comments

  1. What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd expect something like this out of a third-world nation, not a world-leader.
    How quickly you've fallen from your world power high in the mid 1970s.
    SAD. But a few Boomers got rich so FUCK YEAH!!!

    1. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The US has not been a world leader in anything but military for quite some years now.

    2. Re:What a shithole country! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's see Bollywood or China make something on the order of "Avengers: Endgame". USA still dominates world culture in a big way.

    3. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yippee

    4. Re:What a shithole country! by Roodvlees · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you miss the mass murder of innocent civilians?
      Don't worry, 90% of the people murdered by drone strikes are not even the intended target.
      https://theintercept.com/drone...
      Forget whether the intended target is guilty of anything.
      So the US military is still profitable for the bomb producers who control them.
      We know it's not to stop terrorism.
      Because that problem has only gotten worse since the "war on terror".
      If the US wanted to stop terrorism, they'd stop funding it.
      Even Trump restarted funding for ISIS.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    5. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that is what you call the pinnacle of American culture then we are in deeper shit than I thought. FYI, A lot of that movie was NOT made in the USA by the way with a lot filmed in the UK.

    6. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm?
      You consider a movie based on a comic to be the pinnacle of world culture?
      The world politely disagrees.

      Go home, USA, and come back once your Mahabharata is complete.
      Bob Dylan winning the Nobel prize for literature does not count.

    7. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ki-yay motherfucker

    8. Re:What a shithole country! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1, Informative

      You are assuming that they want to produce some unwatchable garbage. But then - "Crouching Tiger - Hidden Dragon" came pretty close.

      My next question would be: what was the last chinese or indian movie you saw?

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then stop blowing up buildings and people.

    10. Re:What a shithole country! by stealth_finger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see Bollywood or China make something on the order of "Avengers: Endgame". USA still dominates world culture in a big way.

      The fact the biggest and 'best' movies coming out of hollywood are comic book superhero bland cgi fests says it all really.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    11. Re:What a shithole country! by mcvos · · Score: 0

      comic book superhero bland cgi fests

      Comic book, superhero and cgi, yes. But bland? Not really.

    12. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now. This wall-debacle is just a ruse to demonstrate the power of right-sized government to the public. The evidence is clearly piling up.

    13. Re:What a shithole country! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Some people see monster trucks and NASCAR as art, too.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:What a shithole country! by mcvos · · Score: 2

      I don't, but they're not bland either.

    15. Re:What a shithole country! by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      comic book superhero bland cgi fests

      Comic book, superhero and cgi, yes. But bland? Not really.

      Bland? Yes. There are no stakes, no threat of anything actually changing. So half the people died in endgame, pretty fucking ballsy move on their part but how many of those are coming back? Marvels problem is they refuse to let anyone actually die and there's never any real possibility of the good guys actually losing unless it's to set up a bigger win later on.

      Unless you mean visually in which case they are quite impressive but there are only so many times you can watch cgi army a fight cgi army b before it gets boring.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like national parks. I play golf where the deer congregate and I always replace my divots - I keep everything clean and unspoiled for the next golfer. Oh why do you waste your time with this people ask? I say what is it to you what I do with my time? Hmmmm?

    17. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who gets to decide whether "something bad" happened ?

    18. Re: What a shithole country! by jd · · Score: 1

      In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned. Heaven sought order. But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown.

      A story to rival that of India's great epic. And, yes, there's no question it is a great epic. I've not finished reading, some parts are hard going. Then I've the great epics of Finland, Saxon Britain, Sumer and Greece to go.

      The Irish and Welsh opted for collections of short stories. Good but not epics.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:What a shithole country! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      A whole new government department! Will need about twice as many employees as all those laid off...

      That's usually how it works.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re:What a shithole country! by Bobrick · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure OP was joking. If not, then it's even funnier.

    21. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the bears get hungry enough to forage on Trotsky-slut warmists polluting National Parks with their LLBean fabrics then ... only then will I demand ... a longer Gub'mnt shut-down ! I mean ... bitch .... the land unpolluted by Demorat-pimped nibbers and beaners and wogs makes the parks ... a park does not make the land.

    22. Re: What a shithole country! by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, it wasn't strictly a Chinese show, although it was a Chinese story, or strictly a movie, but NBC/BBC's production of Monkey has no equals.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re: What a shithole country! by jd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know. I don't eat trucks, too metallic. I know some guys do.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? Thats like claiming the japs invented nukes because thats where the bombs dropped.

    25. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Federal government employees not getting paid will qualify as something bad. Nothing will be shut down permanently.

    26. Re: What a shithole country! by sheramil · · Score: 1

      In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned. Heaven sought order. But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown.

      A story to rival that of India's great epic. And, yes, there's no question it is a great epic. I've not finished reading, some parts are hard going.

      Or... you could just watch the TV version.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

      "It is a far, far better thing that I do now.. than YOU ever did."

      - Monkey (Great Sage Equal of Heaven)

    27. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comic book superhero bland cgi fests

      Comic book, superhero and cgi, yes. But bland? Not really.

      Bland? Yes. There are no stakes, no threat of anything actually changing. So half the people died in [Infinity War], pretty fucking ballsy move on their part but how many of those are coming back?

      Killing half of the population of the universe is the storyline of the Infinity Gauntlet comic. There's nothing ballsy about a book-to-movie conversion. And nothing wimpy about bringing people back if it's part of the book-to-movie conversion. The ballsy thing would be for the "bringing people back" to accidentally create more heroes and villains for the MCU or actually use some of the television characters.

    28. Re: What a shithole country! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Well, they certainly look spicy, with all those flames and spiky bits.

    29. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Europeans did give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, after all. It was his drone strikes. And only leftists in the US are protesting Trump's withdrawal from Syria. So you can't be too surprised if I, as an American, don't think much of Europe's and leftists opinions on war and peace.

    30. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who decides? The voters through their elected representatives in Congress and the President. HA! Joke's on us!

    31. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that problem has only gotten worse since the "war on terror".

      You got that cart and horse backwards, Sparky.

    32. Re:What a shithole country! by DogDude · · Score: 1

      What does a superhero movie have to do with culture?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    33. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What does The Iliad and The Odyssey have to do with culture?

    34. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the smug douchebag who wants to feel superior to those around him

    35. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't, but they're not bland either.

      Except monster trucks are so 80s and some of us were over the 80s, in the 80s

    36. Re:What a shithole country! by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      You mean like how they're probably going to use the rewrite of reality caused by the Infinity Gauntlet in conjuction with the Quantum Realm in the attempt to 'fix' what Thanos did to bring in the X-men and others to the MCU, as well as allowing them to eventually reboot Iron Man, Cap, and Thor in 5-10 years without outright retconning their previous characters?

    37. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about what's worth exporting. The post you replied to talks about what is exported. Hollywood funds and exports films all over the world, regardless of whether you like them or not.

    38. Re:What a shithole country! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Weak argument.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    39. Re:What a shithole country! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Another good question would be: What the simple fuck does this have to do with the goddam topic?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    40. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm?
      You consider a movie based on a comic to be the pinnacle of world culture?
      The world politely disagrees.

      Go home, USA, and come back once your Mahabharata is complete.
      Bob Dylan winning the Nobel prize for literature does not count.

      No where does the GP say "pinnacle" or "best". They are simply illustrating the popularity of certain IPs that are prevalent today.

      And it's nice that you're citing a work of art that was written a few thousand years ago, but what cultural artifacts has India produced lately? The US is "only" two hundred years old after all. Perhaps T. S. Eliot would be a better example, or one of these folks:

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_male_poets
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_women_poets

    41. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think a country that takes it's Article IV Section 4 of its Constitution seriously is a $hithole country? Go live in California, with the excess obviously illegal alien illiterates who can't even speak SPANISH properly in a literate and academic level of correctness. Illegal aliens fleeing from and in some cases battling the US Border Patrol (they aren't "just rocks" being thrown) frequently reported on San Diego County news stations. Real US citizen lives at risk, due to in many cases repeat crimes as far north as Northern California by repeat offenders, repeat illegal aliens... as severe as murders and rapes.

      Can't just wall off the California/Mexico border... look at the other US states near Baja California and then the entire Mexico country near Texas. Boats can be used to breach across the Gulf of Mexico.

      Then, read Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Understand it. It's NOT OPTIONAL. GUARANTEE CLAUSE is a common summary. A wall is an effective barrier against Invasion and subsequent violence on Domestic US soil when the current border fence is both easily breached and insufficiently guarded. If Mexico can't outright pay for it, then yes we fund it with allocated tax dollars or other government allocated funds and then tax and tariff anything product of Mexico or made in Mexico to recover the funds allocated to build the wall.

      President Trump won. There is no nationwide popular vote where individual state votes sum to a nationwide total, even if the media insists on reporting such a sum. His Electoral College win means "build the wall" is a MANDATE of the American people. Democrats assume the not so passive role of The Enemy Within when they blockade the progress of building the wall.

    42. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My next question would be: what was the last chinese or indian movie you saw?

      2015's "i" is quite spectacular:

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byOw4AYd7-8

    43. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this available for purchase or streaming in US? I've been looking for a decent adaptation for years.

    44. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you can really suggest that the typical spiderman or other story really has the poetry of Homer.

    45. Re:What a shithole country! by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      What does a superhero movie have to do with culture?

      If you have to ask then you don't know what culture is....

      But, to spell it out... storytelling is a part of every culture, from cave drawings, to printed word, to moving pictures. Comics are just storytelling. So, yes, comic book movies are part of culture. Maybe you're thinking about high-culture or things of great cultural impact. I agree that most movies, comic based or otherwise, wouldn't fall into these categories. But they are included in the overall US culture.

    46. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the H Brothers, odds are the Chinese have financed the vast majority of big movies that you've seen.

    47. Re:What a shithole country! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Marvels problem is they refuse to let anyone actually die

      I will bet you a dollar that someone dies in the upcoming movie and that it will be the end of their participation in the cinematic universe, I'll bet you another dollar that I can guess who it is, and I'm only willing to put down 50c that a second character will reach their end as well.

      As for prior art on Marvel letting a character die and not bringing them back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    48. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you understand that NASCAR with its lack of brakes is actually more science than art. Sure there are people that just like the crashes but the nerds like the high speed precision that is required

    49. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comic book superhero bland cgi fests

      Comic book, superhero and cgi, yes. But bland? Not really.

      There are no stakes, no threat of anything actually changing.

      So like every other movie that's been made. There are only two kinds of ending: One where nothing actually changes, the reset; the other where they kill off a main character or two at the end, the twist.

      Ballsy is what they did in the original Macross TV where they blew up the earth 2/3rds of the way through the series and people were picking up the pieces 2 years later. And actually pretty much every season afterwards where the new series was affected by what happened in the previous series.

    50. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash, Hollywood these days is largely funded by the Chinese

    51. Re:What a shithole country! by satsuke · · Score: 1

      You are assuming enough transparency and objective metrics to know what was working well in the first place.

      You are also assuming that it is better to let things fail than let them succeed.

      The opposite is true, those functions that continue to work well, despite and interuption are exactly those functions that worked well in the first place.

      Effectively you are suggesting to keep the stuff that is broken and shut down the stuff that works, which is a good enough metaphor for this administration as I've heard.

    52. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peggy Carter is pretty much worm food and Odin isn't coming back, except as maybe Ghosts

    53. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our country has faced years of damage from our porous border policies. I love our national park system but reducing economic and crime damage to the country as a whole is more important. Keep the govn closed until the wall is funded

    54. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Members of trump's cabinet are leftists?

    55. Re: What a shithole country! by reanjr · · Score: 1

      It's the pinnacle of cultural force. It's kind of sad that as the world globalizes everyone just becomes more American. Stand up for your own cultures, dammit! Stop rolling over and just letting us shove ours down your throats! Be creative, dammit!

    56. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we actually gave the Nobel to him because he was a black President. A landmark in the racially contested politics and life in general in the US history and a beginning of a new age towards more harmonious America. We now know what happened to that in terms of US local politics. I'm still not sure how a know nationalist would have promoted peace enough to merit a Peace Price on the international scene though. It would be nice to read the meeting minutes of the Nobel committee on that someday.

    57. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire point of the comment u responsed to is that the retaliation by the US is against the *wrong* people... they didn't start blowing up buildings

    58. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few GOP politicians (and voters) are against it too though... left of u doesn't equal being left.

    59. Re:What a shithole country! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Well you might ask that the gp as he brought up some superhero - let's call it - "stuff" as an example of "culture"...

      --
      bickerdyke
    60. Re:What a shithole country! by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Fuck the gp. It's your post. Own it.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    61. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's one good UK movie? Not just filmed there by Americans or Canadians. Written, Produced, Directed, Filmed and Acted?

      I am seriously asking.

    62. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you can really suggest that the typical spiderman or other story really has the poetry of Homer.

      Found the pretentious asshole who hasn't actually read Spider-man, Homer, the Epic of Gilgamesh or Campbell.

    63. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _Kung Fu Hustle_

    64. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donâ(TM)t you listen to your dear leader? california already has a wall. it was built in the 80s and all it does is keep the illegal immigrants in and provide yearly news reports about tunnels.

    65. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does a superhero movie have to do with culture?

      You think a billion dollars on a shared experience doesn't have anything to do with culture?

    66. Re:What a shithole country! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If that is what you call the pinnacle of American culture then we are in deeper shit than I thought.

      Then what do you consider the pinnacle of American culture? America is the king of pop, through and through.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    67. Re:What a shithole country! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason X-men sucks. Don't worry, Wolverine will be back after the next 'reboot'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    68. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the US does have the highest GDP and most influential culture in the world, as well.

    69. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what do you consider the pinnacle of American culture?

      Not him, but that is an interesting question.

      Culture is huge thing. It includes religion, cuisine, shared values and philosophies, folklore, etc.

      And the thing is there's just so much of each of those things you can find in America in such a large variety it is hard to pick any one thing as the pinnacle.

      But the fact there is so much diversity may be in itself the pinnacle: I say the pinnacle of American culture is the emphasis on freedom. It is this freedom that allows for people to explore life in their own way, resulting in this cornucopia of, well, stuff.

      America is the king of pop, through and through.

      America is the king of selling their own pop culture products outside. Other countries have their own pop cultures (their own folklore, their own values, etc). They just don't sell as much of it to the US or elsewhere (if they even bother).

      I don't think the importance or dominance of culture should be determined by who sells more. This focus on commercial success as one of if not the most important measurement is another aspect of American culture.

    70. Re:What a shithole country! by kualla · · Score: 1

      USA is no better than any other country when it comes to people that care about not littering their own land! Sad!!!

      Garbage full, just throw the trash on the ground, eh? So pathetic everyone blames problems on another person rather than themselves. We are not babies who are incapable of changing a dirty diaper, we are grown adults who are all capable of cleaning up after ourselves! If the garbage is full, be super kind and change the entire garbage out, or at the least, don't throw trash on the ground and litter mother nature!!!!!

      Sounds to me like people littering are those angry with Trump and decide they need to take out their anger with polluting the wilderness. If that's not the case, then clearly first-world citizens are nothing more than babies who are lucky to have someone clean up their shit messes!

    71. Re:What a shithole country! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Other countries have their own pop cultures (their own folklore, their own values, etc).

      Folklore and values largely are not pop culture. Pop culture is only aware of "right now," the latest sound, the latest CGI, the latest cause celebre. Values and folklore typically try to be more universal.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    72. Re:What a shithole country! by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhm? You consider a movie based on a comic to be the pinnacle of world culture?

      As a non-American, I'd consider the US entertainment industry including "Hollywood" to be a pinnacle of world culture. Yeah, there is trash coming out of there, but that's the case with everything. But there is a lot of creativity too, and a wide range of styles, opinions and influences. There is a certain snob belief among some elites, especially in Europe, that for something to be called "culture", it must be at least 300 years old (to be named "high culture", archeologists must have dug it out of the ground somewhere). Thats unjustified. Most new entertainment and news formats are pioneered in the US, be it movies, streaming video, "the golden age of TV", talk shows, late-night shows, SNL, cable news, heck, even presidential debates were invented there. How will this all be judged 300 years from now? Quite positively I think. These days even public latrines in ancient Rome are considered (quite plausibly) to be a major cultural achievement.

    73. Re:What a shithole country! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Ladykillers is a classic. Also several Hitchcock movies; he was British and began his career making British films. The modern American block buster super-budget films are a new phenomena and not really indicative of good cinema (popularity is not the same thing as quality).

      If you want 100% American movies, then Star Wars and Lord of the Rings movies won't count! The best movies out there will be from a mixture of countries.

    74. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Culture'

    75. Re:What a shithole country! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      The UK is a US territory.

    76. Re:What a shithole country! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Actually the comics are pretty large scale and entertaining writing. People who use words like "culture" too often generally spend far too much of their time enjoying the smell of their enlightened gaseous emanations. Films and books dedicated to these things tend to be filled with deep, meaningful, artistic, and downright boring.

      it's like Shakespeare, you can enjoy parsing it out, you can seem very impressive to those who haven't if you've done so and even more so if you memorize a few quotes, but ultimately it is all highly overrated with many sitcoms actually having better plots and many things without much of a plot at all actually being more entertaining.

      Mahabharata? Pfft, it is no wheel of time.

    77. Re: What a shithole country! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      It's just yet another variation of the same overdone story. Yes it is a good tale, there are thousands of those. I read superior fantasy novels all the time. Being foreign and old adds precisely zero points. I wouldn't rate that higher than "The Last Castle", "The Shawshank Redemption", or books like "The Wheel of Time", "The Sword of Truth", or the works of Tolkien. The list really could go on forever across multiple genres.

      There are great stories from many cultures. What I tend to find is that where most countries have 4-6 great old classics they overplay again and again the US has hundreds of films and books to rival them including superior productions of those same foreign tales. We've just produced a lot more media overall. The US isn't the BBC making things with Druids, Merlin, Sherlock, Doctor Who, and Robinhood over and over again. The US produces at least as many new stories which rival those with each passing year.

      It isn't that the plot of Avengers is the pinnacle of US culture in terms of story (though it is underrated) it is the current pinnacle globally in terms of overall production. It doesn't matter what the actual story is, the US production (which will exploit locations and talent globally) is capable of blowing away any foreign production.

      That's why all this non-anime subtitled garbage being funded by Netflix is so annoying. US produced and funded "subtitled foreign films" so that the tech immigrants can have content locally and intellectuals can feel enlightened, superior, and cultured. We are actually downgrading content so people who watch trash telenovelas, real housewives, goldengirls, and the Kardashians can pretend they are cultured and not consuming crap of the lower grade than Nascar.

    78. Re:What a shithole country! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Ummm monster trucks and nascar are definitely bland. Nascar has to be the most bland thing on the planet, it is even more boring than watching baseball. Hell, I'd venture nascar has got to even boring for the drivers.

    79. Re:What a shithole country! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      How is that bad? It's probably already paid for the stupid wall.

    80. Re:What a shithole country! by mcvos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've come to the conclusion that Iron Man and Captain America have reached the end of their arc and are getting in the way of new characters. I expected them both to die in Infinity War. That they didn't but everybody else did (including Spiderman and Black Panther, most notably) was clear evidence that all those deaths will be reversed, but I still think Iron Man and Captain American will be sacrificing their lives to make it happen.

    81. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With no right turns either, it is the flappy bird of motor racing...

    82. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the US is a UK colony.

    83. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got tyrants from capitalist psychopath CEO territory.
      Expect Lockout.

    84. Re:What a shithole country! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Ah, so I am not the only one who thought that crouching tiger hidden dragon was pretty meh for a wuxia.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    85. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam could easily be defeated through the internet without governments corrupting the people.
      Additionally the problems of migration only exist because government corruption (welfare in this case) pulls in the wrong kind of people.
      In the west religion declined as government did.
      Now governments are growing because of the wealth created while governments where small.
      As a result religion is growing as well, mostly in the form of intersectionality.

      Specifically on 9/11:
      Islamic terrorism follows a pattern; more muslims => more terrorism.
      Not with 9/11, so there's something special going on here.
      The US indicated to Saddam Hussain that they where fine with him invading Kuwait.
      Having enjoyed the support of the US in the war against Iran, where a million people died, he thought he could do it.
      Turns out no, Kuwait was a US ally and got the US to help them.
      Subsequently they implemented trade embargo's, supposedly to hurt Saddam, but that never works.
      These embargo's included chlorine, making it impossible for the Iraqi's to clean their water.
      So millions of people died puking their guts out due to horrible diseases, of which half a million children.
      Now who's more responsible for the actions of their rulers, children in a country run by a dictator? Or successful people in a democracy?
      The attacks on 9/11 where a thousand times more just than the embargo by the US again Iraq.

    86. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that everyone else has it's own culture to, yes? Just because you only get US programming rammed down your throat, there are other that are equally popular overseas. Everywhere else has it's own movie factory, TV factory. The iconic "Who's Line Is IT Anyway?" rose to fame in the UK, for example.

      Assuming that everywhere else thinks 300 year old stuff is what's defined as culture exclusively shows how sheltered you are. 300+ stuff is ALSO culture, but not exclusively.

    87. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the poster above said "pinnacle of American culture", not specifically pop culture.

      If pop culture (read: the latest fad) is indeed the best America has to offer, then perhaps the comment that we (America) are in deeper shit has a point.

    88. Re:What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wheel of Time is the shittiest shit to ever be shat.

      What other series has 800 pages over three days of hand wringing, dress buying and weevils?

      numbnuts

    89. Re: What a shithole country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A $25 billion+ wall won't stop shit.

      numbnuts

  2. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's just a fucking bunch of fucking squirrels up the fucking trees with them fucking nuts. And a lot of furry animals screwing around, killing each other and shitting all over the place. It's a fucking zoo. Fuck them.

    1. Re:Who cares by Calydor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but we're not talking about Washington D.C., we're talking about national parks.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Who cares by war4peace · · Score: 2

      +1 Funny,
      +1 Insightful.
      +1 Informative.
      +1 Underrated.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:Who cares by Bobrick · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is about Americans. But what about the national parks?

  3. There are alternatives by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like Roosevelt did, create a new CCC, or you could use community service sentences to do the work.

    If there are arrests for trespassing... sentence them to work in the parks.

    1. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay convict slave labor, yay!

    2. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or you know, don't hold the running of the government hostage for a hair brained scheme that literally won't do anything positive for the country.

      Ask for that money to fix actual existing failing infrastructure. I heard Flint still doesn't have access to clean water locally.

    3. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe return the land back to the States where it belongs and let them manage it? The federal government has no business taking over State lands and claiming all rights to control it.

    4. Re: There are alternatives by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Because convict slave labor isn't already a thing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the States had the right to take it from the previous inhabitants?

    6. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Might makes right.

    7. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because convict slave labor isn't already a thing.

      Ironic that the cleanup will most likely be done by convict labor that is by and large young urban poor black.
      These are not the crowds that are abusing the national parks because there is no oversight. The ones doing it are running around in their redneck crap mobile bush whackers. Just wonder how many redneck junk mobiles are getting stuck and left to rot off road. In British Columbia Canada the numbers of redneck mobiles left out in the bush on crown land is astonishing these days, so the poison from the redneck revolution is by no means isolated to the US where it originates.

      I have no doubt the Trump supporting assholes with guns and wheels are currently doing the majority of the damage in US national parks with impunity and no worry about being held to account for their stupidity and moronic exploits.

      The majority of damage being done to the environment is by offroad vehicles just about everywhere they go these days. Take away the oversight and government employees who maintain control the back road access and presto these assholes will just make new trails and chew up sensitive habit everywhere. The truth is these are the same largely white redneck assholes who could care less about the country that supports them or the environment that sustains us all.

    8. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe return the land back to the States where it belongs and let them manage it? The federal government has no business taking over State lands and claiming all rights to control it.

      States rights eh!!! Sounds like another redneck moron who wants to turn the clock back to having white and colored sections in the parks! ASSHOLE go back in your segregationist closet and burn your cross inside your house. Obviously anyone who spouts on about states rights over the control of parkland is a complete and absolute nutcase who didn't understand the point of the civil war in the first place or accept the fact that "states rights" can be abused and nullify the very constitution upon which the nation is built!

    9. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Or you know, don't hold the running of the government hostage for a hair brained scheme that literally won't do anything positive for the country.

      You should tell Israel, Hungary, Austria, and Greece how well those things don't work for their countries. Oh France too.

      Ask for that money to fix actual existing failing infrastructure.

      You should be asking states why they're not dealing with those problems. They ARE state problems after all.

      I heard Flint still doesn't have access to clean water locally.

      Funny story about that, why not go look it up. I'll wait for you to read up about how the city decided to fuck things around, and why there's multiple corruption trials going on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:There are alternatives by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, any wall built by the French was an abject failure.

      The issue here is Trump does not have an electoral mandate for a wall paid for by the USA. He was quite clear that Mexico was going to pay for it.

    11. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the people before them? Tribes had wars, too.

    12. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can sell it to cover budget deficits, because states are good at budgeting, just ask KS... great idea.

    13. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      The people who arrest other people are on strike, going without pay, in support of the wall. /s

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Yo, Captain Obvious:

      You should be asking states why they're not dealing with those problems. They ARE state problems after all.

      The states are not asking for a wall.

      The small, rabid, batshit crazy Trump core doesn't live on the border.

      Those were poor under-educated Evangelical White women in the rust belt.

      Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logic has no place here... :)

    16. Re:There are alternatives by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Southern states used to depend on slave labor. Would you say "don't fuck with that economy" before 1864?

      Illegal immigration is the modern equivalent of slave labor. I would rather pay more and have those areas of the country protect their workers and hire citizens then rely and reward illegal behavior.

    17. Re:There are alternatives by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy.

      Bah, this was the quote.

    18. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your analogy sucks. Immigrants are not slaves.

      Try a Hitler one.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    19. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal immigration is the modern equivalent of slave labor.

      No, it isn't. (Most) illegal immigrates are not captured/rounded up by businesses in the US and brought in against their will, unlike slaves.

      There was also no forcing of culture/language/religion upon the illegal immigrants.

      The closest modern equivalent to slave labor where an employer brings in the foreign worker is H1B visas ;p

    20. Re:There are alternatives by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I didn't they are slaves. I said they were the modern equivalent of slave labor.

      Because "we want cheap stuff" or as you state "Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy." because those places cannot fathom paying their workers a decent wage with proper benefits and protections.

      We created laws saying you have to treat workers a certain way but you are saying "no no ignore that. I want cheap crap. Treat workers like shit and pay them crap wages. Do harm to Mexico because I want to exploit her people.". That is way more immoral than a fucking wall.

    21. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I said they were the modern equivalent of slave labor.

      If A = B then B = A for normalized values of the "=" sign.

      I think the Hitler reference is your best next move.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    22. Re:There are alternatives by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing an interview with a Trump voter in Alaska.

      He was all fired up by Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, yet immigrants had absolutely zero impact on his life., he had never even seen an immigrant.

      It's not about immigration: it's all about irrational xenophobia. The don't like either the color of their skin, the fact that they might want to eat different foods, or some other lifestyle difference.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    23. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I agree except it's more insidious that that.

      It's the "Let me tell you what the problem is and let me tell you who's to blame."

      Alaska is a good example where the bogey doesn't exist.

      Let's look at Texas (where I live), where the "bogey," does exist:

      The Border Wall Is Not a Good Idea, Texans Insist in New Poll
      By Tim Marcin On 4/21/17 at 11:40 AM

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    24. Re:There are alternatives by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I understand abstracts might be difficult for you. Good luck.

      And don't bring Hitler up. That is offensive. My grandfather died in a concentration camp during WW2. He fell out of the guard tower.

    25. Re: There are alternatives by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      No shit. And here I thought I was going to miss my daily reminder to feel bad for being white.

    26. Re:There are alternatives by kualla · · Score: 1

      Nice idea! It really is a win-win situation.... They want to enjoy the parks, well now they get to enjoy them more and make it a more enjoyable place while they are there too ;D

    27. Re: There are alternatives by Shaitan · · Score: 2

      "These are not the crowds that are abusing the national parks because there is no oversight. The ones doing it are running around in their redneck crap mobile bush whackers."

      Riiiiggghhhhttt... because it is people from the country who primarily vacation by visiting federal parks... you know, instead of their alternative of going outside or camping on their friends private land 20 minutes away. People from the country just love to camp at national parks with their fake campsites and other people less than 20 yards away.

    28. Re: There are alternatives by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      And they all immigrated across the land bridge where they stole it from the creatures that lived in it naturally.

    29. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know that the water in Flint was fucked up by the government selling the system to private entities, who then cheaped out on the replacement pipes. That is an extremely well documented fact. Doesn't mean it will magically fix itself.

    30. Re:There are alternatives by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Actually the wall worked exactly as intended. Read up on some history.

      The planners didn't think that Germany couldn't go around. They thought that if Germany did go through the lowlands that here would be both the time and the WILL to push them back.

      The fact that the will was missing doesn't mean that the Maginot Line didn't work. (Oh, and the Maginot Line, was cut short as well. If it had been built the original length then things would have been different.

      But don't let fact get in the way of your spin.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    31. Re:There are alternatives by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      You do know there is a hell of a lot more to the states rights issue than slavery right? We were all fucked on so many levels by the changes Lincoln imposed to centralize federal (aka his) power. Slavery is just the reason there was enough money threatened by his move to mobilize the wealthy to fight it and at the same time an excellent PR vocal point he could use to rally support.

      Let other people argue whether the civil war was about states rights, money, or slavery. The very question oversimplifies the situation and pretends there was some kind of single universal answer. However, given the mans history and actions it is highly unlikely ending slavery lived alone as the motivation in the dark corners of Lincoln's thoughts.

      The states which formed a United Alliance were not all intended to be one place with a uniform set of rules. They were intended to be a bunch of separate places you could freely migrate between if the one you were in happened to suck in some way fundamental to you. The whole point is that you don't have to have the lowest common denominator that is most fair to everyone in any one place because that best overall solution is rarely the best solution for anyone. Maybe where you are people have abused certain freedoms to the point where something had to be done to stop the abusers and they were lost, you could relocate somewhere that wasn't yet the case. You know what is really tough? Accomplishing your agenda everywhere in a single stroke. But then, that is the point.

      Slavery was a special one off case in this system because the science and culture of the day didn't classify them as human and therefore they didn't have rights. Without that special situation (which is no longer the case, law or no) they have a federally protected right to travel freely between states and could simply move to a state with more favorable laws and the laws of the south don't really matter that much. Of course, with the science and knowledge of today the policies of the southern states could never come to be in the first place. Lets not forget, excluding the slaves from citizenship was a political can of worms the British saddled the founders with. It was an oddball footnote in the framework they devised, the whole framework works just fine without slavery.

    32. Re:There are alternatives by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "You should be asking states why they're not dealing with those problems. They ARE state problems after all."

      States are by and large impoverished due to the money extracted by federal income taxes. They would be asking for their citizens money back.

    33. Re:There are alternatives by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants cost the US a huge amount of money each year. If they are prevented from coming Mexico would pay that bill. If I say I'll pay your electric bill there is really no difference between reducing an amount you owe me by the amount of the bill, paying you the cash, and sending the check to the electric company notated for your account, or even sending that amount to your mortgage company so you only send them the difference. Money is money is money.

      Also he is currently gathering up illegal immigrants at the border, no doubt having them do the work as community service for their crime is part of how he intends to build the wall for so little relative to the 40+ billion spent in previous efforts. Afterward they'll be deported and the millions we save on their use of public services, wear and tear on public infrastructure, and healthcare costs will be the second concrete example of Mexico paying for the wall.

      Any money actually spent on construction is infrastructure spending directly into the US economy, that is at worst a net zero expenditure and at best stimulus. Afterward thousands of new border jobs will be created and easily paid for by reduced healthcare costs and public services costs.

      Of course it isn't all downhill for Mexico. If we deport them all we'll likely import more Mexican produce and fruit. That sucks for California but really isn't that big a deal for the national economy. Actually what remains of the California fruit industry will probably end up employing more Americans from those rural communities.

    34. Re: There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've posted a better version of that joke many times, but was never fund enough to do so logged in.

      Also, the wall is useless, a net negative, and any argument for it to placate Trump has the same validity for advocating a 700' statute of Trump to be built atop Mt Rushmore.

    35. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I understand ...

      You don't.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    36. Re:There are alternatives by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Don't worry scro. Many tards live some kick ass lives.

    37. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Yo, captain retard. Guess what? A border wall isn't going to have any impact on that immigrant labor either. But it sure will put a dent on illegal immigrant labor. If you don't think so, why not take a trip to Southern Ontario, or Southern BC during harvest season where "immigrant labor" makes up around 70-80% of the people doing the work.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    38. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing an interview with a Trump voter in Alaska.

      He was all fired up by Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, yet immigrants had absolutely zero impact on his life., he had never even seen an immigrant.

      It's not about immigration: it's all about irrational xenophobia. The don't like either the color of their skin, the fact that they might want to eat different foods, or some other lifestyle difference.

      Are you really that naive? That's like saying, the reason that the governments and populations of Ontario and Quebec are so monumentally pissed off over immigration is because of all the brown people. Instead of them being forced to pay for all those illegals who have entered the country from the US, because ~25 years of NOT deporting illegals has caused significant economic and social impacts.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Let's look at Texas (where I live), where the "bogey," does exist:

      Yeah, except if you read the article that's the opposite of what it said. ~72% of Texans have serious problems with the current state of illegal's entering the country. On top of that the Pew poll has several methodological errors with it, those should be easy for you to see if you look at the raw data.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, any wall built by the French was an abject failure.

      Funny, because the one near Calais did it's job just fine. Or didn't you hear about all the illegal immigrants that made camps there, then would flood onto the roads to try and sneak onto the trucks. It was only going on for 3+ years.

      The issue here is Trump does not have an electoral mandate for a wall paid for by the USA. He was quite clear that Mexico was going to pay for it.

      At this point with over 30 years of bullshit going all the way back to when the Democrats made the deal with Reagan saying if you give us amnesty, we'll fund the wall. I don't think most people really give a fuck at this point. Illegal immigration counts in the top 3 spots with independents and republicans.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You don't like the reference, don't point out the errors. You're not qualified.

      Post a citation that refutes the numbers.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    42. Re:There are alternatives by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your attempt to deflect by introducing variables not applicable to the current case is ineffective.

      We don't suffer from a lack of data. Analysis by analogy is appropriate when speculating, but not when we have a full data set right in front of us.

      Try again and confine your remarks to the matter at hand.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    43. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real answer to to stop with the stupid monolithic budgets. Once upon a time, they approved budgets accordingly, on a much smaller and more manageable scale. Then budgets became weapons. "Don't vote how I want, well your nice little effort here gets no budget then." They began telling people to fund EVERYTHING at once, so that wasteful defense bill gets funded the same as the bill to improve infrastructure for agencies that are falling behind.
       
      Go back to the bite sized budgets. No more monolithic budget.

    44. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You don't like the reference, don't point out the errors. You're not qualified.

      Post a citation that refutes the numbers.

      It's right in the article you linked(and in the linked study). Did you even bother to read it? If you did you wouldn't have made that reply.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re:There are alternatives by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      We don't suffer from a lack of data. Analysis by analogy is appropriate when speculating, but not when we have a full data set right in front of us.

      Try again and confine your remarks to the matter at hand.

      Apparently your inability to read that data is the problem. Remember it was California factory farms complaining about crackdowns on illegals because it would "cost them too much" to pay otherwise. Go hit the LA times or SacBee for the articles.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    46. Re:There are alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Texans are for border security, few want a worthless wall that will cost billions.

      numbnuts

  4. Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Fund the wall :^)

    1. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, hurry up Mexico. Trump promised!

    2. Re: Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late! Obama already built the Wall. Once again it's Trump trying to take credit for Obama's accomplishments.

    3. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      from what I remember trump promised the US would not be paying for that wall as Mexico would.

    4. Re:Pretty easy fix: by bickerdyke · · Score: 1
      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:Pretty easy fix: by stealth_finger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Trump really, really, really wants it. He can pay for it himself.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you remember isn't true if he shouts "FAKE NEWS!"

    7. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Pretty easy fix: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense to waste tens of billions of dollars on the wall when the alternative is a shutdown that harms your opponent far more than you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      and people are keeping their doctors! wow!

    10. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      And Obamacare was patterned after the healthcare legislation signed into law in Massachusetts by that perennial liberal Mitt Romney.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear the Democrats will be spouting this line until the Mexican president personally comes to the White House and hands trump a check for the wall.

    12. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Your mistake is that it wouldn't be a waste.

    13. Re:Pretty easy fix: by sootman · · Score: 1

      FACT — the reason why Americans have to worry about a government shutdown is because Obama refuses to pass a budget.

      Donald J. Trump, 9 Aug 2013, 11:33 AM

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    14. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to make sure we are all clear on the issue.
      Please show where in the law it had any affect on your choice of Doctor.
      Isn't it in fact, that the law didn't force your insurance company to let you keep your Doctor that you are angry about and you're projecting that onto President Obama and the ACA simply because you are bad at paying attention and get all your talking points from propaganda?

    15. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, Mexico has already agreed to it via the renegotiation of NAFTA with terms that are more advantageous for the United States which results in more trade dollars for the United States which resorts in more tax revenues for the United States.

      Money is fungible but you can go on a literalist tirade and ignore that if you'd like.

    16. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      And Obamacare was patterned after the healthcare legislation signed into law in Massachusetts by that perennial liberal Mitt Romney.

      So patterned after it? You mean it wasn't identical? You mean changes were made?

      Also consider that certain programs may be appropriate at a state level but not at the federal level.

      Also consider that possibly that even in Massachusetts that legislation may have been bad and that both Mitt Romney and Obama are bad politicians that don't defend the liberty of individuals.

    17. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wall would be a waste, an abject failure and a item of mockery across the world.

    18. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no problems keeping my doctors with ACA went into affect and neither did most other people. If you had to switch doctors, it was probably because you lived in one of the states that actively tried to undermine ACA by making it as difficult to participate as possible.

    19. Re:Pretty easy fix: by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      Well, er, yeah, but ... but ... orange!

    20. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I said they didn't without any citations, why don't you believe me?

    21. Re:Pretty easy fix: by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      and people are keeping their doctors! wow!

      Why yes we have been able to keep our new doctors.

    22. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of them did, a lot of them didn't.

      Obama also said you could keep your health plans. That proved to be a lie, as the health plans people wanted to keep were almost all employer-funded and those weren't grandfathered in.

    23. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why can't you keep your doctor? There's nothing in Obamacare that would prevent you from keeping your doctor. On the other hand, there's nothing in the law forcing your doctor to keep you either.

      dom

    24. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      And Obamacare was patterned after the healthcare legislation signed into law in Massachusetts by that perennial liberal Mitt Romney.

      And Obama said that under Obamacare you could keep your doctor.

      And Obamacare was patterned after the healthcare legislation signed into law in Massachusetts by that perennial liberal Mitt Romney.

      And what most Americans fail to comprehend is that under either of the two parties, we are all fucked.

    25. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Mitt Romney? Wasn't he that RINO cuck that couldn't stand up to Obama? Why do we care what that limp noodle did?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    26. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Just like the one in Israel. Wait! No.

      Just like the one around Obama's Washington, DC home. Wait! No.

      Just like...

      Ah, screw it! Saying a wall won't slow people down is patently stupid. You, AC, are the abject failure.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    27. Re: Pretty easy fix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. It's not exactly paying for it if he builds the wall and then declares bankruptcy when the bills come in

    28. Re:Pretty easy fix: by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ya, Obama should not have said anything, since it is literally impossible to legislate that every single American would keep their doctor forever. The chances of keeping your doctor are about the same before and after Obamacare.

  5. It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    The horror!!!

    The National Parks have not be fully staffed for 14 days with more coming. The damage will last for generations!

    from the article
    Lamfrom says the full scale of the problem is yet to be determined but clean up timelines will range in length. "Some [efforts] will take weeks or months. Some will last generations. Some may not be able to be fixed."

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Lamfrom says the full scale of the problem is yet to be determined but clean up timelines will range in length.

      If we can't afford to authorize funding for a border wall for basic security, then how the hell can we afford to authorize funding for a multi-generational cleanup?

    2. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful


      Lamfrom says the full scale of the problem is yet to be determined but clean up timelines will range in length.

      If we can't afford to authorize funding for a border wall for basic security, then how the hell can we afford to authorize funding for a multi-generational cleanup?

      It's not a question of "afford", it's a question of, "Must not let Trump get what he wants! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

      ORANGE MAN BAD! is not a policy.

    3. Re: It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Even if what trump wanted was good for them they would still oppose it. I guess Darwin was right

    4. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2013, all Senate Democrats and most House Democrats backed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the so-called Gang of Eight bill. It included $46 billion for border security and around $8 billion to repair or reinforce barriers along the 700 miles of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act.

      Schumer also briefly offered to deliver the Democratic votes to fully fund the border wall at $25 billion in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.

    5. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LORD TRUMP GOOD! isn't policy either

    6. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "ORANGE MAN BAD" is as much of a policy as "UNDO OBAMA" is.

    7. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Nidi62 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Lamfrom says the full scale of the problem is yet to be determined but clean up timelines will range in length.

      If we can't afford to authorize funding for a border wall for basic security, then how the hell can we afford to authorize funding for a multi-generational cleanup?

      Your first mistake is assuming the wall is about basic security.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't recall this level of fear mongering when the government was shut down for 16 days in 2013, or the 21 days between 1995 and 1996.
      "Irreparable damage"..? FFS, government sure thinks highly of itself. Nature can't get by for a few weeks without it?
      The parks still look way better than the mess left behind by the "environmentalist "protesters who camped out over the Keystone pipeline.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Your first mistake is assuming the wall is about basic security.

      What on earth do you think "basic security" means in the context of physical security? I know what the industry would say it means.
      Basic security is achieved when you have these elements at a basic level:


          1. Establishment of Security Boundaries and Access Control: You define the area to which access is to be protected. You put systems in place to divert or steer the movement of vehicles, people, etc, so that those wanting to move from inside to outside of the secure area or vice-versa are directed to pass through a small opening or zone called a "Security Checkpoint" where a careful inspection can be made, and the security policy rules regarding what person(s)/vehicle(s) and other things allowed to enter or exit can be efficiently enforced.

          2. Monitoring of Access Control: You have systems, infrastructure, and processes in place, designed to detect and respond to violations -- such as a fujitive or stolen vehicle or other item attempting to exit through a security boundary, or an unauthorized person, or dangerous contraband such as firearms, munitions, an illegal import, dangerous drugs, or other hazardous materials whether overt or concealed/hidden attempting to be brought in through the checkpoint, OR any traffic attempting to circumvent the checkpoint.

          3. Enforcement of Access Control: You have systems, infrastructure, and processes in place designed to deter the largest number of
                  vehicles, people, etc, who would attempt to circumvent the security checkpoints from doing so.

        A wall or protective barrier, in height no less than 8 feet, generally made with concrete, or steel, and topped with razor wire and other anti-climb features, is a common construction generally used to provide basic (3) Enforcement of the Access Control ---- and for protecting a large area at the minimal security level,
      generally a concrete masonry wall is the cheapest/most economical option for such a barrier, or less expensive than building as a long fortified steel fence.

      Such barrier is very effective to deter, thwart, or delay the vast majority of would-be physical security attackers, more than 99%, who are casual ----- obviously, there are exceptions: well-resourced attackers who are highly persistent can attempt to circumvent fencing by bringing climbing tools, or by bringing explosives to make a hole in the offense. Therefore, there is still a need for more expensive Advanced Security (Which requires the interactive work of live humans) to be layered on top of Basic Automatic Security deterrents --- the Basic Security measure is to still function to Delay and Discourage the advanced attacker for as long as possible, to delay the attacker long enough for a Live response from humans to arrive in time to thwart the rare and occassional advanced attack events.

    10. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      The parks still look way better than the mess left behind by the "environmentalist "protesters who camped out over the Keystone pipeline.

      Wow. +4 insightful for whatabouting some kind of ridiculous drivel about the Keystone Pipeline. Truly a giant of intellect and the finest slashdot has to offer in 2019!

    11. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parks aren't just nature. They are also places of national cultural significance (National Mall, Old North Bridge, hundreds of historic places).

    12. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by foghelmut · · Score: 2

      IIRC, they closed the parks those times. They left them open with no workers this time.

    13. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah in all those other shutdowns the parks were closed. This time trump decided to leave the parks open without any staff so Merica can finally use up those resources such as functional toilets and empty trash cans that we've been wasting so much money on keeping operational all these years. Afterall, the whole point of maintaining as close to a pristine wilderness for all citizens is so that eventually ONE citizen can drive a jeep over it.

    14. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by zeoslap · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because previously the parks locked the gates during shutdowns. They left them open to avoid the bad image of locked gates, this is the side effect of that stupid decision.

    15. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      During those earlier shutdowns, entry to the parks was prohibited. This time, though no services are provided, entry has been/was allowed and the results have been often superficial (overflowing toilets, etc.) but also significant (off-road driving, looters with metal detectors scavenging historical battlefields, etc.) The long-term effects that distinguish this shutdown from the previous are more likely the latter than the former.

    16. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Sad to say, but no, nature cannot now take care of itself - which today means protect itself from the invading hordes of human beings and our machines. Particularly the National Parks, which are designated precisely wherever too many people want to go. That's why the parks need to exist. If the shutdown persists the parks will need to be locked up.

    17. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Then the Democrats back out of the $25billion plan when a court case went their way and they thought they might get the Dreamer end of the package without having to agree to the fence.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    18. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The border wall is not "basic security". We have the basic security already in the form of the border partrol and the long lines of fences we already have. People are not streaming across the border with impunity, and overall illegal immigration is down and at one of the lowest points we've seen. The "caravan" is not illegal immigrants instead it is people who are coming here to find border officials in order to apply for asylum.

      The wall is very much "optional security". And it's not the best security value for the dollar.

    19. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Because back then it was clear that both sides would come to an agreement, and that any agreement would be signed by the president who didn't want to look like the bad guy. Now we've got a president that has said he's willing to keep the shutdown for years if he doesn't get his way, and a president who's very capricious and who did an about face and rejected his own party's funding plan.

    20. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      " We have the basic security already"
      " People are not streaming across the border with impunity, and overall illegal immigration is down"
      Really?
      boarder crossings are up actually,. 20k+ children!! crossed our "secure" southern boarder in Dec 2018 alone. Who knows how many did not turn themselves over to boarder patrol to get processed and released only to disappear in to America.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    21. Re: It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two years with absolute majority the wall was not funded and when the house goes to other party it is an issue?

    22. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Where do you get your number?

    23. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by mysidia · · Score: 1

      People are not streaming across the border with impunity, and overall illegal immigration is down and at one of the lowest points we've seen.

      Your assertion above is demonstrably false. People are in fact streaming across the border, and the estimated numbers for 2017-2018 are greatly elevated from 2015-2016. Who told you "illegal immigration is down and at one of the lowest points we've seen" ?
      Because their evaluation is the opposite of reality and needs correction.

      in the form of the border partrol and the long lines of fences we already have

      The "border patrols" are inadequately staffed -- or rather, they're staffed inadequately given the gaps in the fencing;
      increasing the man power on the patrols sufficiently to compensate for bad fencing would in-fact cost more money than
      shoring up the barriers appropriately.

      The "long lines of fences" only cover some select high-traffic areas, and the fencing doesn't meet the current day bare-minimum physical security standards which organizations use.

    24. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I don't recall this level of fear mongering when the government was shut down for 16 days in 2013, or the 21 days between 1995 and 1996.

      In 1895/96 and in 2013, both sides were bargaining (more-or-less) in good faith to find a way to end the shutdown. Here in 2018/19, there is no bargaining - one party has announced he won't settle for anything less than getting his way and is willing to extend the shutdown indefinitely in order to get it.

    25. Re:It figures, Oh my God, Closed Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. I would say they left the open to **create** "bad image".

      Sorry the park is f-ed. I'll make sure to mention it the next time I see the families of all of the guys with whom I went to high school who are now dead of opiate overdose. Opiates which were likely smuggled over our non-existent border.

  6. Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These Mexicans and their whole not funding the wall and everything. So disappointed in them.
    I'm just glad the American people don't have to fund it. 'Cos of what Trump said!
    #proudToBeAnAmerican!

    1. Re: Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Americans arnt clambering to get into Mexico to sell drugs, or take up residency illegally.

    2. Re:Mexico by luther349 · · Score: 1

      they fought to have that country and now they fight to leave it lol.

    3. Re: Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns flow from the US into mexico.

  7. And Zinke Said On His Way Out: "YA WELCOME!"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (and he mumbled "... suckerz!" but few heard it clearly)

    BUILT! THE! WALL!! ALREADY! Go home, Dems. No one need you nomore.

  8. Make up your mind: are they "largely unattended" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or filled with "trespassers" ? aka TAX PAYERS, you know, the criminal proletariat scourge who normally fund the upkeep when the lazy park staff hasn't gone AWOL,

  9. Not all the parks... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

    The historic tower in the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC is a national landmark. It's under the control of the park service. There are still National Park Rangers there keeping the tower open. Total coincidence they found money to do that, based no doubt on a dispassionate assessment of needs.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Not all the parks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had parks people around to drain that swamp, I'm sure this would get sorted out muck more quickly ;-)

    2. Re:Not all the parks... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I don't actually see where "emergencies" are an exception to the spending rule laid down in the Constitution.

      I wonder what would happen if the Dems turned around and said that they would not fund the unpaid wages after the shutdown is over? That would be the nuclear option.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Not all the parks... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why that's a response to me, but at a high level "emergencies" are not an exception to Constitutional spending limits (although a severe enough emergency, e.g. WWIII-starting nuclear assault decapitating Congress, may cause unconstitutional spending that we'll deal with afterwards.) The trick there is that Congress has already allocated money to deal with emergencies. It's related to the idea of "the military has been allocated money, I'll just use the military to build the wall."

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Not all the parks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a tower in downtown DC, you're going to have people there anyway. You may as well keep it open.

    5. Re:Not all the parks... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You mean that SS personnel might keep a watch? Sure. But it's manned by National Park Rangers. To keep it open to visitors.

      And no, we should just shut the fucker down. I'd rather not waste cash on what is essentially a private attraction for Trump's hotel. Better uses for the money include, well, even Zinkie's sound proof phone booth is a better use of cash. At least that has some residual value.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  10. It's been a long running story by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since the National Park service changed their policies since 2013's shut down, they've been tracked pretty heavily throughout the news cycle. It's one of the bigger and more understandable parts of the shutdown facing the public, especially during the holidays.

    They've covered the parks staying open, the lack of maintenance, volunteers cleaning Joshua Tree, Joshua Tree getting overwhelmed and shut down, Yellowstone's access roads closing (although not technically the park) because of snow, the deaths that have occurred in the various National Parks, etc.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Id like to know how many deaths occur in the national parks during "business as usual"? All of the incidents that I have seen stores of are freak accidents that likely would have had no better outcome had a ranger been on duty. It' not like there are thousands of rangers escorting groups though the parks keeping people corralled in groups they can keep their eyes on. Had some been on duty the response time probably wouldn't have been a whole lot different than it currently is and while they are trained for basic 1st aid, they are no where near as equipped as a proper EMT. As usual the media is trying to spin it into something that it is not. Why weren't they covering deaths in the national parks with the same coverage as they are now? Oh of course orange man = bad.

      As far as the trash issues, that is just people being fucking assholes. Have people not heard of pack it in, pack it out? Is it really that hard to take your bottle/cup of water or whatever or your food packaging back with you to your car and dispose of it at the nearest convenience store, if not just take it all the way home and put it in your regular trash?

    2. Re:It's been a long running story by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      As far as the trash issues, that is just people being fucking assholes

      That is true for 98% of the earth's most urgent issues including the problems caused by Trump and the issues that made him a voting option for a majority.

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the trash issues, that is just people being fucking assholes.

      It seems to have escaped your attention that part of the job of people who work in the National Parks is to encourage visitors to behave well and discourage them from behaving badly. If the workers aren't there, the assholes behave worse.

    4. Re: It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not my fault, nobody encouraged me not to throw my rubbish in a national park!

    5. Re: It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carry a firearm then. What fucking bunch of pussies.

    6. Re:It's been a long running story by mysidia · · Score: 0

      As far as the trash issues, that is just people being fucking assholes.

      Yeah.... This is shit taxpayers shouldn't be paying for. What they should do is put tollgates for
        recovery of costs incurred by visitors, if you want to use the public roads to bring a vehicle to visit a national park or park it on public land, and directly appropriate a share of the toll fees between the park service and law enforcement, such that basic maintenance for any building or improved facility remaining open is funded even during a "shutdown".

    7. Re:It's been a long running story by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the national parks used to be free. There are tollgates now and they do charge except right now during the shutdown because there is nobody to collect the tolls. OOTH I am not at all sure why they don't leave the honor boxes used at lots of less popular locations open. My guess is a lot of patrons would happy continue to pay.

      That said I don't agree with a lot of what the Park Service and the USFS do with our parks and public lands. The USFS still does all kinds of agricultural experiments in places that are supposed to be public land. Frankly commercial enterprise should be paying for that and doing it on already private property. Same thing with a lot of our parks. Most (not all) have dual purpose to act both as wilderness preserves and as recreational spaces for people. The thing is large unbroken areas of back country and critical to life cycles of lots of the creatures we are trying to protect. This is incompatible with paved auto trails, and large campsites. Its also not fair I don't think to other Americans to ask them subsides the businesses around these parks.

      I was reading an article about how snowmobiles in the western parks and how private enterprise is keeping the trails groomed. That's fine, but why is the Park Service nominally maintaining snowmobile trains anyway? Again I get there has to be some push pull to accommodate the dual use mandate but honestly, the Park Service should probably identify some lower impact areas for things like powered vehicle trails and tell the business look these areas its okay to clear some trails thru if you want to do so and maintain them at your cost. Sell permits (at administrative cost if you want to) just so that we can attach a number to operators and hold them accountable for keeping to the permitted areas and enforce other likely needed restrictions. But but but.. "Bobby's Snow Tours" isnt going to do the work when "Wild Bills Tours" can just sponge off his efforts. BS - I say. Firstly the shutdown is proving that isn't true, and second Bobby still gets to profit of what is public land so I don't feel to sorry for him.

      Beyond this I would say the park service ought to engage in the minimal expense of putting in wilderness trails for individuals and (non-commercial) small groups to use for hiking/backpacking because putting in trails and asking even those low impact users to stay on them reduces total impact. It also make search and rescue somewhat possible where as if you just turn people loose in a few million acres good luck finding anyone and good luck with any sort of extraction if that is required. Otherwise they should really let nature have run of the parks, and that includes wildfires (provided we believe they were sparked by natural causes).

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re: It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carry a firearm then. What fucking bunch of pussies.

      Sounds like you are advocating shooting the litterer, then again Tex if you were to walk down some streets in Detroit then someone might just loot the shooter. Amazing how many guns wind up in the hands of someone else in the big cities because guys like you think carrying one makes them tough. You guys are a fucking joke!!!

    9. Re:It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honor boxes won't work. The illegal's will break into them and steal the money.

    10. Re:It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how the assholes are treating the national parks right now. I am sure if there were an honor box, few of them would leave money and what money was in the honor box would have probably been stolen by someone taking advantage of the reduced policing of the parks at the moment.

      I guess this is a good insight in to just what it might look like if the SHTF. If garbage collection and other sanitary services lapsing for only 13 days at the national parks looks like this, just imagine what your city will look like. Hell we already saw what this could look like *cough* Katrina *cough*

    11. Re:It's been a long running story by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Voters: The rust belt took my job
      Trump: The wall will fix everything
      Voters: We want the wall because rust belt

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:It's been a long running story by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Beyond this I would say the park service ought to engage in the minimal expense of putting in wilderness trails for individuals and (non-commercial) small groups to use for hiking/backpacking because putting in trails and asking even those low impact users to stay on them reduces total impact.

      Is there a specific park or parks you have in mind? From what I have seen they already do what you said. I used to do a lot of mountain biking and quickly learned to check the maps to make sure any trails I used were not restricted to hiking, and there were a lot of them in wilderness areas.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    13. Re:It's been a long running story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most National Parks are still free, not "used to be free". One of the articles this week had the stats I'm sure we could find, but I think it was 100 parks charge fees of more than 600 total parks.

    14. Re:It's been a long running story by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There are tollgates now and they do charge

      Those tolls are not allowed to be used for trash maintenance or other maintenance. They are dedicated to infrastructure improvements and long term goals.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:It's been a long running story by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I went to Yellowstone once and it said closed until April. I'm pretty sure most of the roads close in November to get ready for the snow season.

    16. Re:It's been a long running story by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Not all the roads in Yellowstone are plowed, but some are. Right now, none of the roads are.

      It's a major difference.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    17. Re:It's been a long running story by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Most of the national parks used to be free. There are tollgates now and they do charge except right now during the shutdown because there is nobody to collect the tolls. OOTH I am not at all sure why they don't leave the honor boxes used at lots of less popular locations open.

      Close a funding source during a funding deficiency? That makes no sense.

      Proceeds from the tollgates ought to first self-fund the operation of the tollgate.

      Better still, I see no need for a human toll collector. Perhaps a security company monitoring the cameras
      at a large number of tollgates across the country to report attempts to vandalize or bypass the gate.

      They can put in the "self serve" tollgates, where you scan your debit card, or choose an
      option to be "Billed by License plate" like the Florida highways do - with Invoice sent to the address
      your car is registered at, and computer lets you through --- Or shoot, the computer can just read
      your license plate as you pull in, and after a successful read, display a sign you may proceed, and open gate.

    18. Re:It's been a long running story by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Those tolls are not allowed to be used for trash maintenance or other maintenance.

      They should add extra surcharges on top of overall tolls across their park footprint, until they DO cover "necessary maintenance expenses incurred due to visitors at parks".

      Essentially.... things like picking up trash should be covered primarily by the people who use these parks;
      The general public good is in maintaining and PRESERVING these places for current and future generations, But
      the public who never visit these places should not be burdened by the costs incurred by those that do --- those that
      visit them should have to pay the costs that the overall group of people who visit the public parks cause to be incurred (including the costs of collecting the user fees).

    19. Re:It's been a long running story by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Yellowstone doesn't really close for winter. Instead it transitions to winter operations: access via snowmobile, organized tours only, etc..

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seems rather fitting that they're filling up garbage and literal shit under Trump's watch. It's just one more mess that will have to be cleaned up in the wake of this idiotic administration.

    Personally, I lost all interest in national parks when the powers that be decided they can't come to some compromise between the people who want to fly photography drones and the people who are annoyed by the buzzing noise, so they just banned drones. I could give two shits and a fuck about walking around and enjoying "nature", I just wanted to photograph something other than the dumpster behind Walmart, but no... Stupid lawmakers.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you and your drones. You annoy all creatures not just people.

    2. Re:Cry me a river by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So let me get this straight... you're miffed that people didn't take YOUR feelings into account while you don't care for the feelings of others on this matter whom you'd be disturbing.

      Yeah, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.

    3. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! You and your fucking annoying drone can't free-range about national parks.

      I wonder if your drone fits up your backside.

    4. Re:Cry me a river by mentil · · Score: 1

      Drones can scare off birds, which would piss off OTHER photographers going to the park for bird-watching purposes. An inability to think up interesting shots has more to do with a lack of artistic vision than a lack of options.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Cry me a river by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

      It's clear from his post he favours compromises so presumably he'd want the insertion of just half the drone into his backside.

    6. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the problem is some people do give two or more shits and a fuck about walking around and enjoying nature. Your annoying drones damage that experience. Their presence does not damage your experience so there is nothing they can do to accommodate you other than allow you to damage theirs. The parks were created for them and not you. You can fly your drone almost everywhere but the park so go there.

    7. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people have a very strange sense of entitlement. Flying around with stupid drones in a national park which is supposed to be the last refuge for animals and people who enjoy undisturbed nature, wtf. A national park is not some kind of amusement center where people run around with popcorn and beer and listen to their garbage pop music. This selfish dude should stay away from nature as far as possible.

    8. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones should be banned "." Only allow their use with a permit and flight plan flown by licensed professionals. They are more than an annoyance, they are a danger. Why should someone fear walking in nature so that a hundred idiots can get their rocks off flying something around for their own edification. If you are a serious nature photographer, get a permit from the park and fly your drone. One or two professionals a year isn't a problem. A hundred idiots per day is.

    9. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody gives a fuck what aero-gaffot sluts like you want ... except a bitch-slapping for noise pollution. Boscos like you need bust neeez and bleed each time ya pea,

    10. Re:Cry me a river by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I could give two shits and a fuck about walking around and enjoying "nature"

      If you could give a shit then why aren't you in support of the ban? I on the other hand could not give a shit about your noisy irritating photography hobby.

    11. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what compromises are for. If your position is completely thrown out, you have a right to pout. They could have allowed drones at certain times, for example a limited number of hours on Mondays and Wednesdays, and prohibit drone flying the rest of the time. But no, they chose a complete and total drone ban.

    12. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You want to be left alone. I want to murder you.

      Let's compromise in the middle, you can kill yourself. This way you don't get bothered by me, and I still get to have you dead.

    13. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to photograph something other than the dumpster behind Walmart

      Not you didn't. You wanted DRONE SHOTS of something other than. I see wonderful and complicated pictures from nature photogs all the time taken sans drones. You simply aren't good enough so you want a drone so you don't have to climb trees and so forth, like they do.

      Short: you're lazy.

    14. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, right, I forgot that this is an American web site. No reason, but lot's of aggression and violent fantasies.

    15. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people have a very strange sense of entitlement. Flying around with stupid drones in a national park which is supposed to be the last refuge for animals and people who enjoy undisturbed nature, wtf. A national park is not some kind of amusement center where people run around with popcorn and beer and listen to their garbage pop music. This selfish dude should stay away from nature as far as possible.

      Switch popcorn to shotgun shells and pop music to country and you have hit on a large part of national park patrons. Screw drones what pisses me off are the people trap shooting over the road illegally leaving shotgun shells and broken clay pigeons everywhere and giving you the stink eye for legally traversing a public road. If people wanted nature then they should ban all internal combustion engines and firearms. Since that's never happening it's bullshit drones are just banned. They are certainty less annoying than guns whose sound carries for miles, often at the quietest times of day like pre-dawn.

    16. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was about noise, nuisance, and nutjobs ruining it for others guns should go first. The noise is extremely loud and carries for miles, often at the quietest times of the day. If they don't ban guns then they shouldn't ban drones. Just have a realistic set of rules like anything else.

    17. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Republican Congresscritter!

    18. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the type who brings a subwoofer to the campground -- with a plan. And the plan is to shit on people who ask him to turn it off.

    19. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you admit to pouting, so I guess you're better than us.

    20. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have them, bullets first.

    21. Re:Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight...

      Sorry your reading comprehension let you down, but I specifically wrote that I wanted a compromise. In this context, it means “looking at the issue from both sides and coming up with a solution that allows each side to get some of what they want.

      As an example, my local mall has karaoke night every Friday. Between the horrible food court acoustics and the tone-deaf singers, it’s far worse than listening to the buzz of a drone. Know what I do? I don’t go to the mall on Friday in the evening. Perhaps this “scheduling” concept could’ve been applied to drone use as well. But hey, these are the same people who can’t figure out if you leave parks open without staff, they’ll start overflowing with garbage.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    22. Re:Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Drones can scare off birds

      My experience flying around suburbia is that it’s the other way around. Birds will attack your drone if you get too close, so if you fancy landing in one piece, it’s best to stay the hell away from them. Plus, it is already illegal to intentionally harass wildlife.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    23. Re:Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Short: you're lazy.

      Yeah, I forgot I was posting on “News for jocks, tree climbing matters.” My bad.

      Seriously though, WTF has happened to this site? Modded “troll” because you find technology more interesting than hiking. This place really has become a shadow of its former self.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    24. Re: Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to be left alone. I want to murder you.
      Let's compromise in the middle, you can kill yourself. This way you don't get bothered by me, and I still get to have you dead.

    25. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are more than an annoyance, they are a danger.

      Do you know how many people have been killed by hobbyist drones? Zero, nada, zip, zilch.

      Literally everything else in a national park is more dangerous than a drone.

    26. Re: Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      You want to be left alone. I want to murder you.
      Let's compromise in the middle.

      You get some mental health help, and I'll try really hard not to post things that set off your illness. Sound fair?

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    27. Re:Cry me a river by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      It's clear from his post he favours compromises so presumably he'd want the insertion of just half the drone into his backside.

      The compromise would be the person with the "drones up the backside" fetish can rule 34 that shit and pretend he's looking at me, if that's what helps him fap.

      My part of the compromise is trying to keep my lunch down.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  12. Re: Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unstaffed national parks are great. I brought a chainsaw and now I have the makings of a dozen giant redwood tables. It would have cost more than my house to buy them from a legit wood shop.

    Thanks to Trump, national parks are free of job killing regulations being enforced by the fascist fat car park rangers. I'll go out this week and get a giant slab of oak with the flatbed too.

    Fun for the kids too, they can use the four wheelers and carve donuts on the worthless alpine prairie moss instead of gunking up the engine like when they do it on the dunes.

  13. Chop all the trees down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chop all the trees down and make chop sticks. Sell them to the chinese. Trade imbalance fixed. Simple.

  14. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to hear no one visits any of the parks with skyfields anymore, will make holidays much better..... ph you didn't realise many of the ski fields are in national parks too doofus?

  15. Where are the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you care about the environment and live nearby wouldn't you step up as a citizen and volunteer to spend some time fixing the problem?

    1. Re:Where are the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No can do. I'd have to put down my iPhone for a couple of hours.

    2. Re:Where are the people? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I probably would.

      You probably would, too.

      But if you would, wouldn't you be pissed too, that you had to do what you already paid your government to do?

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re: Where are the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay the government to be in multiple places at once? I do not think so

    4. Re:Where are the people? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If you care about the environment and live nearby wouldn't you step up as a citizen and volunteer to spend some time fixing the problem?

      Yeah, every civic minded citizen should spend a couple hours a week sweeping the forest floor, maybe even dust some trees do. That's what they do in Finland, right? No forest fires there.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re: Where are the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pay the government to be in multiple places at once?

      "the government" isn't a singular person, so, yes?

  16. Re:good thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it would be the park visitors that dont care about the environment, If you are visiting a park full well knowing the usual services are not available you would pack your trash back out with you rather then just dump it on the overflowing trashcan.

    About the only thing that might be out of a visitors control is restroom facilities. If the facilities are not locked up, then any horrible condition they might be in is once again the cause of shitty visitors not doing their part to keep them as usable as possible with limited maintenance. helping to keep them usable could literally be as simple as people bringing their own roll of TP from home. Had every visitor brought their own roll and left it in a restroom there would probably be more rolls of TP than they could use in those restrooms for the next month.

  17. Re:Make up your mind: are they "largely unattended by Calydor · · Score: 1

    When someone breaks into your house to throw a squatter party, is your house left unattended or filled with trespassers? Idiot.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  18. Trashcans != News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, get this shit off the front page.

  19. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have done with a bit more attention from the government, in the form of decent schooling. Then you could have learned how to spell "alarmist". And "visit". You'd also have learned that we don't capitalise "wintertime".

    Illiterate pillock.

  20. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    The narrative is the same on both sides. The shutdown is bad and it's the other side's fault.
    Personally I don't care, I don't work for the gov't and I don't visit state parks.
    Saving a bit of money might be just the thing after the billionaire tax breaks and $12B farmer bailout.

  21. Re:Sell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you sold them, the government would have more money.

    Why are you in favour of giving the government more money, given your views, dumbfuck?

  22. Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by drnb · · Score: 0

    If there are arrests for trespassing... sentence them to work in the parks.

    Much of the damage is from illegal pot grows, there are much better things to charge these folks with than trespassing.

    1. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Much of the damage is from illegal pot grows,

      Uh....what? Look, California and Oregon had a lot of illegal grows in the wilderness many years causing diesel damange to water.... But it hasn't been a problem in national parks ever. There is a big difference between BLM land, state forests, national forests........and national parks.

      Who would try to grow weed in Yosemite?? that's just asking for trouble. There's so much empty (and more accessible) places nearby where people actually live and grow it.........

    2. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just legalize it and get over it. You'd destroy the mexican cartel's income source at the same time. Win-win.

    3. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " But it hasn't been a problem in national parks ever."

      Bullshit. Sequoia National Park has had many, many marijuana grow operations that were found and destroyed.

    4. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      So just legalize it and get over it. You'd destroy the mexican cartel's income source at the same time. Win-win.

      I agree but you also need to prevent the state from taxing it at such a high rate as to keep the black market profitable.

    5. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      True, legalizing the pot grows seems like the answer here. Why are we treating this any differently than planting a tree?

    6. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but not the way most places are doing it. Instead of legalizing and letting the market work they are attaching all kinds of ridiculous fees and taxes on to it that will prop up black market level pricing and keep the cartels around.

      Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce in large quantities if it can be grown outdoors without any restriction beyond what you'd have on a rosemary bush. Marijuana would be maybe $1-2/lb at most if grown without restriction or special taxes and you'd need acreage to make any money off it. Just like any other produce people would grow their own only because they wanted something better than mass market. There would be no room for cartels (including domestic ones) to make a worthwhile profit.

    7. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      True, legalizing the pot grows seems like the answer here. Why are we treating this any differently than planting a tree?

      The better analogy is why are we treating this any different than distilling a bottle of bourbon?

    8. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Not really, alcohol is actually harmful to humans. Marijuana is better compared with garlic, rose oil, or any other edible herb sold in a health food store.

      Seriously with all the money and effort put into finding negative effects for decades all they could manage to come up with were results from asphyxiating primates in sealed chambers and a correlation with increased symptoms in people who already have schizophrenia. I doubt most of the other herbs on the shelf would have fared so well. Before that you had widespread availability and informal usage around the globe for thousands of years without any known ill effects or addiction. I am speaking of the substance itself, not smoking it. I'm sure you'll find inhaling combustion byproducts is a bad idea in general and it isn't a good idea to smoke most of the things we know as safe in society.

      If you were to compare to aspirin to Marijuana you'd have to call aspirin a deadly toxin. There were a number of lobbies that took advantage of "drugs" and the PR at the time to get competition outlawed. Relabeling hemp as Marijuana and spreading fear amongst people who had hemp throughout their homes and no idea they were one and the same was a huge win for a number of industries including the oil industry (hemp reinforced corn plastics were a threat to petroleum based plastics) and of course the all powerful southern cotton and tobacco industries. It isn't some great conspiracy just business. It also didn't hurt that hash was far more popular among foreigners. Of course the bird seed industry got a last minute exemption because it wasn't believed a healthy seed blend was even possible without hemp seed. This is actually how the plant was saved in the US. Natural seed blends still contain hemp seed but the seeds are steam blasted to sterilize them.

      Another loser in the same wars was coca. At that point the leaves were brewed into tea. The big lobby behind that being the tea and coffee trades obviously and it was a double win for them with caffeine being added to coca-cola as the new addictive stimulant. With chemicals concentration is extremely important, cocaine wasn't typically concentrated in the way it is now, therefore it lacked the same health risks and addictive properties. Highly concentrated powdered cocaine became widespread as a smuggling technique later. What is interesting is that the reason caffeine addicts aren't running around purifying the stuff and snorting lines is that caffeine is actually far more dangerous and would kill you outright with consistency if you snorted a big line. Cocaine certainly has more negative effects than marijuana though even aside from addiction, but those effects are pretty similar to what we've found with any stimulant we've given reasonable study. Logically the same would probably be true of the positive effects we've found from caffeine but nobody does studies looking for positive effects of cocaine use.

    9. Re:Much of the damage is from pot grows ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Not really, alcohol is actually harmful to humans. Marijuana is better compared with garlic, rose oil, or any other edible herb sold in a health food store ... am speaking of the substance itself, not smoking it. I'm sure you'll find inhaling combustion byproducts is a bad idea in general and it isn't a good idea to smoke most of the things we know as safe in society.

      Smoking was what I was referring to.

      Plus there was the observable mental decline of classmates who were heavy pot smokers through junior high school and high school. If not a general problem perhaps a developmental problem tied to age.

  23. Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well a lot of the existing border fencing does need repairs/upgrades so it would be an infrastructure project.

    1. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well a lot of the existing border fencing does need repairs/upgrades so it would be an infrastructure project.

      And the Dems are offering $1.5 billion for upgrades to border security and infrastructure. But Trump has to have his Great Wall of Trump. All this shut down is going to do is cost us more money. All the people who worked during the shutdown will still get paid. All the people who didn't work over the shutdown will get paid (there's no way Congress will let hundreds of thousands of government workers go a month without pay). And then we will have to pay for the overtime for every department to clear weeks worth of backlogs.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Over the past decade, Democrats have supported billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act passed with bipartisan support requiring the construction of physical barriers along 700 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Sixty-four Democrats voted the measure in the House and 26 in the Senate.

      The current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for it, so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama praised the bill in a floor speech saying it would "certainly do some good" and "help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country."

      In 2013, all Senate Democrats and most House Democrats backed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the so-called Gang of Eight bill. It included $46 billion for border security and around $8 billion to repair or reinforce barriers along the 700 miles of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act.

    3. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by luther349 · · Score: 1

      more money for border guards is a joke and the dems know it. the wall will slow down the massive amount of of these people flooding in daily. these people learn the guards habits and litterly run in behind them.

    4. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by luther349 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yep but because it was something tump wanted there going to fight it. even tho they did it themselves.in the past.

    5. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      these people learn the guards habits and litterly run in behind them.

      Should be easy to catch them then, just follow the trail of trash. The money the Dems are offering isn't just for more guards, it's to repair/upgrade infrastructure as well. That means repaired existing fencing, more cameras, etc.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Over the past decade, Democrats have supported billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers. In 2006, the Secure Fence Act passed with bipartisan support requiring the construction of physical barriers along 700 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Sixty-four Democrats voted the measure in the House and 26 in the Senate.

      The current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for it, so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama praised the bill in a floor speech saying it would "certainly do some good" and "help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country."

      In 2013, all Senate Democrats and most House Democrats backed comprehensive immigration reform legislation, the so-called Gang of Eight bill. It included $46 billion for border security and around $8 billion to repair or reinforce barriers along the 700 miles of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act.

      Yes, and if $46 billion couldn't do it, Trump's wasteful $5.6 billion boondoggle won't do anything but inflate his ego. We're lucky he didn't want it big enough that his Space Force could see it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they offer up traps and compromises designed to steer trump back to their way of thinking.

    8. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by terrycarlino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know it's funny. When Obama was president every one of these Democratic party leaders in congress and the senate voted for border security measures which included a wall. Hundreds of miles of wall and fencing was built and maintained by agencies of the Obama administration and nobody called it immoral. No one was against it.

      Now all of a sudden becasue it would be a win for Trump and the Republicans they're against a wall. Meanwhile a border crisis is happening and rather than commit funds to deal with it the Democrats want to give up national sovereignty rather than give Trump a win.

      As for the National Parks, if there's a problem a group of citizen should come together and take up the slack. If people want to use the National Parks while they are unstaffed, because they are not closed, then they should pack out their trash, just as they would do in any other wilderness areas. And lets be clear the parks are not closed. They are the opposite of closed. Parks which normally charge for entrance have had their gates left wide open and are free to enter now. One might almost be thinking that someone has deliberately created a situation where trash would accumulate and bad actors would come in and create problems. If the parks were closed the gates would have been locked and signs posted telling visitors that the parks are closed. This has not happened.

      As I say. If you are going to visit the parks now be a responsible user and pack your trash out. If you really want to help take you pickup over to a nearby park and bag the trash and cart it off. Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

    9. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by epine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hundreds of miles of wall and fencing was built and maintained by agencies of the Obama administration and nobody called it immoral. No one was against it.

      Maybe that's because they perceived this as a sufficient and adequate response. Maybe the ROI on continuing to invest in walls and fencing has reached the point of ridiculousness. Maybe America doesn't actually have an immigration crisis, and justifying continued investment in fencing to filter out hypothetical Mexican rapists is an immoral act of unfounded prejudice.

      Your entire model of hypocrisy leaves out of the possibility that the previous response was a proportional response, and the proposed response is a disproportionate response. There's no two ways about this: Americans want to buy Californian fruit at a price you can only have if the fruit is picked by undocumented immigrants, without actually having the immigrants.

      So you disparage the immigrants so that they have no rights whatsoever in the country where the work and reside, until you've got a de facto caste society.

      Once upon a time, India did not have a caste society as rigid as the one they have now. But for some reason, there caste system solidified. Was it the people on the bottom who wanted to become permanently consigned to an underclass? Or was it the people at the top, who wanted something akin to slavery (all the benefits, few of the costs) without turning people into actual property (which is problematic, and always has been).

      America's Deep South has never quite forgotten the wonderful heroine hit of being a gentrified ruling class, where you can sit in your drawing rooms and perfect your manners (and mannerisms), while some other group of people is baking in the hot sun for long hours doing the scut work. Gosh, what if you could have that without slavery? What if you could hem and howl until the immigrants had a status below dirt, and do everything conceivable to pretend to stop this, while actually still providing the immigrants with all the same work opportunities? (All the better to sate one's enormous appetite on cheap, local fruit.)

      The wall then becomes a permanent monument to the notion, "well, we did what we could" and the immigrants are still showing up to do the same nasty jobs as the same low, low wages (with few benefits), well that just proves that they're lowly and incorrigible and deserve what they get.

      Voila: caste system. All of the benefits, few of the costs.

      I'll gladly believe otherwise once there's a vigorous enforcement effort to arrest businessmen who routinely look the other way over worker documentation (with the prospect of serious jail time for repeat offenses). Rounding up the first 1000 would be like gathering windblown apples off the ground. That would slow undocumented immigration down to a trickle at way less cost than Trump's giant monument to caste-society lust.

      Problem: a sudden wave of orchard bankruptcies among hard-working, tax-paying Californian orchard owners (mostly white) would shine a harsh spotlight in the evening news cycle for many months on the actual hypocrisy here. We wants them in one way (cheap prices), but we don't wants them in the other way (affording them dignity and civil rights).

      A hugely expensive wall (that still won't actually work) is just a giant branding exercise in justifying this extremely un-American division between labour and civil rights. This is not so different from the extremely un-American division between taxation and representation that once lead to a giant tea party.

      But times change, and tea party rebrand themselves. Now we're more like the British society from which we once sought refuge, than we are like our forefathers (and foremothers) who bravely endured the back-breaking labour of setting up shop in a giant land of opportunity, theirs for the taking.

    10. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by TomBauserman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're all the same fucking party. That's what alot of people don't understand. It's why 3rd parties aren't allowed to get anywhere when they run, because it would show off the hypocrisy of the "2 party" system. It got worse after Bill Clinton. He pushed the Democrats so far right they became Republicans.

    11. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I visited Lava Beds: no issues. People followed the rules, tried to help each other, and respected the cave closure signs.

      To find the better people pick a better class of park.

    12. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Trump was very clear on numerous occasions that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Consequently he has no electoral mandate for getting USA tax payers to pay for the wall. Heck at the last set of elections he lost control of the House so one could argue legitimately there is an electoral mandate to oppose him trying to get USA tax payers to pay for the wall. a break from his election promise of 2016.

    13. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And the Dems are offering $1.5 billion for upgrades to border security and infrastructure.

      They won't allow any of that for infrastructure, it's for "technology" (that is, they plan to had it to Google and Facebook and a couple of other Dem-friendly tech companies, not sure how it improves "security," but it does improve certain Democratic congresspersons' campaign finance potential).

      Anyway, $5.7 billion is needed.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      +1 Sad but true

    15. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke is your comprehension of reality. Illegal immigration is down, and has been for years. Try out some news other than 4chan and Fox.

    16. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His Space Farce is now as much a product of DJT's imagination as his big beautiful wall that mexico will pay for. Not sure how an imaginary Space Farce will see an imagined wall no matter how big Don imagines it.

    17. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much as I hate Trump, this quote was never meant literally.
      He didn't intend for the budget of the Wall to be paid for by Mexico. He intended the budget to be matched by trade gains. Mexico paying for the wall means the US gains enough money on trade that the wall is figuratively paid-for.

      Of course that trade increase is also complete hyperbole with no backing in reality or even economic theory. The wall would be funded by US taxpayers, to no one's surprise. But no one should truly believe Trump expected Mexico to hand out cash for Trump's big ego project. That's just a strawman.

    18. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      I'm going to need a citation for that need claim.

    19. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      When I was in the Navy I actually liked the shutdowns. I had enough saved that I could keep on cruising and BOOM!

      Big pay check.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Really. It's gonna take 21.5 billion to build the Great Wall of Stupid People.

      5.7 billion wouldn't pay for lunch of the undocumented workers.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    21. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      But Trump was very clear on numerous occasions that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.

      So what you are saying is that you want Trump to keep ALL his campaign promises? Because I'm pretty sure you don't want that. I'm pretty sure what you want iis to obstruct obstruct obstruct even the things you yourself support, so long as its filthy republicans in power.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are forgetting one thing about backpay from these furloughs:
      It comes as one big check, and they suck most of it out for taxes.
      Thus, these people are working for nothing now and get paid LESS when the money starts flowing in again.

      They get double screwed.

    23. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the National Parks, if there's a problem a group of citizen should come together and take up the slack.

      We already did this. It's called a National Park Service. Try to keep up.

    24. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your entire model of hypocrisy leaves out of the possibility that the previous response was a proportional response, and the proposed response is a disproportionate response. There's no two ways about this: Americans want to buy Californian fruit at a price you can only have if the fruit is picked by undocumented immigrants, without actually having the immigrants.

      Citation needed, because we are already paying billions per year in costs associated with those functional slaves anyway.

    25. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wants them in one way (cheap prices), but we don't wants them in the other way (affording them dignity and civil rights).

      There is a way to afford them dignity and civil rights. They need to be citizens. Illegally crossing isn't a pathway to citizenship and those protections that are guaranteed to citizens. We should not incentivize illegal immigration and reward bad behavior.

      I would rather pay more for goods and services knowing that citizens worked those jobs and were protected by law. What is the point in respecting one set of laws if you are willing to ignore other laws? Ignoring immigration law because illegals don't respect our laws isn't a good way to run a country.

      What pisses me off about this is that a wall will be good for Mexico. Mexican politicians use our porous border it as a political pressure valve and useful idiots like the democrats are complicit in treating people like slaves (illegal immigrants) and keeping Mexico a shit country. Why would Mexican politicians reform and fix their country when any would-be band of reformers can be threatened to jump the border. Why stop the cartels when such a lucrative border exists.

      Mexico and her people deserve better than your self righteous moral grandstanding. A wall does work. We already have them and they are working. But we need more.

    26. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This stunning idiocy is insightful? Man the commie cucks are out in full force lately....

    27. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      All the people who didn't work over the shutdown will get paid

      Except for all those rich white and definitely not vulnerable folk part time being not paid by the hour. And I'm sure there's no impact to those super rich government front desk workers who will be getting their pay checks delayed (I wonder if the landlords will also delay their rent payments).

      On behalf of all those people you allege are not affected and will be better off, fuck you.

    28. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by pi_rules · · Score: 2

      the wall will slow down the massive amount of of these people flooding in daily.

      Massive? I'm not sure that's the word I would pick myself.

      Total number of illegal border crossings in the us is about 500,000 per year. With roughly 365 days in a year that's about 1400 people per day. Only about half of the illegal border crossings are at the southern border though so we're looking at 700 entries per day.

    29. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have 5.7 Billion when you arrest and fine all the employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

      There is 5.7 billion there to take from the people that create this supposed problem. Simply Asset Forfeiture their business, revoke the corporate charters, and use that money directly to fund border security.

      If Mexico isn't going to pay for it as promised, then the people who created the 'problem' should be the ones footing the bill.

    30. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is spot on. I know a number of folks from the central valley and they constantly bitch about illegal immigration, but turn right around and talk about the importance of the agricultural economy. Meanwhile E-Verify is down. If ICE gets any more money they should spend it on reviewing accounting records of the large ag employers--the hypocrisy reeks.

    31. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me. They helped cause the problem, they can help fix it.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    32. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you reduce illegal immigration from Mexico then we're supporting fewer Mexicans and decreasing crime - Mexico is forced to take care of their own and whoever else they let walk through... so they're paying for it, in a way, no matter what. Anyone divorced from reality will call my reasoning racism.

    33. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Remember also that the $5.6 billion is just the first installment. The full wall is expected to cost $25 billion (or more as government projects seem to always run over their funding projections). We could build a giant golden statue of Trump to soothe his ego and spend less money. (Not that I want golden statues of him either.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    34. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, I used to protect high-end cars for over 200,000 visitors for a classic car event. We used stanchions for a visual guide to help people understand they can't actually get in and touch the cars since its not a dealership. There were even a couple of guards who cannot see what is fully happening within 20 feet of them much less the quarter mile of tent that it was all under. So how do you protect them? Easy, you use cameras with analytics to tell you when a person is crossing the stanchion guide. That produces an alert which is then sent to the nearest guard who can then properly intervene. Stanchions aren't even needed but since we try to be friendly because we're not guarding a border we do it so most of the honest people will follow the rules.

      Cameras can see at night and detect heat signatures and are far more effective today than they were back in 2006 when the best option was a fence. Even in 2013 the analytics was limited but came along to the point where I could automatically identify license plates for vehicles. Today, my Logi Circle knows when my dog jumps into my pool. It doesn't care that some debris from a tree fell in it.

      A wall just makes it harder as you now have to drive to various ports of entry to get across, keep in mind the wall wouldn't be on the exact border, it would be hundreds and in some cases thousands of yards away from the border and require tons of eminent domain to procure the land to do it. This also disrupts farmers as the current 700 miles of fencing has already demonstrated. If we can't learn from our mistakes then we're never going to make any progress.

      Also keep in mind that immigration through the border like that has been on the decline for more than a decade. The recent uptick is due to our policies in Guatemala and El Salvador that destabilized their governments years ago. Now the war on drugs has fed the cartels enough funds that they have become increasingly violent. I have a friend from El Salvador that migrated here legally about a decade ago. He cannot return or he will be killed. This is shockingly common too. The U.S. played a very large part in this mess and then won't accept the migrants that resulted. It is like if Greece was fighting a war in Syria and then complaining about all the Syrian refugees.

    35. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by sjames · · Score: 1

      I think you said more than you meant to there.

      First, you're saying that Trump's claim that Democrats are soft on border security is a damned lie.

      Second, if $46B wasn't enough for a wire fence, then a steel wall would be over a trillion.

      Here's an idea. I say we allocate $200 to buy Trump a nice hat he can have in hand when he talks to the President of Mexico about the first installment for construction of the wall.

    36. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how you often hear about people who so refuse to see the other sides viewpoint they become the very thing they bemoan. That's you.

    37. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was so well thought out & eloquently put that I feel you are posting in the wrong place. Agree with you or not, bravo sir.

    38. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't heard a single Democrat say that they would oppose Mexico paying for the wall. I want my tax payer money going to efficient border security not wasted on the least effective and most damaging form of border security a concrete wall. Why do I want my tax dollars spent on the most effective border security tools? My Republican upbringing. Looks like many other Republicans in Congress and the Senate felt the same way in 2016 and 2017 when the Republican's held majorities in both and The President still didn't get his wall. Damn Democrats! ROFLMA!

    39. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bait and switch, a classic Art of the Con technique. How dare you seek to hold him to his words!

    40. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a way to afford them dignity and civil rights. They need to be citizens. Illegally crossing isn't a pathway to citizenship and those protections that are guaranteed to citizens. We should not incentivize illegal immigration and reward bad behavior.

      You were fine with it when it was the Cubans. Oh, but these are the refugees from the shambles of OUR banana republic proxies, and we can't score a propaganda win off them like Reagan could against the Soviets.

    41. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also remember a debate about whether the wall was a physical one and some Trump supporters suggesting that it was stupid to assume that it's a literal wall.

    42. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very sad. Yet it seems true..

    43. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Damn you are _stupid_. Amount withheld is not the amount taxed. It can be adjusted easily or the difference collected at tax return time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    44. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They can get an honest job, same as everybody.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be fine with Trump admitting he done lied.

    46. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual Trump voter here. I never actually thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall, I figured I was going to end up paying for it in taxes. I still want it. Have a nice day.

    47. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lets be clear the parks are not closed. They are the opposite of closed.

      That's the effing problem. They are open and unstaffed. You act as if the parks would be safe and maintained with zero presence, and you're stupidly wrong.

    48. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I remember when the now disgrace Randy "duke" Cunningham was bitching that the liberals were building a double fence on the border, because he insisted it needed to be a triple fence. That's when I figured out it was just a game about seeing which side was going to accuse the other side of doing things wrong. I thought it was crazy back then, but now it seems sort of sane in comparison.

    49. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Much as I hate Trump, this quote was never meant literally.

      Are you sure? This is Trump we're talking about, so it's quite possible that he really meant and believed it.

    50. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      They can get an honest job, same as everybody.

      Oh wow. "Honest job" and generalisations about people working in the government at a time when they are being screwed.

      I've met some horrible arses in my time, but you... you sir deserve to die of starvation in a queue at the DMV.

    51. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "But Trump was very clear on numerous occasions that Mexico was going to pay for the wall."

      Oh please. That logic is easy to follow. Undocumented workers are expensive, extremely expensive. They cause billions in wear and tear on infrastructure, public services, and increased medical and insurance costs. If it actually prevents some significant number of illegal immigrants from crossing then Mexico will pay those costs rather than us and thus Mexico will have paid for it. It's debatable whether or not that will happen.

      The construction cost to build the wall just goes right back into the US economy. That isn't hypothetical economic growth like a tax cut, infrastructure spending is well proven out and easily projected economic boost. Normally this sort of thing has bi-partisan support for that reason. The cherry on the Sundae would be using unpaid illegal immigrant labor to build it and then tossing them on the wrong side at the end. That doesn't seem completely unlikely since Trump has been gathering them up in camps.

    52. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      To bad you don't like it.

      By your DMV ref, you clearly understand that I'm right.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    53. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      $46 billion or $5.6 billion could easily do it. I suspect we'll find that step two is using illegals as unpaid criminal laborers allowing them to work off their crime with public service and then when the project is complete releasing them on the Mexican side.

    54. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Complete with spreading hysteria about the Russians. As if citizens united doesn't let countries all over world influence our elections via contributions and advocacy through corporations they own and the Russians were special.

    55. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Not if they don't include sensors to detect tunneling it won't.

    56. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? According to Donald Trump the border is completely open, insecure, and exposed to countless legions of immigrants crossing over and Democrats have done nothing.

      So you are confirming, Donald Trump is lying, and we don't need increased spending on unspecified measures which generally means he simply wants to take the money for himself.

      Let's just impeach the motherfucker.

    57. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Third parties don't make headway because elections are a winner-takes-all race. The nature of that system forces things into a mostly two-party system. This is not a new phenomena either, it's been this way since the beginning. The founding fathers didn't want political parties, and possibly were naive in assuming they wouldn't come into being.

      You can have many more parties in a more parliamentary system where you get proportional representation. So even if your party is only getting support from 15% of the voters you will still get some measure of representation in the legislature. But 15% of the vote in America won't win anything. Occasionally there will be a bit of a hiccup, like the Reform Party in Minnesota, but they don't last since the wins are often based on personal popularity or as a protest vote.

      Our two major parties don't have solid long lasting principles. Our parties are sort of like the coalitions that you see in a parliamentary system only the coalitions are formed before the general elections. As the public changes their outlook then the parties also adapt and change so that there's a roughly even 50/50 balance. If the Republican party splits then it's guaranteed that the Democrats will get the majority in congress, and so the Republicans put up with uncomfortable alliances (social conservatives sitting at the table with fiscal conservatives). And the same happens with the Democrats, they put up with the Green Party types as well as the more left leaning socialist types, because they need to stay competitive and maintain the 50-50 split. And when the people in the moderate middle start to waffle one way or the other then the parties react to move the teeter-totter back in line.

      So we do actually have shifting political alliances, only they happen within the parties and not between parties as with a parliamentary system. But to change the status quo, a constitutional change would seem to be necessary. And that's not likely to happen.

    58. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If you are going to visit the parks now be a responsible user and pack your trash out.

      Oh my gosh, we're talking about Americans here! It ain't gonna happen. People see a trashcan and thank heavens they will occasionally throw the trash there instead of on the ground. But then the trashcan fills up and and they don't know what to do. These are not serious hikers or backpackers, they're weekend tourists who don't see a serious difference between Yosemite and Disneyland.

    59. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Obama was adamant that you could keep your doctor and all kinds of other bullshit he knew likely wouldn't happen. I'm sure he tried for it, but sometimes it just doesn't work, ya know? So Trump couldn't get Mexico to pay for it, big whoop. Most Trump supporters knew deep down that it wasn't going to happen. Next order of business: Get it anyway, because that's what he promised. It's easy to see why this is so important to him. He was pretty much elected to do two things: 1. Build wall, 2. Give a shit about blue collar workers. He's a damn idiot, but he's an idiot who was elected to do exactly what he's doing right now.

    60. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ridiculous caricature you painted of the average southerner is more prejudice and bigoted than most genuine "All blacks are lazy" racists. It's hard to take you seriously when you demonize your opposition as straight out evil like that.

    61. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      the wall will slow down the massive amount of of these people flooding in daily.

      Massive? I'm not sure that's the word I would pick myself.

      Total number of illegal border crossings in the us is about 500,000 per year. With roughly 365 days in a year that's about 1400 people per day. Only about half of the illegal border crossings are at the southern border though so we're looking at 700 entries per day.

      On the northern border, people are leaving the US

    62. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by luther349 · · Score: 1

      that called not fixing the problem. once they run across they quickly dissaper into traffic normally with cars waiting for them.

    63. Re: Border fencing is infrastructure by luther349 · · Score: 1

      maybe you should read the news more often. they are still coming across every day.

    64. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe America doesn't actually have an immigration crisis

      In your opinion, how many illegal immigrants are too much?

      1 of 1?

      1 of 10?

      1 of 100?

      1 of 1,000?

      In 2016 in the US, it was approx. 1 of 30. source

    65. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been saying this for a while now, and will repeat: Game Theory dictates Two Party System to converge. Think about it..

    66. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      By your DMV ref, you clearly understand that I'm right.

      Because a process is slow the people carrying it out don't have an honest job and deserve to not get paychecks during the government spat? You're quite a despicable human.

    67. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one could argue legitimately there is an electoral mandate to oppose him trying to get USA tax payers to pay for the wall. a break from his election promise of 2016.

      Does saving tens of billions from renegotiating NAFTA count as "Mexico paying for it" and if not why?

    68. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont think we have an immigration crisis? Why dont you go put your kids in Sevier County schools in Tennessee - which happens to border the GSMP.

      We moved our kids to another school (Sevier Co has school choice, no zoning), because they didnt have any english speaking kids in their class.

      SO yea, we have one hell of a problem, and long winded responses dont change that.

    69. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by rsborg · · Score: 1

      They're all the same fucking party.

      That's bullshit. It's been bullshit for a long time. There is no comity in the congress. It's open warfare now, and you better pick a side.

      btw, one side is funded by Russians and Saudis.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    70. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump said it over and over again, and still did as of a few months ago. He explicitly said that "Mexico would pay for it". There are youtube videos from a thousand different places where he says it.

      A 2000 mile wall is idiocy, which is why the orange twitler thinks it is a great idea.

      Fuck Trump

      numbnuts

    71. Re:Border fencing is infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An imaginary wall made out of concrete.

      LAWL

      numbnuts

  24. Re: And Zinke Said On His Way Out: "YA WELCOME!".. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think you just need to build the wall around a certain golf course in Miami and the crybaby will be happy and open the gov again.

  25. You mean literal Nazi propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that "superhero" is the US translation/equivalent for "Ãoebersoldat", as used by Nazi propaganda, right?
    And that those movies are nothing but the US equivalent propaganda, and also murder porn (leaving out all the bad parts about murder).

    Turds like this only ranks high in *your* value system of literally only war and profit. (Like the Ferrengi and Klingons combined. With the warm-heartedness of the Vulcans.)

    1. Re:You mean literal Nazi propaganda? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Captain America, for sure. Spiderman? Not so much.

    2. Re:You mean literal Nazi propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superhero dates back to before the Nazi Party even existed, you Russian moron.

    3. Re: You mean literal Nazi propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To be the equivalent of" does not mean "to come from". Besides, the ideas of National Socialism (eugenics, ethnic cleansing, white supremacy, blaming the Jews, Lebensraum, etc.) are older than the NSDAP.

    4. Re:You mean literal Nazi propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnetto and the Flash are both jewishes

  26. Re: Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no they do not. I think the staff at the national parks are still working, at least maintaining the concession stands since those produce revenue. I guess forest rangers cannot man coffee shops

  27. Bull. Shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most public parkland is self-funding through a combination of volunteers and usage fees.

    Pit toilets, the most common kind, in most parks can go a year without maintenance.

    And guess what happens in the off season, which it currently is. Nobody's there anyway. The iron ranger* is their best employee and he is on duty.

    *Avid outdoorsman slang for the daily usage fee/trail fee/parking fee box. You write out some info on an envelope, add money, and drop it in the box. Maybe a federal employee will collect it and check if you paid the right amount one day a week. Maybe.

  28. Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall. Build the wall!

    1. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Especially Illegal immigrants with access to boats, planes, or Canada.

    2. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by luther349 · · Score: 1

      indeed but your talking a small number of them compared to those that just run across the border.

    3. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Brown men bad! Brown men hurt parks! Build wall!

      There. Fixed it so the rest of your brain-addled comrades can understand it. You're welcome.

    4. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's build walls around parks instead. fuck the cities.

    5. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the only one that mentioned race. You are the racist.

    6. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ones that "just run across the border" are the small number.

    7. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone just loves your made up bull shit. More fiction please.

    8. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      By several percent. So one border is responsible for well over 40% of illegal immigrant traffic, with the rest coming from people in good enough standing to at least get visas. Moreover, it is relatively simple to cut that flow by more than half and probably more than 80% with a wall across all but the most inhospitable terrain. Whereas the other immigrants enter the country legally and don't leave which is basically impossible to stop unless we start implanting visitors with tamper-proof tracking chips. Since that is just stupid, we go with option A, the wall.

    9. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Couldn't hear you over the dogwhistle. Try again later.

    10. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing about dog-whistles is that only dogs here it. Quite literally you and the other racist are the only ones mentioning and bring up race.

      You are the dog hearing a whistle. You are the racist.

    11. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the dog hearing a whistle. You are the racist.

      Logic. Fail at it you did. Semantics are not your thing also.

      Perhaps waiting to reply until you finish the fourth-grade-equivalent English-as-a-second-language course would be a good thing, no?

      Just trying to spread the good cheer you Trolly McTrollface you.

    12. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we go with Option C which is cameras and machine learning that can understand the difference between Elk and humans walking through the desert. Guess what? Even if they do build a wall there will be a tunnel within days unless you are patrolling heavily which requires a dramatic increase in staffing. Seriously, a couple of drones and cameras can see at night and detect people which can then be apprehended is far better than a wall which detects people but then you can't mobilize without either a helicopter to get over the wall or points of entry which require you to drives miles and miles away from the point of contact before you can get there.

      Since you are going to need the cameras anyway why waste 10s of billions of dollars just to build let alone maintain a wall and all the eminent domain that will be required to seize the land and all the farmers that will have their farm on one side of the wall with their house on the other making them drive 30 miles just to tend their fields when they can just walk to them today.

      With cams and comms you can much more effectively deploy your resources and bring better Internet to people out in the sticks at the same time. You could even use some of the rural broadband fund to help pay for the infrastructure and avoid taking people's food stamps or paychecks away.

      A wall only works when you militarize it. That is not something you do with an ally. Furthermore, if you want to stem the flood of people maybe you can help fix all the damage the U.S. caused to countries like Guatemala and El Salvador since that is the majority of the people immigrating illegally since Mexicans actually have other options these days.

    13. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one border is responsible for well over 40% of illegal immigrant traffic,

      No, it doesn't. That 40% number is for all illegal immigrants. That's it. Not illegal immigrant "traffic". It's counting people who are already here and wall does nothing about them.

      If you want to talk border crossings, it's already been going down during the Obama years (and this is with Obama offering DACA). The total number of illegals peaked in 2007.

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      Only 14% of the people already here arrived in the last 5 years (and again, this 14% is for all illegals, it doesn't mean all 14% of them came through the southern border, nor does it mean they all illegally came in)

      https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

      And the moment Trump showed up, arrests for illegal border crossings dropped to a 46 year low in 2017, without the need for any wall.

      https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05...

    14. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The vast majority coming over now, the "caravan" are intentionally turning themselves into border patrol agents in a bid for asylum. The immigrants avoiding this and arriving illegally are balanced out by a similar number of people returning back over the border in the other direction. The wall won't make a tangible difference there.

      For smuggling, including drugs, the wall won't do much either. These drugs aren't getting into the country a kilo at a time by being hidden on migrants.

    15. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We already have a wall across most of the easily accessible areas. Most migrants not intending to apply for asylum are being funneled into dangerous areas, like cross through the desert. So even though it's not 100% coverage it means less border that needs to be actively monitored by border agents.

      The snag here is that Trump wants a wall (or fence or whatever) because he made a poorly thought out campaign promise. Whereas Congress (both parties) are willing to increase budget for border security which could include things other the wall, such as increase in personnel, drones, etc (virtual wall). So the issue here is not a disagreement about border security, but a disagreement about the particular methods to be used.

    16. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Of course they hurt parks. The parks cost money to maintain, more people means more cost to maintain which is fine if those people pay toward that cost but illegal immigrants don't.

      Which can be alleviated by opening more paths to legal immigrant status. There are some things which get in the way, piggy backing attempts to further open the floodgates of tech immigration onto any bill, a desire to make all these immigrants voters because it would favor one party even though it isn't a sound policy, and either party giving an inch meaning their (real or imagined) testicles falling off.

      I don't see a literal big wall working well when tunnels are such a common thing. I can see a giant electrified fence with razor wire and a mesh network of sensors doing something useful. There are some great open frameworks built for monitoring oil pipelines that would work well here. Hell, use it to distribute free high speed Wifi and 5G cellular while at it and let anyone monitor it. Seems like a great way to boost immigration to the border as an added bonus and the police and civilians in those places become bonus eyes and enforcement.

      But as far a giant literal wall. Seems like a meaningless gesture and an expensive one at that. But really, compared to some of the other crap we blow money on it is a drop in the bucket so I don't see why people are so outraged by it either. If they want a stupid wall, build a stupid wall, and still integrate sensors, wifi, and 5g so it has a purpose. You'll cover the last mile all the way down the border. ;)

      That wifi and 5g has an added purpose. Suddenly the Telcos have a vested financial interest in keeping the thing maintained and protected.

    17. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Just build walls around the cities, the full metropolitan areas so you get all those suburbs that are separately incorporated but actually part of the same damn population. You get a pass on the outside that lets you in/out and to board planes that aren't destined for other large cities but your pass and biometrics have to match to prove you aren't a resident to use them.

    18. Re:Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegals that work here pay taxes and get nothing in return, except hate.

      numbnuts

  29. Trees and wildlife need government money to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It will take 100,000,000,000 times infinity years to make up for a couple of weeks of park ranger absence. These numbers have been backed by non Trump voting scientists, so you know they are accurate.

  30. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shutdowns cost more than simply leaving the government open.

  31. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trump asks for $5billion to waste on a stupid wall he promised we wouldn't have to pay for.

    "oMg TeH LiBtaRdS aRe dEmANdiNg mOrE $$$$$ frOM Urrr pOkkITS!!!"

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  32. humans by sad_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    makes me sad that a great piece of nature can't stay clean for a few days unless there are paid people who clean up after the visitors - the real trash are the humans leaving their trash behind.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:humans by asylumx · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... in trash cans which aren't being emptied, because the people who are normally paid to empty them aren't being paid to empty them, so they are overflowing and trash is blowing around.

    2. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably, as a visitor to one of these parks and knowing that they are understaffed, you could always take your trash home with you? I mean, they took it there in the first place. Humans are indeed the issue.

    3. Re:humans by RuiFRibeiro · · Score: 1

      It is counterproductive having people cleaning parks and beaches.
      When those freaking idiots were in a dump up to their necks, maybe they realized they should had no servants cleaning up after them.

    4. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take it back with you. It's not like you go there expecting full service - an conscientious environmental steward would take their trash with them.

    5. Re:humans by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      makes me sad that a great piece of nature can't stay clean for a few days unless there are paid people who clean up after the visitors - the real trash are the humans leaving their trash behind.

      If you see the examples in TFA about the National Mall, it's not that people are trash for leaving trash behind, it's that the dedicated bins to leave said trash are actually being used as expected by normal decent people, but are not being emptied and thus are overflowing with garbage.

      Yeah there's some grubs out there, but in this case the people attempting to do the right thing are unable to do it.

    6. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, people don't use their brains and take their rubish home?

    7. Re:humans by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      makes me sad that a great piece of nature can't stay clean for a few days unless there are paid people who clean up after the visitors - the real trash are the humans leaving their trash behind.

      If you see the examples in TFA about the National Mall, it's not that people are trash for leaving trash behind, it's that the dedicated bins to leave said trash are actually being used as expected by normal decent people, but are not being emptied and thus are overflowing with garbage.

      Yeah there's some grubs out there, but in this case the people attempting to do the right thing are unable to do it.

      It's already being cleaned up voluntarily:Libertarians step in to clean up Washington during government shutdown

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:humans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you see the examples in TFA about the National Mall, it's not that people are trash for leaving trash behind, it's that the dedicated bins to leave said trash are actually being used as expected by normal decent people, but are not being emptied and thus are overflowing with garbage.

      In a mall, you're buying stuff, and then you're acquiring additional trash which you have to dispose of. In a park, you're bringing trash with you, and it's more reasonable to take it with you as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:humans by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Is it really so hard to CONTINUE to carry that thing that you no longer need/want until you are out of the park?

      Seriously.... you came in with it.... you can leave with it....

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    10. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The National Mall, as misleading as the title is, isn't actually a shopping mall. It's a park, filled with memorials and what have you.

      As a non-American, confusing, I know.

    11. Re:humans by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      We used to always preach "you pack it in, you pack it out" and that applied to local parks and beaches as well. I guess asking people to carry their trash back out with them is simply too much...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already being cleaned up voluntarily:Libertarians step in to clean up Washington during government shutdown

      A few places (the more populous or famous ones, where you can score political points) are being cleaned up by volunteers, but this doesn't scale.

      If private volunteering (and charity) scaled, we wouldn't have government in the first place.

    13. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So when someone goes to deposit trash in a receptacle are they able to tell if it is full to capacity? Do they then have a choice of how to manage what is in their hands? What could an alternative be?

      I know people that have a tradition of taking some extra bags when they go places and filling them with trash that irresponsible people have left behind ... and carrying it back to the car ... and disposing of it at home.

    14. Re: humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this latest generation, mom and dad did all the cleaning up, and then gave them a trophy for looking up from their phone once or twice. You really expect them to pack out their trash, when no trophy is forthcoming?

    15. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not by Libertarians: https://dcist.com/story/19/01/04/the-d-c-government-is-cleaning-up-the-federal-governments-mess/

    16. Re:humans by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In a park, you're bringing trash with you

      In some parks. In many you're just as able to buy stuff there.

    17. Re:humans by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is it really so hard to CONTINUE to carry that thing

      The thing fundamentally changes properties. Would you put a banana in your backpack? Probably. Why not. Would you put a half eaten banana with bruised leftovers in your backpack along with the open peel? Probably not, not unless you planned ahead with additional ways to manage the waste that fundamentally changed during the course of time.

      Seriously.... you came in with it.... you can leave with it....

      Indeed you can. Or you can put it in the provided bins... or at least you could before the orange-utan in the whitehouse fucked that up too.

    18. Re:humans by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked they haven't forbidden this because of 1. Safety issues with no one around, and 2. Complaints that, though delayed, this is union work.

      This is not a joke.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re: humans by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      No.

      The place is clean when it is being cleaned on a regular basis.

      Said that. Nothing bad will happen to parks if they are not cleaned for months.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    20. Re:humans by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      In Japan, if you cannot find a trash bin, you'll carry your trash until reach home.

    21. Re:humans by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A lot of people just drive up to the visitors center, see the trashcans there, and put their trash into them. These are a lot of day trip people, they're not backpackers ready or prepared to hike out their trash. They see a trashcan and their first thought naturally is that those are places to put their trash in. And like many typical Americans (I am one, I know a lot of them and how they think) they are happy as long as they get their trash in the general vicinity of of the can.

      Also remember these parks aren't all wilderness areas. The National Mall in Washington DC is a national park, as well as things like the Lincoln Memorial, and so forth.

    22. Re: humans by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I remember in the 60s and 70s when people would roll down their window while driving and throw the trash out onto the road or freeway. I'm not making that up. Not everyone did that, but plenty of people did. So I think we have made a fair amount of progress since then.

      The real problem is that you can get 95% of the people (if lucky) to behave responsibly, but that still leaves a lot of people who will readily screw stuff up and not worry about it. That's why we can't have nice things anymore.

    23. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to polls at least 35% of the population are human trash, not sure why this is surprising

    24. Re:humans by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Japan is not a real place. Don't believe everything you see in cartoons.

    25. Re:humans by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 1

      I learned that while visiting the country. Now I teach the same to my kids.

    26. Re:humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to always preach "you pack it in, you pack it out" and that applied to local parks and beaches as well. I guess asking people to carry their trash back out with them is simply too much...

      A National Park isn't your local park. Yes, I totally believe your family makes cross-country road trips with your rotten camp food waste in the car, so you can throw it away at home. Sure.

  33. Re:Make up your mind: are they "largely unattended by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 0

    "lazy park staff going AWOL"

    I'm sure your boss is glad to hear you'd be willing to work for weeks on end without getting paid. After all, you're not lazy, right?

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  34. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think shutdowns cost some people more than they thought. Ever wonder what happens when someone realizes that they actually did not need your services?

  35. Yeah, but humans aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature doesn't give a fuck about us. True.
    We already are this planet's biggest extinction event ever, surpassing even a complete reversal of athmospheric composition. Yet life and this planet will simply go on without us.

    We humans are definitely on the way out though. And that is a good thing.

    1. Re:Yeah, but humans aren't. by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      At the moment it is mostly Florida and California on the way out and nobody is particularly upset about that.

    2. Re: Yeah, but humans aren't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm upset about it, for the reason that those people have legs/wheels. They're all too capable of moving inland, and we don't have a wall to keep them out.

  36. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But it won't save any money. It will lose the federal government money when it needs to start up everything again. There is also the tax on the rest of the economy due to not being able to access the government services they need, such as the courts. And that doesn't count the gov. employees not getting paid but having to work regardless, and the gov. employees simply not getting paid. If they are living paycheck to paycheck, they are SOL. Then there are the government contractors. Ever since Reagan, the Fed. Gov. was forced to contract out for some of its functions to the private sector. Those contractors are not getting paid. So their businesses get a hidden tax due to the disruption.

    The last gov. shutdown cost the federal government $20 Billion. All become some dolt from Texas (Ted Cruz) got up one morning and decided to be even stupider than normal for him.

  37. Re:Make up your mind: are they "largely unattended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said tax payers not Mexicans.

  38. Re: Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    concession stands are usually licensed and are not directly run by the parks themselves.

  39. Expect a shift in funding by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The units of the NPS, the Smithsonian, and other cultural institutions simply will not continue to tolerate shutdown after shutdown. Many of them already have private foundations which assist their operations, and because they're so under-funded by the gov't to begin with (e.g., Smithsonian is the only Federal agency actually allowed to fund-raise because of their pathetic level of funding) and with the gov't continually using them as a political football, it's not a stretch for them all to go fully public-private and just opt out of the whole broken system. For example, Gettysburg National Military Park has done this for years now, and while their NPS staff have indeed been furloughed, the Visitors Center and battlefield are both open during this current shutdown, paid for by the Gettysburg Foundation. Some foundations at other NPS units are actually paying ranger salaries so they can keep working.

    Oh yeah, and it's time for Smithsonian to start charging an entry fee. Discount / waive it for the poor if you wish, but well-off and middle-class visitors can and should pay *something*. Even our friends in Europe charge admission fees to their museums.

    1. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how it should work.

    2. Re:Expect a shift in funding by terrycarlino · · Score: 2

      The Smithsonian was founded as a bequest to the United States by James Smithson a private British citizen. The United States government then promptly took that bequest (equivalent to $11 million dollars) and p*ssed it away.

      Luckily ex-President John Quincy Adams persuaded Congress to restore the money.

      So what have we learned here? The Smithsonian was never suppose to be a thing paid for by the U.S. government. In the past, as now, the best way to screw something up is to give money to the federal government so that they can do the job.

      Had a competent private company had control of Smithson's bequest all of the Smithsonian's funds would be coming from private sources and their funding would never have been in jeopardy.

      In some ways the Smithsonian is a the poster boy for why the federal government shouldn't be doing things.

      As for the National Parks they should be self-funded by a private chartered organization. Let the people and companies that use them pay for their upkeep and maintenance. Things like ski lodges on public land, which since they are run by private companies I can guarantee they are not shut down.This would also make them shutdown proof.

    3. Re:Expect a shift in funding by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As for the National Parks they should be self-funded by a private chartered organization.

      Or they should be converted to state parks. Here in California we have enough money to keep things running, and we'd be perfectly happy to take all of those national parks off of the feds' hands. I mean, if they can't afford to maintain them, they probably shouldn't have them anyway. While we're at it, we'll take that BLM land they don't seem to be able to manage correctly. It's a sizable percentage of the state.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Expect a shift in funding by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Except it's not California's land. The National Parks belong to all Americans.

    5. Re:Expect a shift in funding by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Except it's not California's land. The National Parks belong to all Americans.

      Right, that's why you should give them to California, we'll keep them open for all Americans, unlike the federal government.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Smithsonian were not funded by the US Government, it would most likely be paid for by entrance fees like 99% of all other museums and zoos around the country. It would not be the same institution.

      dom

    7. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are OK with all americans giving california stuff, but not california giving stuff to all americans... gotcha!!

      Fuck off disgusting cunt

    8. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and if the Smithsonian was still private, they'd charge you 100 bucks a pop MINIMUM for the privilege. Go suck some more Republican cock, you fucking shill.

    9. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the National Parks they should be self-funded by a private chartered organization.

      Or they should be converted to state parks. Here in California we have enough money to keep things running, and we'd be perfectly happy to take all of those national parks off of the feds' hands. I mean, if they can't afford to maintain them, they probably shouldn't have them anyway. While we're at it, we'll take that BLM land they don't seem to be able to manage correctly. It's a sizable percentage of the state.

      You do realize that quite a few smaller units are former state parks that were turned over to the Federal government, right?

    10. Re:Expect a shift in funding by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So you are OK with all americans giving california stuff, but not california giving stuff to all americans... gotcha!!

      Other Americans take Californians' money every year. It very much works the other way around, kid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Expect a shift in funding by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Except it's not California's land. The National Parks belong to all Americans.

      Well, ish. It's a bit more complicated than that, and the political split probably depends on if you live in the Eastern or Western US, and whether you're a "traditional" Western resident (ie, fiercely protective of land rights and local control) or a progressive one (ie, "yay centralization and control!")

      For a nice overview, take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50

    12. Re:Expect a shift in funding by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      "Here in California we have enough money to keep things running"

      California's Total State and Local Debt Totals $1.3 Trillion

      Just my 2 cents ;)

    13. Re: Expect a shift in funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is about 15% of the population. State debt of 1.3T .
      Federal debt is 20T. 15% of 20T is about 3T.

      California debt is lower than the national average.

      So yeah, Cali is doing ok.

      As for the wall...
      You want to be left alone. I want to murder you.
      Let's compromise in the middle, you can kill yourself. This way you don't get bothered by me, and I still get to have you dead.

      So maybe sometimes it is unreasonable to compromise in the middle. Or will you kill yourself now?

  40. Turn national park management over to the states by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    And, no, the states *won't* sell off and develop the parks, especially if the management is turned over with lots of strings attached.

  41. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is so smart: tell the government what is good for the government to get them to think your way so you can live off the taxpayers dole. Government does not see through those ploys

  42. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I vist a lot of National Parks throughut the year, and most the time I don't see a soul. No employees, no visitors.

    Doesn't mean they're not there. Do you see people building the roads when you go? They still got built and maintained didn't they.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  43. Closed until further notice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't care. Keep it shut down until a wall, or a new minefield, or a new bombing/firing range is built on the southern border. When they are done with that do the same around California.

    Better yet fund those things but take the money out of the part of the government not shut down, the other 85%.

  44. Re:Sell them by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Sell the parks and lower government responsibility.

    To who? Who is going to buy all these parks and maintain them when there's no way at all enough people would come and pay enough to make that a profitable business. Or just chop them all down and sell the wood? Yeah, see how well that goes.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  45. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ideal job: park custodian because they never get fired. And people would stab their parents in the back to get those jobs

  46. Re:thats what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what happens when there is a idiot behind the wheel that needs pictures drawn to grasp things.

    America really went down the drain in the worlds eyes the last years. No longer a power to rely on when it have the temperament of a todler and lying toung like the worst charlatan.

    Good luck tring to dig your self out of that hole. the rest of us will make more popcorn and watch the horror comedy.

    The funny part is they (the trump ones at least) think they've taken a step up and and shining brighter than ever (which was never really that bright anyway)

  47. Re: Sell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new owners will do whatever they wish in compliance with the laws of the land.

    If you want a little piece of wilderness to escape your shitty sardine can lifestyle, buy some. Its surprisingly affordable.

  48. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here here... the NPS is a joke. I love the national parks themselves and have visited nearly every single one in the western US. They are some of my favourite places on this earth. Unfortunately the NPS bureaucrats are complete garbage. Turn the lands over to the states... the visitors will be better off and so will the rangers. Fire the administrators and sentence them to homelessness for life.

  49. Re:Make up your mind: are they "largely unattended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people go somewhere that their money has paid for, do you call them trespassers? Idiot.

  50. Re: Make up your mind: are they "largely unattende by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soooo... national parks are a good buy? I do not buy that

  51. Hyperbole and Fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every big government agency will scream national tragedy if the teat stops delivering milk. The truth is, you could stop spending on national parks forever and nothing would ever come of it. The parks would still be there. People would still go there. They'd piss on trees and bury their poop like people did for centuries before modern plumbing. Trash might be a problem since so much stuff is non-degradable, but all you have to do there is start beating people within an inch of their lives for littering and people wouldn't litter.

    Problem solved.

    1. Re:Hyperbole and Fearmongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who would administer the beating? Volunteers? And what kind of person would volunteer to savagely beat litterers? The solution sounds like it would be worse than the problem.

      "You gots to pay the toll if you want to stroll down this path. And then again if you want to go back. Lenny back there don't take kindly to folks who enjoy this unspoiled wilderness without paying the toll."

      "Oh no, you just stepped on a 10,000 year old moss bed! You're in big trouble if anyone finds out. I could be persuaded to look the other way..."

      "Nice lake yah got here, sure would be a shame if someone were to dump toxic chemicals innit. I could keep an eye on it, for a fee."

      "Nice toxic chemicals yah got here. I could make them go away, for a fee."

  52. People are doing that already by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Volunteers in Joshua Tree are collecting trash from the parks, and I assume in other places too.

    No reason much of the janitorial aspect of the parks could not be covered by a gofundme that would cover hiring a real janitorial company, plenty of people would be willing to pay.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:People are doing that already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why gofundme? If you love the place (Joshua, Yosemite, RMNP, GC) you should be mandated to carry out more than you carried in. Don't be so self-righteous about picking up after yourself; pick up after someone else too. This is about the Park, right? Or is it about you? Oh, and get rid of the city in Yosemite and ban all motor homes. Our last trip to GC was wonderful; the shuttles were great. The geezers in their mobile homes, not so much.

    2. Re:People are doing that already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but how many are willing to pay TWICE*?

      (they already paid taxes)

  53. Re:Sell them by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Sell the parks and lower government responsibility.

    To who? Who is going to buy all these parks and maintain them when there's no way at all enough people would come and pay enough to make that a profitable business. Or just chop them all down and sell the wood? Yeah, see how well that goes.

    Zinke had quite a few people lined up before he ran off to avoid investigations (which may still happen anyway). Of course, the new owners didn't plan on keeping them open as national parks, they want the lumber/mineral rights, etc.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  54. how does one trespass on public land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't agree with the idea of "closing" the wilderness. Paying armed guards to keep people out of a place they have a legal right to go to any other time seems silly to me.

  55. This Is An Outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These parks can't take care of themselves. It's not like these public lands have existed for millennial without the aid of the US government and NPS. The national parks will be destroyed in just a few weeks, and it's all because of Trump, or Pelosi if you swing that way.

    We need government funding and maintenance on these public lands, presently unused because they are chin deep in snow and ice as well as locked gates, or everything will fall apart. You can't expect wilderness to take care of itself for fucks sake! We're talking cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria. Real, wrath of God shit.

    It's an outrage! I'mma go on Tweeter and express my views right now. I'm not kidding! I'm really going to do this.

    1. Re: This Is An Outrage! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They existed for millenia when the population density was a fraction of what it is now in a way that was not friendly to casual visitors. Which bits of 1000 years ago do you want to return to?

  56. Anarchy by iTrawl · · Score: 0

    Fan of anarchy? This is what it looks like.

    The US basically has no government right now, except for the fact that taxes are still owed as if the government was still operational.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  57. Cry me a river. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you say you're lonely
    You cry the long night through
    Well, you can cry me a river
    Cry me a river
    I cried a river over you
    Now you say you're sorry
    For being so untrue
    Well, you can cry me a river
    Cry me a river
    'Cause I cried, I cried, I cried a river over you
    You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my head
    While you never shed a tear
    Remember, I remember, all that you said?
    You told me love was too plebeian
    Told me you were through with me and
    And now you say, you say you love me
    Well, just to prove you do
    Come on and cry me a river
    Cry me a river
    'Cause I cried a river over you
    You drove me, nearly drove me, out of my head
    While you never shed a tear
    Remember, I remember, all that you said?
    Told me love was too plebeian
    Told me you were through with me and
    Now, now you say you love me
    Well, just to prove you do
    Come on and cry, cry, cry me a river
    Cry me a river
    'Cause I cried a river over you
    If my pillow could talk, imagine what it would have said
    Could it be a river of tears I cried instead?
    So you can cry me a river
    Daddy, go ahead and cry me a river
    'Cause I cried, how I cried a river over you
    How I cried a river over you

  58. Should a Closed Govenrment Mean No Government? by JimSadler · · Score: 0

    OK, the government quit us so now lets get a decent president in place. What an opportunity !

  59. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a few weeks of gov't shutdown won't cause years of damage to the fucking parks. Get real you assholes.

    1. Re: bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few weeks is plenty of time to do things like dump sump oil which does take a considerable amount of time to rectify. Just because you lack imagination with respect to the damage that can be done doesn't mean that various unsavoury people also lack it.

    2. Re: bullshit by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Really? You're worried about someone dumping sump oil in Yosemite? You do know that with the current coverage by rangers in the park, someone could do that already. And the type of person to do that, when every auto parts store in the nation will take the oil, isn't worried about a park ranger anyway. As the GP said, "Get real you asshole."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  60. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that when the government shuts down, Obama sends paid guards to prevent anyone entering a national park. This is what happened when he shut down government to force Obamacare. This is what happens now that Obama is trying to force the wall. You won't win, Obama!

  61. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife worked as one. They wouldn't be stabbing each other in the back for the pay.

  62. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OBAMA shutdowns cost more money

  63. Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm sorry that people can't ride their bikes, hike and camp right now.

    Maybe, with some of the money we recoup by tackling illegal immigration, we can rectify some of that.

    But border security has been one of these everpresent "talking points" for DECADES now.

    They pull it out and hammer on it during elections.
    But the second elections are over, they pack it away, to use during the next election.

    And this is both sides of the aisle.

    And people are sick of it.

    The issue needs to be put to bed.

    NOW.

    If there is collateral damage? SO BE IT.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, so you're gonig to hold our resources hostage, and bitch and whine and whine and WHIIIINE until you get what you want. Christ but right-wing authoritarians are weak little cowards.

    2. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah but there are already walls and fencing where they're needed, just buy some surveillance drones to patrol the rest of the border and you're done. A Great Wall is dumb.

    3. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical lefty bullshit. "If you don't give me what I want, you're a whiner."

      Who's the real whiny bitch here, bitch?

    4. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Illegal immigration doesn't cost money. It's probably a net overall GAIN to the US economy (https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration).

      I'm not sick of it. I want more immigration. I have friends that are here illegally, and they contribute a lot socially and economically.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones partially shutting down the government, causing even more slowdown in the existing immigration legal cases, letting our Parks fill up with trash, and likely delaying tax refunds, over *part* of the funding that would be needed for a ridiculous and ineffective wall? A wall's useless unless it's patrolled or has persistent surveillance, otherwise a ladder or other system is just going to go over or around it using the waters. Worse, its proponents aren't factoring in what it would take to do that effectively, even when it's explained to them.

    6. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is just making America such a shithole that American refugees will flee to Mexico. At that point Mexico will pay for the wall and trump will have won.

    7. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, what is there is not enough if people still drag their kids across a desert suffering heat stroke and dehydration to just die when they arrive.

    8. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, what is there is not enough if people still drag their kids across a desert suffering heat stroke and dehydration to just die when they arrive.

      You're right. We should take some of this money and set up shelters and hydration stations along some of these more inhospitable areas. Maybe even some unmanned but well supplied aid stations with simple graphic directions for basic first aid and a communication system to call for help for people with more serious medical conditions. I'm glad to see you as a concerned with the health and safety of these migrants as I am.

    9. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, illegal immigration costs money. Provably so. I guess if you think otherwise, you'll willingly let anyone who desires to move in with you for free, you can feed, clothe, educate, protect, and provide healthcare for them, and their services as an occasional maid or cook would more than offset the costs?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean literally, other than some border patrol agent, who cares?

      Any time I need a new illegal immigrant, I go down to my local unsecured border crossing and pick one that's there and within my budget.

      I don't care if he's burrito-powered, fajita-powered or fairy dust powered. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant.

    11. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >taking care of illegal immigrants instead of impoverished citizens
      You are everything wrong with the world.

    12. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Does Latin America need the economic gains more than the USA? It's racist not to report your friends to ICE.

    13. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His corporate masters want to ensure there's a 2nd class of "citizen" that won't complain about safety or overtime and can be paid less than minimum wage.

    14. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will drones deter a father dragging his kid across the desert to suffer heat exhaustion and dehydration only to die when they arrive?

    15. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Census data says that 63% of immigrant households receive some sort of govt benefits compared to 27% of non-immigrant households.

      While immigration as a whole may be a net benefit, that doesn't imply that all immigration is good. Some immigrants are more valuable than others and we can do a pretty good job of predicting that.

      If you're arguing for immigration as an economic good, please explain why we should let in uneconomic immigrants?

    16. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll tell ICE where to pick them up; most illegal aliens just drive across the border and just stay longer than they're supposed to.

    17. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      you can feed, clothe, educate, protect, and provide healthcare for them

      And yet illegal immigrants don't qualify for anything you just listed for which they don't pay out of their own pocket (reads: pay sales taxes for).

    18. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by thelandp · · Score: 1

      Border security *is* important. But a wall doesn't help that much to stop illegal immigration. Because more of them are arriving by plane and overstaying their visas, than are arriving by foot. Source: http://cmsny.org/publications/...

      I want to see the law enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS spent on a waste of money like a wall. And by the way it's not 5 billion, it's more than that, eg projected to be at least $21.6 billion over three and a half years (same source).

      Also, the number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007. Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... So why this should be the most important issue right now, worth shutting down the government for? Answer: Trump's ego.

      And as a final irony, the shutdown itself has resulted in immigration agents being furloughed, so actual number of deportations is down now. Good job Trump.

      --

      -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
    19. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your gao report is over 20 years old. You would think statistics would have changed greatly as more research has come out about the subject. FAIR is considered a hate group by some. I think you need to find more balanced studies than those to prove a point.

    20. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The conservative Cato Institute published a response to that FAIR report.

      Key quote:

      FAIR’s biggest methodological error is that it does not consider the extra economic activity generated by illegal immigrants that would not occur otherwise. The tax revenue collected through that extra activity cannot be adequately measured by looking at IRS forms but must include the taxes paid by U.S. citizens who also have higher incomes as a result. Since the economy is not a fixed pie, removing millions of illegal immigrant workers, consumers, and business owners would leave a gaping economic hole that would reduce tax revenue. The authors of the FAIR study concocted their own methodology that is uninfluenced by the vast empirical, theoretical, and peer-reviewed economics literature that estimates the fiscal cost of immigration.

    21. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that people can't ride their bikes, hike and camp right now.

      Actually people can still do all of those things. Thanks to the "partial government shutdown", there aren't any official government representatives available to prevent people from doing those things. There also isn't anyone available to empty the trash. If people would just take care of their own wastes instead of expecting their mommies and nannies to do it for them, this wouldn't be a problem.

      But border security has been one of these everpresent "talking points" for DECADES now. ... And this is both sides of the aisle.

      Definitely agree with that. I'm not convinced a "wall" (by some definition) will make any significant difference in practice, though it might make a difference politically. A wall won't prevent people from coming into the country legally and then overstaying their visas, for example. Any kind of border protection also makes it harder for people to commute illegally, such as working part of the year in the US, leaving, and coming back. If they can't go back and forth, once they're in, they have to stay in.

      Factoid: according to estimates from the Pew Research Center, the number of "unauthorized immigrants" in the US peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million and has declined since then to 10.7 million.

    22. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Seems to have worked well for Israel deterring illegal African "immigration"... but not the US? picture of israel's southern wall

    23. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That first link...FAIR is an organization with tight ties to multiple white supremacy organizations. Clearly none of the mods did any homework, but I still wouldn't go around quoting it much if you want to be taken seriously.

    24. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It would be more effective than Sesame Street or Planned Parenthood at doing what they claim to do, and also cost less. And the point IS to force them to come by a different way or carry a ladder. A way that is less convenient.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    25. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Dude, do a google search for once. Not doing so is choosing to remain willfully ignorant. Whether they qualify or not, illegal immigrants suck a lot of money out of the social safety net, and there are so many reliable sources reporting it that it is a flat out lie to claim otherwise.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    26. Re: Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if you think otherwise, you'll willingly let anyone who desires to move in with you for free, you can feed, clothe, educate, protect, and provide healthcare for them, and their services as an occasional maid or cook would more than offset the costs?

      Public education is already established as a net benefit, that is why it is available nationwide without regard for ability to pay. The US has a net surplus in terms of feeding and clothing, and the US military is literally wasting its time over in the Middle East without regards to illegal immigration.

      And healthcare? Did you forget that Obama made it a requirement to pay for it, but your man Trump and the GOP took that bill away?

      So you've got nothing. That, and of course, as Trump will admit, all the work his illegal immigrant workers do is quite valuable, enough that he commits felonies to keep them under his thumb.

      Of course, he doesn't give them homes, or enough to live on, but that is why he wants other people, actual taxpayers to do it.

    27. Re: Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is collateral damage? SO BE IT.

      You're like the guy who cuts off his own hand when he thinks it is possessed by a demon.

      The border is fine, immigration isn't destroying America, this shutdown is pointless, and the fact that you are so insistent on it, demonstrates your lack of comprehension of how you've been played.

    28. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's a really disenegnuous article.

      You know who else takes in alot more benefits in dollar value than they recieve? Citizens.. Poor citizens.. the 14% of citizens who are "in poverty" who, on average, recieve ~$10 per every $1 they pay in taxes...

      So, let's see according to your example:

      Total Cost of immigrants: 134,863,455,364
      Taxes paid: 18,968,857,700

      So, that's ~$7 per every $1 paid.

      So... Huh.. Poor illegal immigrants are *more* efficient than poor US citizens.

      Wow.

    29. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      And yet everything you claimed isn't a drain on the safety net. I'm not here to google your claims.

    30. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I take it you're against breeding as government will step in all cases to educate and protect and in sufficient cases to provide food, healthcare, or take over total custody of children. Since there's no way to be sure a person will ever actually be responsible for all the care and economic costs, I guess we can just arrest all parents who fail in some fashion and then euthanize all the children for which we refuse to care for? Oh, and of course, immigrants that come in and work and pay taxes while not having availability of most government services are obviously in a near universally better position to live than most children.

    31. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cato Institute?! You can't rely on anything that comes out of that bunch of leftist reactionaries.

    32. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the same thing you're doing by demanding we never shut down anything because someone might be inconvenienced?

      And who's the authoritarian here? Myself? Or someone demanding enforced, top-down government with separate systems fo rules for the rulers and the ruled?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    33. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      These people don't have any intrinsic right to be in this country.
      So if it gets slowed down, SO THE FUCK WHAT?

      And more "I know you didn't say this, but I will for you, so that's why WE SHOULD JUST DO NOTHING!"

      A wall will still be patrolled. And it'll still have surveillance.
      It'll just cut down on the need to have a human eyeball on every last centimeter of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

      Also, not many people are going to hump their own 30+ foot ladder across the border.
      As for a water crossing. We already have dummies drowning themselves in the Pacific down by San Diego. Also, this is what we have THE COAST GUARD for.

      Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is saying that a wall, all by itself, is a be-all-end-all solution.
      It's part of a greater system of border control.

      It raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across" or "I'll just hop this short chain link fence" to "HOLY SHIT! I can't climb that!"

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    34. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Currently the walls in place are little more than chain link fencing.

      The new structure is going to be 1/2"-3/4" steel angle iron uprights, linked by cross-members of the same size, buried in a concrete foundation and with an anti-climb plate at the top.

      Climbing will be difficult without an extremely large (and heavy) ladder.
      Most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their tunnel boring machine.
      And at 1/2" to 3/4", you're NOT going to cut it with a set of tin snips, or even a bolt cropper.
      Again, most poor migrants aren't going to bring along their giant angle grinder.

      And even if they did, it'd still take an inordinate amount of time to cut through.
      A patrol or a drone will likely spot them WELL before they get done.

      Also, the structure isn't going to be on all 2000+ miles.
      It doesn't need to be. There are various areas which are natural geographic impediments.
      We simply need to cover areas currently not blocked or upgrade the infrastructure that's already there in terms of border fencing.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    35. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      How does stopping the formation of an economic underclass of illegal workers, saving the money currently being spent on the illegal immigrants and improving the job prospects for legal immigrants and citizens occupying the lowest economic echelons make the US a "shithole"?

      You want to come here? Come on!
      Just do it according to our laws.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    36. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. No we shouldn't.

      We don't owe these people anything other than a fair hearing when they present themselves at a port of entry.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    37. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      And how many drones do you think it'll take to cover the border?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    38. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      If you want to come to this country, fine.
      DO IT LEGALLY.

      And yes, for every illegal immigrant here just trying to pay his bills, stay off the radar, etc. we have drunk drivers, gang members and cop killers as well.

      It's not that we don't want ANYONE coming in. The Mexican/Central American legal migration into the US is ALREADY dwarfs the Italian, German and Irish migrations in terms of quantity and success.

      But we need serious oversight into who we're letting in. Which means we need actual, physical border control.

      This way we can differentiate between Juan, the guy who builds people's houses, pays his taxes and goes to church every sunday and Juan, the guy in MS13 looking to rape and kill and steal.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    39. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yet they still get it anyhow. In spite of the laws.

      Remember, it's illegal for an emergency room to turn away a patient because they don't have health care.
      Immigrant kids STILL go to school. And some of them even qualify for school lunches.

      And it's still ignoring the fact that THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    40. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Also, are they conflating "illegal immigrants", "immigrants" and "refugees"?

      And, even if legal immigrants, refugees and citizens were pulling at the same 7-1 rate, it still doesn't change the fact that the illegal immigrants AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    41. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Visa overstays are the majority. About 58%.
      But fly-ins only account for about 30-40% of all illegal immigration attempts.
      The remainder are primarily over-land. Yes, a lot of that are people who walk in through ports of entry.
      But a good chunk are people simply walking across an unfenced area, climbing a short fence, or swimming a river.
      The new structure basically raises the barrier of entry from "I'll just walk across here or climb a chain link fence" to "How the fuck do I get over that!"

      Also, with those type of illegal immigrants, we have PRECISELY NO CONTROL over who we're getting.
      Are we getting Juan, the guy who just wants to build houses, provide for his wife and kids, and live an upright life?
      Or are we getting Juan, the narco-gang member who wants to rape, kill and steal until he's caught or killed?
      Or do we get Juan, the guy who tries to work hard, but loves his hooch too much and doesn't see a problem drinking and driving?

      THIS is the kind of thing we need control over.

      A border barrier is an aide to border patrol. In that it allows for more efficient use of manpower and technical resources to monitor the border (you don't have to keep an eyeball on every last centimeter 24x7).

      Unfortunately, as everyone knows, YOU don't really get a say with YOUR tax dollars, save during elections.

      As for the flow of immigrants, that sort of thing waxes and wanes. The last surge was after an amnesty.

      If we simply give up on border security, guess what we're gonna see. Another surge in illegal immigration.

      While it isn't my preference, I'd probably be okay with physically securing the border, getting our immigration laws and procedures fixed, then simply issuing a blanket amnesty to every non-violent, non-drug offender in the country and simply making them citizens.

      It'd basically give these people an easy path to citizenship, end the illegal immigrant debacle and we'd already have everything in place to guard against a post-amnesty surge.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    42. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      Every person stopped by a wall is:

      1: One less person the government has to spend money on in terms of social safety net.
      2: One less person the government has to spend money chasing down and deporting.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    43. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      The thing is the influx of illegal immigrants (not immigrants, not refugees) ebbs and flows.

      The wall allows for more efficient use of human and tech assets.
      It acts as an actual barrier in places where there currently are none (human or geographic).
      It acts as a superior barrier in places where we have old, short, ineffective barriers.
      We have data from the barriers in the San Diego region that show that such things drastically reduce illegal immigration overland and forcing people to ports of entry allows us to screen more effectively.
      The structure being proposed has sufficient space between uprights that border agents can see the far side without needing to resort to patrolling the far side. But insufficient space to actually push even an infant through. Again, it limits the need for excessive human/tech assets.

      A wall, once in place, allows us to allot resources to tackle issues like visa overstays without worrying that we're kicking out one to be replaced by three more.

      If they're legal part-time workers, coming in legally isn't any more difficult than going to the airport. Is it still a hassle? Sure. But so is getting groped by TSA agents.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    44. Re: Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the wall. Just jail the illegal employers who are the reason these people come.

      Also...
      You want to be left alone. I want to murder you.
      Let's compromise in the middle, you can kill yourself. This way you don't get bothered by me, and I still get to have you dead.
      Or maybe sometimes compromise with unreasonable positions isnt a good idea. Or will you kill yourself now?

    45. Re: Sorry, but border security is more important by Chas · · Score: 1

      What? Because I'm willing to accept the economic impact of a shutdown?
      Because I'm willing to deal with a rise in the price of goods and services if businesses are FORCED to use citizens and legal immigrants at fair, legal rates of pay?
      Because I'm unwilling to allow the plight of furloughed workers to be used as an emotional cudgel against me?

      Sorry, but unlike many of the jellyfish (past and present) in the GOP, I actually have a spine that I refuse to shit out on command.

      And, again with the conflation.
      I'm not talking about legal immigration.
      I'm not talking about refugees.
      I'm talking about ILLEGAL ECONOMIC MIGRATION.
      Whether it destroys the country or not remains to be seen.
      Remember, the countries these people come from pump out people at well beyond replacement rates.
      So we take a million in this year, next year the countries in question have birthed a million-PLUS. So we take a million-PLUS. The next year the countries in question have pumped out a million-PLUS-PLUS.

      Ultimately, economically, we simply CANNOT outpace that sort of growth.
      Nor do we owe it to simply accept anyone who wants to come here, regardless of the legality of their method of migration.

      And no, the shutdown isn't pointless.
      This issue has been danced around long enough. And we're currently seeing outright obstruction of it. Based on political grounds, not ideological grounds.
      And the opposition isn't willing to even deal. Nancy Pelosi refuses to even accept factual information and will not negotiate whatsoever. Declaring it to be immoral.
      Not quite sure what's so "moral" about creating an economic underclass of illegal immigrants as virtual slaves.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    46. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal immigration doesn't cost money. It's probably a net overall GAIN to the US economy

      We should aim for 100% illegal immigrants then. What could go wrong?

      All these other countries with borders have it wrong.

    47. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's conservatives who want illegals here the most. Why do you think Trump has so many enemies on the right? They don't want their source of cheap labor cut off or sent home. How do you think the billionaire class has made gotten so much richer over the last 40 years compared to the working class. It's the working class who support cutting off the illegals and sending them home. Even when I point this out to the middle-class/working poor, I love the cognitive dissonance it causes. Most leftists don't really know how to respond when I point out that their position is the one supported by the 1%.

      Of course, then they usually just call me a Nazi and start twitching, so it doesn't accomplish a lot, either.

    48. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      They may not qualify, but they still get the benefits.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    49. Re:Sorry, but border security is more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether they qualify or not, illegal immigrants suck a lot of money out of the social safety net, and there are so many reliable sources reporting it that it is a flat out lie to claim otherwise.

      Citation or STFU.

  64. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Obama promised he would close Guantanamo.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  65. Re: Make up your mind: are they "largely unattende by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of my money goes to Amazon. Does that mean I can hold a party in whichever house Bezos isn't using this week?

  66. Re: And Zinke Said On His Way Out: "YA WELCOME!".. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    There's already a wall around it to keep riff raff out.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  67. Re: Sell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, poorer people can always afford to buy some, it's a known fact, and don't rely on national parks to maybe see an elk once in their lives. The poor should just decide not to be poor. It's just a failure of will.

  68. No, no they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can beat that retarded drum all you want but nobody gives a tinker's cuss when the government is shut down.

  69. border security vs national parks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah this is a no brainer.

    Everyone needs to stop acting so petty, a country without borders isn't a country.

    You think trash in national parks is bad now? Imagine how bad it would be if you had no border control at all.

    If people that care about the country drop that much garbage, imagine what people who don't care about it would do.

    Fund the wall.

    1. Re:border security vs national parks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think trash in national parks is bad now? Imagine how bad it would be if you had only $1.5 billion this year for border control.

      FTFY

  70. Cry babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use to drive a tour bus in California. Every year we would take a bunch of volunteers to some national parks where they would help clean up and make ready areas in the parks for warm season guest. This can be done everywhere. So stop whining and get the program moving in the spring.

  71. 3rd longest shutdown by kbaud · · Score: 1

    This is only the 3rd longest shutdown in history but now, this time, the national parks just can't handle it? "years of damage"?! Sounds like slanted news.

    1. Re:3rd longest shutdown by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      Previous shut-downs locked the gates to the parks. Those optics looked bad, so the gates were left open for this shutdown.

      Way more people in the parks during this shutdown, and there's nobody there to stop them from doing dumb and destructive things.

  72. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criticizing Obama for not being progressive enough in response to something like this is not having the rhetorical effect you seem to want.

  73. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Dunbal · · Score: 0

    Spewing a load of BS in response to my post doesn't convince anyone of your ability to recognize a comparison.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  74. Oh Please by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 0

    Obama shuts down government: He's a stern negotiator who won't take any republican shit.
    Trump shuts down government: Orange man bad!

    1. Re:Oh Please by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Obama can speak English correctly. Donny Dipshit can only regurgitate garbage he heard on Fox News. There's a huge difference between Obama and Trump.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Oh Please by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Obama shuts down government: He's a stern negotiator who won't take any republican shit. Trump shuts down government: Orange man bad!

      Obama didn't say he would be happy to shut down the government, or say that it could be shut down for months or years until he gets what he wants or refuse to entertain any sort of compromise.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Oh Please by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      So Obama was a shit negotiator?

    4. Re:Oh Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama shuts down government: He's a stern negotiator who won't take any republican shit.

      Trump shuts down government: Orange man bad!

      Obama didn't say he would be happy to shut down the government, or say that it could be shut down for months or years until he gets what he wants or refuse to entertain any sort of compromise.

      False. Obama even refused to meet with republicans about compromise.

    5. Re:Oh Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama didn't say he would be happy to shut down the government, or say that it could be shut down for months or years until he gets what he wants or refuse to entertain any sort of compromise.

      but he did, for Obamacare.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

    6. Re:Oh Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

  75. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, so they both lied. And? I thought Trump was supposed to be different

  76. Re: Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever the hell modded this funny has an overactive sarcasm detector. And isnt getting a new virgin forest hewn table.

  77. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the narrative is not the same. Most conservatives are fine with the shutdown, and would have no problem with it becoming permanent. And have more of the government shutdown. In general, with some particular details excepted.

  78. Re: Make up your mind: are they "largely unattende by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Bezos come to your house with guns if you don't buy products from Amazon?

    Because the federal government does. Idiot.

  79. Re: Sell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? "The poor" aren't the ones going to national parks, dipshit.

  80. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bears are LOVING THIS!

  81. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're obviously European. And I learned a new British word today.

    Ill-informed pillock.

  82. boo fu*king woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parks were there before you self absorbed basterds
    Parks will be there after you're dead.

  83. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, if you don't want to have countries anymore because it means you don't get to feel superior for using your tired, worn-out, ignorant American race politics which merge every group that isn't white men into one homogeneous blob, go do it somewhere else.

    In fact, why not move to Mexico? That would really show those rednecks! Be bold, be daring!

  84. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a faggot. Trump is a traitor. Obama had no legal option to close Gitmo, said the courts. You back Trump again and you should hang from your faggot neck, just like that traitor will.

  85. Fucking americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't even clean up after themselves and resort to shitting in parks when the government doesn't wipe their ass for them.

  86. Cry me a river. This is just another angry loser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no news here. Yogi will still get his picnic baskets and BooBoo will survive. The tragedy here is that people actually believe that the park system NEEDS humans to maintain it.

    Yes, as far as cleaning out dead wood and controlled burns, which are NOT done there is little more to be done. Oh yes,they have to pick up the trash from the American TRASH that visit the parks and leave them bit of "history" along with spray painting and destroying the parks. But hey, We're Americans and Satan gave us the right to be get drunk, smoke dope, and fornicate like a Netflix producer with a pig.

  87. Re: Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like someone who liked and shilled for George W. Bush. Oh no, is Trumpity Trump Trump not invading enough places for you? Needs to go get into a pointless war with Big Bad Assad because Iraq wasn't enough? :)

  88. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Yes, and just like the wall, the barrier isn't the President's will or honesty, but rather Congress. Co-equal branches and all that. So I wouldn't call either Obama failing to close Guantanamo or Trump failing to build the wall a lie, strictly speaking. Had Congress backed the Guantanamo shutdown, I have no doubt Obama would have come through. Similarly, if Congress funds the wall, I expect Trump to at least try to build the wall. I say try only because he and his administration are incompetent and I could totally see them botching the whole fucking thing. I could also see a lot of the funds being squandered due to corruption, and thus the wall ultimately never being completed.

    But that aside, the lie was that Trump promised we would not pay for the wall, and now he is demanding that we do. And unlike Trump supporters who gladly overlook the lie and actually start to pledge their own money to a GoFundMe without hesitation... I am not happy with the fact that Obama was unable to close Guantanamo. He himself has said that it's one of the biggest regrets of his Presidency. If Trump makes taxpayers pay for the wall, do you think he would ever admit regret at not getting Mexico to pay for it?

    Your attempt to create this false equivalency falls apart at every single level. I think, regardless of what your political leanings are, very few people would consider Barack Obama and Donald Trump to be anything alike.

    Anyway, now that I've dealt with your whataboutism... my point wasn't that Trump lied. It's Trump, of course he lied. I was primarily responding to OP's complaint about, and I quote:

    liberal BS demanding more of your money out of your pocket

    The fact that Trump lied about Mexico paying for the wall merely makes the irony all the sweeter.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  89. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comparison isn't valid. Promising to do something and failing because of opposition is not the same as promising to do something and reneging.

  90. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh yes, and now the Trump Derangement Syndrome kicks in. There it was, lurking just beneath the surface all along.

  91. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    citation needed..this number is built on a mountain of lies.

  92. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The Mexicans opposed paying for it. I'm sorry you're not too good at this debating stuff, AC.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  93. Years of damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean, the government neglecting the forests falling under their purview, which includes wooded national parks--obviously only affecting national parks with timber--isn't already damaged? Aren't those the forests that burned because of lack of management?

    There's no difference.

  94. Propoganda by Shaitan · · Score: 2

    Diane Regas according to Forbes:

    "I am Executive Director of Environmental Defense Fund, where I direct our strategic plan and mission to address to global climate change and natural resource challenges. I am passionate about increasing shared prosperity and stewardship both domestically and internationally, while also developing scientifically and economically sound solutions. I spent five years at EDF managing the Oceans Program advocating for reforms and programs that help fisherman while also rebounding fisheries in the U.S., Mexico and Europe. I’ve also worked closely on our climate and energy projects, identifying new ways to open markets to clean energy financing. Before joining EDF, I spent 20 years developing and supporting scientifically sound bipartisan solutions to environmental challenges at the Environmental Protection Agency."

    In other words, despite the last sentence there this undeniably a partisan political drive.

    Really, common sense should tell you that nothing of much significance happens in the span of a couple weeks, especially when park rangers and security are still there. Most of this staff didn't even exist pre-Clinton and many state and private parks are serviced by fewer staff and less frequently on an ongoing basis while remaining great resources.

  95. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just find it hilarious to watch you Americans bitch about a paltry $5B border wall, but look the other way when an audit of the Pentagon (which itself costs a billion a year, for the past 28 years) confirms that indeed, trillions of dollars are unaccounted for and in fact they have no idea exactly how much money is unaccounted for.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  96. Where is the Tech in this Article by GregMmm · · Score: 1

    This doesn't belong on /. Go find a eco website to talk about this on.

  97. Bollocks by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    School districts do this carp all the time - "pass our desired millage or we'll just have to shut down the football team!" No diversity czar or stupid program at the school ever goes unfunded, of course, just the programs that people actually care about.

    It's a transparently manipulative move.

    1. Re:Bollocks by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      This time around, it has to do with which parts of the govt were funded already. Since DoD and HHS already got their money, most of the contractors who'd normally be ringing their senators' phones off the hooks are ok for now. If Northrup Grumman was going to lose money on this, the shutdown would already be over.

    2. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yarp. Every university with governance classes teaches this tactic. It's a time proven way to get your department more when everyone is getting less at the expense of the whole.

      Immoral through and through.

  98. public should step up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't the public step up and volunteer? Why does the government need to wipe everyone's ass?

  99. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even remotely true. The vast majority of illegal immigrants get here legally and then don't leave before their visa expires.

    People hopping the border aren't an issue. Plus walls don't work any better than the terrain does along much of that route anyways.

  100. This site has fallen a long ways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to come to this site years ago for a good discussion. Now I look at the comments and they are just idiotic.

  101. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes please! Merge all the "races" into one "homogeneous blob". I can't wait for us to stop treating one group of people differently than another because of some dumb reason like someone's skin is a half shade darker than someone else's or they were born in a part of the world with more sun than some people are comfortable with.

    I even have a name for that "blob". We can call it the Human Race. See? Catchy, and you morons can still use the race word.

    And for the life of me I cannot understand why it is you idiots keep suggesting that everyone who calls you out on your weird non-logic arguments should get out of the country.
    IT'S NOT YOUR COUNTRY. It actually belongs to all the citizens and wanna-be citizens and workers with visas and everyone else who calls it HOME.

    Grow up. Accept that people are different. Get along. Just like kindergarten.

  102. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just find it hilarious that your only defense is whataboutism

  103. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between pushing a policy that congress didn't support and making an empty promise that a foreign government is going to finance a capital project. This is too obvious for you to miss, so out of respect for your intelligence I have to conclude you aren't arguing in good faith.

  104. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    orange man bad

  105. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for conceding defeat. It's nice to have someone who knows they've lost for once and are so good at indicating it.

  106. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    The history of state management of their lands doesn't support point. For example, the state of Oklahoma has had to severely cut back on their own parks due to budget problems. States will just as quickly sell of their lands.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  107. Re: Sell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A half million an acre is not affordable.

  108. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    This.

    Right now, the needle is pegged to the right. America needs this. It's growing pains going forward into a new global economy.

    Fear prevails and that makes for bad decisions. The fear is escalating into panic.

    I like what I'm seeing. Let's drill, baby drill and pollute some water.

    Let's dance on the edge of a Great Depression with tariff wars.

    Let's continue to move profitable businesses into more capitalistic-friendly countries.

    Build a wall all around the American borders. Let no in and, importantly, let no one out.

    America is suffering from brain-drain as the chaos sets in at home. People with expertise want to make money using those skills.

    Continue the dumbing down of American education. Eventually, we'll grow an onion-picking work force.

    Carry on with the intolerance of non-White, non-Christian, anti-LGBTQ and anti-women slash and burn.

    Only after we hit rock bottom will America come to its sense.

    Meanwhile, I'll be at the swimming pool. Don't call.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  109. Government Shutdown = Libertarian Utopia? by diodeus · · Score: 1

    Is this what the Libertarians would create for us all? Trash piles, crumbling everything?

  110. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Excuse me? I'm not looking the other way on anything.

    The issue with the wall is not only the cost. If it was, then I'd mostly agree with you.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  111. Please by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "Never before have I seen the federal government tempt fate in national parks the way we are today,"

    In the history of Earth, this tempting of fate represents a few atoms' width in the thickness of a sheet of paper government management represents on a mile long historical timeline.

    Get a fucking grip.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  112. I have to think of everything by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Trump has floated two (2) ideas:

    1.) Get Mexico to pay for the wall

    2.) Declare a national emergency and use national defense money to build the wall.

    So, there's two (2) plans. How many does he need?

    Congress should remove itself from discussions concerning the wall, telling Trump to implement either or both of his excellent solutions.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  113. It's not the "Government" it is TRUMP by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

    For those who don't know, it is actually illegal for government workers to go to work if they are not funded, unless they are on the exceptions list. So the "government' isn't the one at fault here, it is the 435 Assholes in DC who are having a dick measuring contest and thereby ruining the country. The budget, since GW left, has been a political football, and those 435 assholes have been fucking over the US Citizenry with it just to prove who has the biggest dick.

    --
    "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    1. Re:It's not the "Government" it is TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just to prove who has the biggest dick

      Nancy Pelosi

  114. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I'm arguing for the decentralization of national park management. Singling out an isolated example doesn't invalidate the argument for decentralization. What's more, the current Federal shutdown (BTW not the first and not the last) is proof that the Federal government is a single point of failure.

    Interior can turn the *management* of the parks over to the states but keep the parks in a national trust. The fact is that states *love* having national parks because they bring in tourist dollars. Let states manage the parks, let them have some skin in the game.

  115. Pournelle's Iron Law by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Aside from cleaning up the trash, note that TFA says the main problem is deferred maintenance. Specifically, maintenance that was already deferred, when the shutdown started. Which hints at the real problem: the Forest Service has stupid priorities for its money. Pournelle's Iron Law has taken over: it's better for your little empire to have a bunch of GS-13's on your staff than the same number of GS-9's, but you can't send a GS-13 to empty trash cans. And if you have the choice between some of that boring maintenance work, or hiring another employee in your empire, well, that's how the maintenance gets deferred in the first place.

    Private industry cleans out the deadwood, when it has built up to the point of impacting profits. Government never has that impetus. The best thing that could happen to most government bureaucracies, would be to fire nearly everyone and start over. If the shutdown goes on long enough, maybe that will happen automatically, because people will have found jobs elsewhere.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Pournelle's Iron Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be assuming that parks are funded adequately to begin with.

      And you seem to be ignoring that something like 8 out of 10 businesses fail within 5 years.

      Firing staff in bureaucracies? Sure, go ahead. And then you can wonder who will train the newcomers in how to use the software, shuffle the paperwork and know the legislation that governs the tasks? Let alone manage all that needs to be done. And... how do the new managers and workers even know what it is that needs to be done?

      Governments are not meant to make a profit, they're meant to provide necessary services to the public.

      Oops, posting as AC as I modded some comment/s in this thread.

      DethLok

  116. Re:Cry me a river. This is just another angry lose by PPH · · Score: 1

    OK. So much for the rural wilderness parks. They will survive, much as they did before they were turned into interstates through the forest with fast food joints at the viewpoints. But there are a lot of 'parks' in urban areas. And many of these facilities cannot be protected from being overrun by less than desirable visitors (i.e. homeless bums pitching tents and scattering needles).

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  117. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll give a flip about "white genocide" when your definition doesn't include my ghostly Irish butt getting down with a black girl.

  118. Hollywoood lack originality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Popular entertainment. Besides, why do Hollywood movies always need to follow the same schematic? I much prefer Ingmar Bergman, Pedro Almodovar or Emir Kusturica. Hollywood films lack originality.

    1. Re:Hollywoood lack originality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Popular entertainment. Besides, why do Hollywood movies always need to follow the same schematic? I much prefer Ingmar Bergman, Pedro Almodovar or Emir Kusturica. Hollywood films lack originality.

      Art movies are no better, actually worse. They're like a Jackson Pollock painting, valuable to a few pretentious pricks, but fundamentally garbage.

  119. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Democrats are responsible for the shutdown, they just need to work with him and provide funding for the wall.

  120. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only are the government contractors not getting paid, they won't be reimbursed like the federal workers have been after every shutdown. So that means there's about 12 million Americans right now who are collecting unemployment insurance benefits as a result of the shutdown. And if you're a small business with a government contract, a payment delay such as this shutdown is probably going to sink you. So we have millions claiming tax dollars for lack of work (most of that burden is shifted to the states) and an unknown number of small businesses closing up shop for good. The cost of this is in far excess of any money that is going to be saved.

    And let's really think about this. This is over $5.7B. To put that into the context of a median American family income, it is like not paying the rent because your spouse spent $6.50 a month on some service. It's barely even a blip on the average budget.

  121. Will those who support the Orange One by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Kindly publish their actual physical addresses, so we can use their front yards for dumping trash.

    1. Re:Will those who support the Orange One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but, you see it's all the DEMS fault, even though they only are in control of one branch, weren't in control of any branches when it started, and Trump even took credit for the shutdown.

    2. Re:Will those who support the Orange One by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Just as soon as you provide proof that you have removed your front door and accepted the illegal immigrants to live with you.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  122. Loll. no they won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans aren't special, at all. The "National Parks" existed just fine without damage for billions of years.

    Fearmongering is awesome. Don't you love when Slashdot Morphs into CNN?

  123. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Are you familiar with how a wall works? A ladder? If your border security can be defeated by a ladder, your border security is laughably pathetic. Spending $5B on security that can be defeated by your typical lower-class Mexican is the peak of ignorance and stupidity.

  124. Hype machine in full force ..... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    I've gone camping or hiking at a number of these national parks and the reality is -- they're not always that free of trash and kept well maintained, even when they have a full government staff.

    I'm not saying it's a great situation having trash cans that aren't getting emptied for visitors right now ... But volunteers have already taken it upon themselves to do some of that in a few parks. It's not like you need special training that comes with the job of "park ranger" to be able to do it!

    I live right by part of the C&O Canal:

    https://www.nps.gov/choh/index...

    This thing is over 180 miles long, and most people I know who ride horses or bicycle through it will tell you they've almost never seen a government employee doing any cleanup or maintenance work on it. People in my town are regularly organizing small groups on weekends to walk along a section of it and pick up any cans, bottles or other trash they find -- because we really don't EXPECT to wait for some Federal employee to keep it nice for us. It's a net benefit to our community to have it nearby, so we can attract business from people traveling along it who stop for a meal or even to stay overnight.

    The mass media is trying to sound the alarm of how horrible a couple weeks of government shutdown has been to our parks, but I'm going to call B.S. on this one. It's all part of a concerted effort to apply as much pressure as possible to re-open government, mainly so people working for them can get paid again. I get it... Nobody likes to lose their regular paycheck. But it rings a bit hollow as being the "whole truth".

    1. Re:Hype machine in full force ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In places like Yosemite, I wonder how quickly the presence of garbage will ruin a generation of black bears. It would be sad if we suddenly go back to the 1960-70s status where bears are constantly approaching people for food and tearing into every other parked car. It took a long time to take care of "problem bears" and shift them back into their habitats and to restore their natural fear or shyness towards humans.

  125. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "reversing damage won't be as easy as throwing out the trash"

    Good.
    But the real yeah we should be throwing out us 98% of the federal bureaucracy.

    I don't even know how many weeks we are into the shutdown...because the federal government is useless. The only exception is the IRS still wanting my money and a few random, useless federal employees whining that they aren't getting paid out of my wallet.

    Let me know when the IRS stops collecting taxes for this collosal waste of my money.

  126. Missing the point by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Like Roosevelt did, create a new CCC, or you could use community service sentences to do the work.

    In order for those to work - you still need federal employees to manage the program, supervise it's execution, etc... etc... And in case you haven't noticed - the federal government is shut down.

  127. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your point is spend 100B instead, ok you got it buddy

  128. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the chink troll factory is out in full force

  129. SHUT THEM DOWN! Park admins responsible for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This always happens during shutdowns. Affected agencies structure their operation so as to inflict the most drama on the public that is humanly possible to drive their point that they disagree with the shutdown.

    The IRS does it too. They always reduce taxpayer services and support but keep enforcement running at full capacity when it should be the other way around.

    SHUT THE PARKS DOWN COMPLETELY! Clearly park admins are responsible for this, not the shutdown.

    Any park that is not shutdown to the general public should have its administrator fired immediately.

  130. TRUMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing is right: this crap sack of a POTUS will never get reelected.

  131. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the racist Americans are out in force, too!

    Perhaps you can cool the racism you cute wittle Nazi-wannabe. I'd say you're making you country look bad, but just look at the ass-clown you fucktards elected.

    #americaisthejokeoftheworld

  132. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is anything even close to genocide proposed? There is no reading of the parent that leads to your statement so I have to conclude to you are replying to something completely different.

  133. What Park Ranger wrote this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was obviously written by some Park Ranger trying to get back to work in a hurry. What a bunch alarmist BS!

  134. Re:good thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's below freezing and the heat is off because shutdown. The pipes are filled with antifreeze and the water main is off.

    The vault toilets are open.

  135. Drugs and homelessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our local park has been completely overrun by drug users and homeless people. There's trash and needles everywhere, they are setting fires improperly, and are shitting all over the place. It's a tragedy.

  136. Private Groups Step Up to Care For Parks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it comes to anything even remotely political, Slashdot always leans hard to one side. They wouldn't want you to hear about this story here, for example. An excerpt below:

    NPR reports that private corporations are doing the jobs the government won't do, clearing trails, policing trash, and providing general upkeep for major national parks west of the Mississippi, including Yellowstone National Park.

    [...]

    As a result, Johnson and a handful of other local small business owners are chipping in to keep trails groomed and keep the park's main road open to tourists, who are now getting into the park for free — since rangers aren't stationed at the park's entrance to collect the typical $35-per-car fee tourists typically pay

    The federal government isn't the only way to care for the parks. Also, if the parks are getting full of trash, I ask you this: Who put it there?

  137. Oh boo freakin' HOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing is happening in our parks that cannot be fixed. Stop acting like the National Parks system is vital to our nation's functioning. Besides, it's probably mostly liberals in those parks that think "they have people for that" instead of demeaning themselves by cleaning up when they leave.

  138. Everything eventually rots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because breasts.

  139. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by multi+io · · Score: 1

    Are you familiar with how a wall works? A ladder? If your border security can be defeated by a ladder, your border security is laughably pathetic. Spending $5B on security that can be defeated by your typical lower-class Mexican is the peak of ignorance and stupidity.

    The $5B aren't enough to complete the wall. That would require on the order of $25B. The $5B thing can be defeated by walking around it.

  140. never before by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Never before have I seen the federal government tempt fate in national parks the way we are today," says Diane Regas

    She's been an activist in this area for a long time, so it is surprising that she did not notice the previous long shutdowns. Jimmy Carter shut it down three times (11, 12, and 18 days). Bill Clinton shut it down for 21 days (also 5 days), and Barack Obama shut it down for 16 days, So far, Trump's shutdown is tied with Obama, but Clinton's was the longest.

    There have been many, here's a list:
    https://www.thoughtco.com/gove...

  141. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by cstacy · · Score: 1

    But that aside, the lie was that Trump promised we would not pay for the wall, and now he is demanding that we do.

    The fact that Trump lied about Mexico paying for the wall merely makes the irony all the sweeter.

    Trump walked back the "Mexico will pay for it", I think even before he was elected (or maybe it was right after). He clarified that the cost would be offset by the increase in revenue to businesses in the US, due to his better trade deals. However, most people were probably not paying attention at that point, or didn't care, and the big picture message "Mexico will pay*" was said a lot. Without the asterisk :) But at least 50% of the country doesn't care who pays for it in any event, they just want the wall. They expect some physical barrier along with sophisticated electronics and stuff. Whatever makes it work. Physical barriers are considered (by these people) to be part of what works. And the $5B is understood to be just a beginning.

    Congress is intent on not allowing Trump to keep a campaign promise, regardless of anything else. The leading House Democrats voted for walls before - that's how we got the partial wall that's already there. And $5B is (unfortunately) pocket change. It's all politics.

  142. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that Americans are generally more accepting of incompetence than raw ego combined with blathering stupidity.

    I.e., it's about on par with Trump's desire to display a military parade.

  143. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by cstacy · · Score: 1

    I just find it hilarious to watch you Americans bitch about a paltry $5B border wall, but look the other way when an audit of the Pentagon

    In fact, the VERY FIRST comprehensive audit of the DOD ever attempted.

    https://federalnewsnetwork.com...

    What's more concerning is not the down-to-the-penny accounting of what happens to be the largest and most complex enterprise in the world, but rather the amount of physical assets that are unaccounted for. Items like "missing" warehouses of chemical warfare protection suits; you know, stuff you kinda might need at any moment.

  144. Re:good thing.. by cstacy · · Score: 1

    No, it would be the park visitors that dont care about the environment, If you are visiting a park full well knowing the usual services are not available you would pack your trash back out with you rather then just dump it on the overflowing trashcan.

    About the only thing that might be out of a visitors control is restroom facilities. If the facilities are not locked up, then any horrible condition they might be in is once again the cause of shitty visitors not doing their part to keep them as usable as possible with limited maintenance. helping to keep them usable could literally be as simple as people bringing their own roll of TP from home. Had every visitor brought their own roll and left it in a restroom there would probably be more rolls of TP than they could use in those restrooms for the next month.

    +Insightful

  145. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong. Most illegal immigrants overstay visas after arriving here on a plane, not sneak across a border. You know, facts?

    The hysteria over the southern border is fueled a lot more by rascism than it is sensible policy designed to combat immigration. The people are brown. Thatâ(TM)s the only real reason itâ(TM)s even an issue. Itâ(TM)s like spending five billion to build a wall in front of your backdoor when most people simply enter through the front.

  146. Re:Government Shutdown = Libertarian Utopia? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    No. Unless, of course, that is what people really wanted.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  147. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's really think about this. This is over $5.7B. To put that into the context of a median American family income, it is like not paying the rent because your spouse spent $6.50 a month on some service. It's barely even a blip on the average budget.

    I love how conservatives frame 5.7 Billion dollars as chump change when it's time to build the Berlin Wall mk2, but medicare and the VA need to tighten their belts because taxation is satanic every other day of the week. Trump is the spouse refusing to pay the rent because the Dems won't give him your "$6.50/month" to spend on hookers and blow.

  148. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    "ignorant American race politics"

    As opposed to everywhere else which just embraces blatant racism as normal culture and pretends there are lynchings, hangings, shooting, and beatings happening everywhere in the US so you can view your bullshit as different.

  149. Re: Illegal immigrants hurt parks more without wal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They even wave the flags of other countries as they do it.

    Kinda like the motherfuckers with their participation trophies flying the treason flag here?

  150. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    It's Oklahoma. One empty flat boring 'park' is plenty. Nobody goes to Oklahoma for vacation, the people that live there just stopped wherever their wagon broke. Still have the broken wheel by the drive to mark the location.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  151. Pack it in Pack it out... by Tempestas · · Score: 1

    Pick up your own trash... Problem solved and we did not need the government.

  152. Re:Bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see. If you take southern culture to be a system of oppression of people into slavery or a lower caste system, then who wouldn't reasonable have a hatred of southern culture and call for its destruction? You do realize that southern culture != southern people, right? There's plenty of people in the south (and north, west, and east) who abandoned southern culture a long time ago and have consistently fought against its many forms for how bad it is. There's nothing about many of the positive aspects of southern culture that couldn't be maintained, so long as you recognize it doesn't come free through the use of a slave class but through one's own hard work. All of that is definite progressive values and ideas.

  153. Trespasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the big "problem" is it?

  154. environment mess at border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more worried about the damage at the border, no government to pick up trash there.

  155. So without government funding people treat the par by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like there is a problem with the people and not the government. People want their taxes to pay for the government to clean up after them - ridiculous. And I am assuming itâ(TM)s the same morons that mocked claims that there is nothing that can be done about the California fires.

  156. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Trump walked back the "Mexico will pay for it",

    And I'm willing to bet he walked back that walk-back. The man constantly talks out of both sides of his head.

    He clarified that the cost would be offset by the increase in revenue to businesses in the US, due to his better trade deals.

    Hey, that would certainly qualify as "making Mexico pay for it". If he could do that, then I'd say his campaign promise was met. But he can't. Mexico just shifts trade to S. America. Raise the tariffs on mexican goods and they'll go elsewhere. It's not saving us any money if the "better trade deal" just stops trade. That REDUCES revenue.

    But at least 50% of the country doesn't care who pays for it in any event, they just want the wall.

    You're a fool if you think everyone who voted for Trump (20.4% of the US population) is just fine with spending the $5 Billion+ on it. Or if you think Trump isn't losing credibility with his base over who is paying for it.

    It's all politics.

    Some of it is politics, for sure. And Trump is really bad at politics. So now everything is shut down.

  157. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Essential government services that are still staffed: collecting taxes.
    Non-essential services that are not staffed: sending refund checks.

  158. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Some conservatives you means, the ultra libertarians whose goal is to effectively dismantle all government. That's not all conservatives though, and most definitely a small minority of voters. Even if the government were to be dismantled, it would be insane to do it suddenly instead of doing this slowly with a transition. Otherwise you get tons of soldiers suddenly jobless with no civilian sector capable of taking them all in; you'd have soldiers stuck overseas as well. The federal highways would fall apart, with fights over who actually owns them since there's no government to decide this. The states would have to set up invididual trade deals with each other while at the same time there would be no federal judiciary to smooth this over (assuming states get to keep governments).

    Maybe the analogy is like going without electricity. You can learn over time how to live off the grid. But if there's a sudden nationwide blackout you'd get riots in the street.

  159. Re: Slow News Day Huh? by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    Not an issue for federal employees, they have unions which prevent laying off unneeded workers.

  160. If you like your wall you can keep your wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Obama didn't mean "If you you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" literally. Your stupid excuse of an argument cuts both ways, dumbass.

  161. I already paid, FUCK OFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's typical republican bullshit. I already paid my taxes to cover this and now you want me to pay you the taxes and STILL make me do the work for free. FUCK YOU.

  162. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Congress is intent on not allowing Trump to keep a campaign promise, regardless of anything else.

    I agree, the Republicans who controlled Congress for the last 2 years really let the President down.

    The leading House Democrats voted for walls before - that's how we got the partial wall that's already there. And $5B is (unfortunately) pocket change. It's all politics.

    Yeah and the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the budget, which would override a veto... Why are you holding House Democrats responsible for changing their mind but not Senate Republicans?

    And the wall before was not coerced by holding the entire government hostage. Giving into the whiny (trigger warning for pussy grabbing MAGA snowflakes) motherfucker will just enable this behavior in the future.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  163. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    I'm pointing out a major flaw to your argument to decentralization. Splitting up the parks to the states don't make them better, it means there are now 50 managers of the lands. I can't see how that is better.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  164. Re:Turn national park management over to the state by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oklahoma is the epitome of what's wrong with the argument. They are one of the states that wants more control of the national park lands in their state. Yet they are so badly managed that they cannot afford their current state parks.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  165. Shutdown won't last long by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    People might start to figure out that life can go on without those government dollars. Politicians definitely won't allow us to get to that point!

  166. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The issue with the wall is not only the cost. If it was, then I'd mostly agree with you.

    You have a problem with walls? Do you live in a lean to, or does your house have walls? Why?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  167. Re:Government Shutdown = Libertarian Utopia? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    Please note that it's not privately owned parks having an issue....

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  168. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's one theory. But when about 80% of the government remains up and running, is "dismantle" really the correct word for you to choose?

  169. Re:Slow News Day Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure thing Roman. We'll fire everyone in the government until there is only one ultimate ruler, who is accountable to nobody. As long as he holds your preferred holy book in his (naturally it can only be a man) hand that is all we need, right? The other countries that have tried this just used the wrong book, of course - they just need to change the book and everything will come up roses.

  170. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Oh wow! You responded directly to something I actually said!

    I'll have to answer you after I get over the shock.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  171. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    The issue with the wall is not only the cost. If it was, then I'd mostly agree with you.

    ...does your house have walls? Why?

    To keep the roof up.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  172. Re:Oh No! Oh No! Oh No! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    I just find it hilarious to watch you Americans bitch about a paltry $5B border wall...

    Nah, that ain't it. At this point it's basically a dick-waving contest between Trump and Pelosi.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  173. Need a funding amendment? But GL with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since this is getting too out of hand, there needs to be a bigger "base" budget that can not be lowered, but follow inflation, so that more of the government basically can't be shutdown like this. I have no idea how this would come about, architecturally or politically.

  174. theirs for the taking, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... theirs for the "taking", an act of genocide and obliteration of species, landscapes, forests, wetlands and nature on a maniacal scale.
    Yeah, america ... :(