But unattended.

Homeless people, drunks, addicts and hippies will be able to move in because there's nobody to clear them out.

Meanwhile, everyone there is walking on the grass, throwing rubbish about and vandalising stuff.

And when they are close and unattended, the same is true. However, being guarded is also the same as being open and attended minus the ability to actually be on site.

And because there's nobody paid to clean up or look after the place, it gets worse and worse.

Which is why those being paid to clean up the place are still coming in with the parks closed down- they are just doing it less and with less of them. But the increase in guards and installation of gates and barricades at a lot of these places is costing more then a skeleton staff that could keep them open.

Imagine the vet memorial were left open. Lots of antiques to nick in there. Easy money. Nobody looking after the place. Nice target.

What? IT is a memorial, not museum. It would take a truck and about 10 guys to move the smallest objects from them. You have the nerve to claim I'm a dumbass and you didn't even bother doing a cursory google search to learn what you were talking about? I can see why you posted AC. Let me ask you something, are you a paid troll or do you actually think you are helping?

When the opposite is I will work with you as long as you want to do everything I want to do is often the only other option, I can understand why some republicans thought this might be a good idea. I don't think it was the best idea ever, but it isn't crazy or moronic like the GP implied.

Ultimately, the best option would be for the senate to take up an actual budget and pass it, work with the house to agree on one, and go at it. The continuing resolutions come around every 6 months specifically because the senate refuses to do so and it seems to be the only time the republicans get real input to meaningful and important legislation.

As for damaging the US economy, that might be true, but the republican's position is that the ACA is doing so also and will do it a lot more in the coming years. A lot of businesses said they were going to reduce hours, restructure to get under 49 employees, or change benefits available to employee's spouses when the mandate hits them. The president knows this and delayed the implementation of the mandate for large businesses for a year specifically to avoid this clashing with the opening of the Obamacare.

It is interesting that you bring up Putin, it seems that the president has to stand solid on this red line because of how he caved to Putin on the last red line. Perhaps he is thinking it is safer to deal with a couple pissed off rednecks with sporting riffles then to deal with a pissed off Russia.

Was posting from my phone while traveling. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to derive the true wording and meaning from the context they were used in. Do you think pointing out grammatical errors somehow defeats the comment itself?

Yeah, because partially funding the government is the way to operate, just like cooperating with extortionists is always the proper way to behave. It's the people who resist such criminals who should be ashamed of themselves!

If they would have taken up a budget and passed it like they are constitutionally supposed to do, we likely wouldn't be in this situation. So lets not act like it all isn't half assed to start with. Yes, partially funding the government is better then the way it was operating- no, it is not how it is supposed to operate and neither is passing a continuing resolution in order to skirt around providing a clear accounting of the operations of the government to the people like a budget is supposed to do.

Crying that something isn't a good thing and we will have to put all those other programs as risk simply because you want it all is bullshit.

Because the news is reporting that? Of course, they're also reporting that Republicans are passing these individual funding bills to try to get people to not realize what's going on, and that Republicans are quoted as refusing to just pass a whole spending bill because they need to have some win out of this affair. They're also reporting a Republican Congressman telling a park employee she should be ashamed of herself, and others crowing how Americans will realize they don't need that government.

Yep, and all along, when you analyze that statement, it appears that you are angry because A, the republicans with their piece meal approach offered a way out of harming the majority of citizens not directly linked to government which the Obama administration is trying to use to inconvenience the people as a way of scoring political points and B, refusing to fund those specific popular programs are necessary in order for the democrats to insist that government must be large and in charge instead of the people realizing all that is done that they could actually do without.

Shit man, you think it's not about politics on both sides? I'll take the one that isn't trying to fool me with a hypocritical bullshit appearance of virtue.

It's about politics on all sides. This is the government which is a political body after all. The point I was making- and rightly so- is that Obama has options other then defying the law and US constitution if he sincerely thinks something needs funded. The pattern he has displayed so far is to make things uncomfortable as possible for as many people as possible while blaming the republicans while surprisingly the republicans seem to be trying to do the opposite while not giving up their position.

With some thorough research, I have discovered that yes, the news DIDN'T report that, only fundamentalist blogs whose next story was shape shifting reptilians creating the Obamacare Death Panels were reporting anything of the sort.

I'm sure you think you are doing thourough research. And in your fantasy land, it might be as good as it gets. In the real world, we have this thing called the internet and search engines. Now I will admit that my wording was slightly off as I was posting from my phone about stories piped to me by the news app on the phone and trying to do it from memory and the confusion could be your inability to intelligently discern the differences between what was reported, the phrasing I used, and what you want to think. Of course posting anonymously like that, I can only assume you were trying to deliberately mislead like Baghdad Bob was doing during the beginning of the Iraq war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579113781436540284.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senior-admin-official-we-are-winningit-doesnt-really-matter-us-when-shutdown-ends_759185.html?nopager=1

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

BTW, whether you want to believe it or not, those are news sites. Just because they don't spout the narrative doesn't make them any less.

Imagine an open field with rocks and trees. Now imagine putting up baracades and rangers to guard them. Some have edtimated that it costs more to close them then it did to operate. They are even paying overtime to sit rangers at the entrances of budinesses that get no federal funding at all in order to close them down only because they lease land from the parks or service patrons of the parks.

It is interesting, i have read from several places that clinton and reagan kept the parks open during their shutdowns. I haven,t had the chance to confirm it ss i'm working from my phone right now, but that would suggest they both were better presidentd then obama.

Well, obama could always take the easier way out and have the democrates in the senate take up the individual funding bills the house had passed instead of demanding all or nothing.

But i guess the news didn't report a parks officer saying he got orders to make the shutdown as painful as possible or a top whitehouse official say they were fine with the shutdown because they were winning if obama actually cared about it.

The majority of the ACA is mandatory funding, not discretionary...which makes the Republican's government shutdown all the more moronic.

not if you paid attention to what they want to do. Only portions of the aca is mandatory and they tried to remove the mandatory itself. Now they just want to remove thr medical device tax which several democrats agree with doing, remove the subsidy scheme oboma designrf for congress, and either delay the personal mandate as long as big business is exempt or remove the exemption.

What amazing stretches of the imagination people will go to to defend the State of Oregon against claims of incompetence when it shows that ACA exchanges weren't ready to be deployed yet. The fact is, we were supposed to be able to buy online but they couldn't manage to get the system ready even knowing about the need for several years. Three, IIRC.

The FAA has essential people still working.

Small airports usually getting federal funding doesn't mean those small airports are closed during the shutdown, nor does that funding turn any of the private pilots who fly there into government agents.

You only need approval if you are going to do something that is outside the FAR. NOTAMs need to be processed even during the shutdown. Air traffic control is still staffed.

No, that's not what we opted for. The exchange is supposed to allow people to sign up, but since the site wasn't completed and couldn't provide information on the prices based on income, they disabled the ability to sign up and have made it "coming soon".

How am I wrong when that's what I said? The Democrats in the Senate toed the party line and refused to pass the House continuing resolution, substituting their own, forcing the matter to a conference committee that they knew wouldn't accept their version. Had the Senate Democrats opted to avoid the shutdown, all they had to do was pass the House bill intact. It really was that simple.

Well, if you want to avoid a fine for not having insurance and you want to use the exchange, you need to have signed up by December 15. That would be a good reason not to wait until Jan 1.

I vote we hire you as the government website author. You've proven an ability to inflate simple numbers by a factor of three, which is about a factor of six less than current contractors usually do.

So if there are just 1 million people who need to sign up for insurance and they take ten minutes each to review the material and decide, that means you'd have all of them "servered" in just 19 years. The CT website that had 100,000 visitors in the first day would have had all of them dealt with by sometime in 2015.