My Plea to Stop the White House From Closing Privately-Funded, Privately-Operated Parks
Here is my letter to my Congresspersons:
Senator John McCain
Senator Jeff Flake
Representative David Schweikert
Help! Administration Orders Shut Down of Privately-Operated Parks in National Forest
Parks that require no Federal money, and actually pay rent to the Treasury, are being required to close
Sirs:
My company, based in North Phoenix, operates over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury.
However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people “above the department”, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.
The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.
I urge you to help stop the Administration from lawlessly taking arbitrary and illegal actions to artificially worsen the shutdown by hurting innocent hikers and campers. I am not asking you to restore any funding, because no funding is required to keep these operations open. I am asking that the Administration be required to only close government services that actually require budget resources.
Sincerely,
Warren Meyer
It speaks volumes about the integrity of Obama voters, as seen in this thread.
I wonder if the little man lashes out at women he loses arguments to, calling them "carpet munchers" when such happens?
That's great, I think... ?
Not sure what it means substance-wise, apart from you hate the black President who is trying to implement nationwide what your white presidential candidate implemented in Massachusetts.
But, hey, that's why you're here.
I suspect he's not gay at all. Why "tea party" members chose to identify so closely with that particular intimate practice has never been clear to me, but that's the choice they made.
So the original poster runs __entire national parks__ ?
That's not what this post says. This post says he runs campgrounds.
You wouldn't be shifting terms of the argument out of laziness, or dishonesty, now would you?
As for insulting others, I think I've offered one insult, to the poor, unloved fellow who called me names perhaps ten times. And that was an attempt to break through his pain, to let him know people out there understand how much it hurts when those who should care for you touch you in the wrong places.
The term teabagger, as I've provided a link to document, is an insult only to the extent people in your movement choose to reject something they've created themselves.
Why, it's like your hatred for the black guy's version of Romneycare!
You're right. I don't know what it means, substance wise, reading the words of a piece of Democrat White Trash, bringing race into the mix, in some attempt to counter a thread about private services in a park.
Sucks to be Democrat trash, not being able to just articulate your own ideas, as the proprietor of this blog does, I imagine. Why are you here, by the way. It's obvious a libertarian doesn't appeal to the free crap brigade. A nasty piece of work such as yourself sure isn't going to change any hearts and minds. Why here and not your usual hangout of simians, like MSNBC or Kos?
Why do you have to call people vulgar names to make your point?
That still doesn't answer the question, why would a piece of Democrat White Trash, such as yourself, think a form of gay sex is insult material?
You being not all that bright, I'll clue you in on something. Libertarians aren't anti-gay. Why are you?
Still completely avoiding the public/private issue while accusing me of shifting the argument out of laziness, are we? Nice try.
Let me summarize this for you:
Obama says shutdowns hurt the country. Obama administration orders completely unnecessary shutdowns of privately-run facilities. Quincy points this out to pokeyblow. Pokeyblow's only defense of Obama is purposely ignoring the fact that the closure of privately-run facilities is completely unnecessary and pretending that the guy running them is a "suckerfish" who should "get a real job".
Along the way, pokeyblow uses the term teabagger as a pejorative then claims it's not an insult based on the term's supposed right-wing origin.
This is exactly the kind of truth-avoiding, hate-filled political dialog (to use the term very expansively) I've come to expect from the left.
To answer a couple of points:
1. Regarding "teabagger", there are other terms that are used in a non-insulting sense by members of a group that are highly offensive when directed at members of a group by non-members. Two examples, "queer" and the n-word. Context matters.
2. Where did I mention the PPACA? And where did I say that I disagree with it while being OK with Romneycare? As far as I can tell, I've done neither. And that Obama in Kenya jab? Funny, but not remotely anything I believe. The only issue I've mentioned here is the Obama administration's politically-motivated closure of facilities that could have stayed open. Nice attempt to distract and attempt to paint me as a conspiracy-minded partisan hypocrite. Notice I said "attempt".
If you're up for an honest, civilized discussion, I'd welcome it. But as of now, I'm tired of your lies, tricks, and hate-mongering.
You use the term "teabagger" because you think it's a funny way to insult someone by implying they're gay. You're a homophobe. It's one of the hypocritical characteristics of the left. They preen as open-minded, tolerant individuals when in reality they are homophobes and racists.
the Private Parks are INSIDE the National Park...if the National Park doesn't have Rangers or personnel on site, then the private park shouldn't be operating for security reasons alone
Seems reasonable that the contract states that the private park can only operate if the US Park is open
funds for The National Parks come from the Budget....how hard is that to understand?
dude, that was pretty funny comment.Especially the paragraph "as for insulting others"
I'm assuming you read the original post and got the no funding, no employees required part, right? Further, how did these facilities stay open through previous shutdowns?
speaking of carpet munchers...I slammed a chick so hard once that she showes up to work with rug burns on her face...THAT WAS AWESOME
YOU HAVE TO ADMIT"TEA BAGGER" IS A FUNNY TERM
I like his real name RAPHAEL CRUZ...it just has that original Cubanadian sound
when I read the article, he sounds like he is from that family in Deliverance...dueling banjo scene
I stopped reading when I saw you put quotes around "get a real job," a phrase I never typed.
Is it so hard to be honest?
Wow, so much hate.
Not that it helps, but I'm sincerely sorry about what your mom and "dad" did to you.
I use the term because, on February 27, 2009, your movement chose the name for itself.
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party
Again, if you weren't going to like the name, you shouldn't have used it. I thought you were all about responsibility and consequences.
You haven't provided a link showing that campgrounds on closed public park space stayed open in 1995... or if you did, I missed it.
Please support your assertions. Thanks!
I will admit I misquoted you. Apologies. The phrases were (both copied and pasted from your comments):
1. "If the poor campground operator loses out, it's his fault for not having a better job"
2. "But seriously, why doesn't the original poster just get a good job, instead of apparently living hand-to-mouth?"
That said, you have zero standing in this argument whatsoever to speak of honesty. You avoid issues you don't like, ascribe positions to opponents you couldn't possibly know, and define the word insult so narrowly you can only count one in all your comments on this post.
I see I also called the original poster "welfare queen." That was harsh. "Government-relying hypocrite" is probably more fair.
Ted Cruz says those Texans who don't have insurance and want Obamacare should get a job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQH2nz0fvMY
Now, surely even you will acknowledge that some of those Texans who lack insurance and want Obamacare have jobs. What Cruz apparently means, regarding them, is "get a better job," one which presumably provides insurance. I'm saying the original poster should get a better job, which doesn't leave him vulnerable to actions taken by the big government he so despises (but benefits from so greatly).
It's simple. If this guy had a different job, he wouldn't have to write groveling, hypocritical letters begging for an exception to the difficulties people all across America (including cancer kids) have to face.
It's truly unbecoming.
P.S., why did you misquote me?
This is the same dishonest omission of the distinction between publicly- and privately-run campgrounds that you've been pulling throughout this debate. It was dishonest before and it's dishonest now.
It's up to you to explain what possible reason there could be for a privately-run campground requiring no federal resources whatsoever should be closed during a government shutdown when all available evidence says they stayed open in 1995.
And insulting the original poster allows you to completely avoid the issue of the Obama administration's unnecessary and politically-motivated shutdown of the privately-run campgrounds. Again, trying to distract from the issue at hand.
Quoting the original poster (his words, not ones I made up, hint hint): his company "operates over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds"...
Quoting you (your words) "these facilities stay[ed] open".... Highlighting "these," which apparently refers to what the original poster describes.
Sounds like the original poster is clearly describing operations run "under concession contract" on public lands.
So, please show me some evidence that similar operations stayed open in 1995. You say you have it, I just want to see it.
Why did you misquote me?
It was a mistake. I crossed up the word "real" for the words "better" and "good". Admitted to and apologized for. Move on.
Those words don't mean the same things. Why did you misquote me?
Be honest.
Yo, pokey? It's in the original post:
"Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of
Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during
the government shutdown."
This is corroborated by the situation at the Claude Moore farm, which per news reports also withstood previous shutdowns. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/02/nps-orders-closure-park-that-receives-no-federal-funding/)
Therefore, burden to you to prove that the original poster's campgrounds did in fact close (and would have closed in this case) were it not for the administration's interference. Do you have any proof of this whatsoever or are you going to continue sweeping the distinction between privately-run and public-run under the rug so you don't have to admit you're wrong?
That was my honest answer. If you can't accept that, it's your problem.
But if we're going to play this game, why did you ascribe to me positions you have absolutely no proof for whatsoever? A little worse than a misquote, I think.
That's one park which had to be dealt with by law enforcement. Assuming they were open in 1995 (I believe they were, but, you know, Fox...), to the extent that that's noteworthy, it sounds more like the exception which proves the rule. I was hoping you'd show me an article which says about 1995 what you seem to be saying, which is "national parks are closed due to the government shutdown, but campgrounds located on national park land and operated by private parties will remain open."
Further, the park in the Fox article sounds like an attraction in-and-of itself. That's a bit more than "campgrounds" on larger national parks.
I know you get angry when I ask you to be precise and correct, but it would be really nice if you provided a link which supports what you're saying, and not some exceptional case which isn't really the same thing.
Which? Where?
And, no, quoting someone means verbatim. It is important to do so correctly, at least among the honest.
I already called you on this one. From an earlier comment of mine:
"2. Where did I mention the PPACA? And where did I say that I disagree
with it while being OK with Romneycare? As far as I can tell, I've done
neither. And that Obama in Kenya jab? Funny, but not remotely
anything I believe. The only issue I've mentioned here is the Obama
administration's politically-motivated closure of facilities that could
have stayed open."
And, by any reasonable definition, an outright lie is worse than an a misquote that was swiftly corrected when pointed out. Where you get off talking about honesty still escapes me, I'm afraid.
The Libertarian movement?
If you think being gay is worthy of insults, man up and just say so. Don't be such a p*ssy, hiding behind someone else's 4 year old article.
So, you have ZERO, NADA, ZIP evidence to prove the original poster wrong, but you have the gall to say I need to provide independent verification that his claims are correct? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
And it's not your insistence that I be precise and correct that's pissing me off here. It's your repeated omissions, ignoring any information which might prove you wrong, along with the hateful comments you insist aren't insults that are pissing me off. It's mendacity at it's finest and it annoys me.
Aah, that's the one I stopped reading when you put words in quotes which I didn't say and attributed them to me.
You're right, I have no idea what you think about Romneycare, and also have no idea about your personal racial ideas.
Your movement, however, didn't peep in Massachusetts when Romneycare was implemented. I was there. Just like your movement didn't peep when Reagan tripled the national debt, or when Dick Cheney said (per Paul O'Neill) that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Regarding race, you can hold the opinion that there is zero racial animus behind the tea party's opinions concerning all things Obama... and, if you do, I can hold the opinion that you're not very closely tethered to reality.
So, not knowing you, I can't say you hate Obamacare/love (or quietly tolerate) Romneycare, or that you're anxious about having a black President. Regarding the teabagger movement, those are crystal-clear truths.
I don't think I ever said he was wrong. I've said, directly and indirectly, that he's a hypocrite.
He's not the one saying he operates "entire national parks," you seem to be the one suggesting that. &c., &c.
Did you track down a link showing that privately-operated campgrounds in national parks stayed open in 1995?
Being gay is fine.
Per my understanding, by the way, one needn't be gay to serve as teabagger or teabaggee in the intimate sense. A man and woman can engage.
Regarding the four-year-old article, that's the point. That's where the name came from. So, if your friend above calls me "shitbag," I can say "hey, don't call me that!" If, however, four years ago I had said "call me shitbag" -- I didn't -- it would be fair for him to bring that up now.
So pokeyblow, back in 2011, did you support these guys or hold them in contempt?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-wisconsin-protests-idUSTRE71H01920110218
I liked them for doing that.
Some progress: "I have no idea what you think about Romneycare, and also have no idea about your personal racial ideas."
Then epic fail: "Your movement, however, didn't peep in Massachusetts when Romneycare was implemented."
How, exactly, do you know what "my movement" is from my commentary on a single issue?
Then you are not making a principled argument here about accepting that elections have consequences. Your entire argument is partisan and basically troll bait.
I'll happily concede non-essentials. You may be communist, for all I know.
As a Massachusetts resident at the time, I'll say there was no visible, organized, widely-publicized, populist movement against Romneycare emanating from the republican, libertarian, or fundamentalist-Christian spheres of influence.
There was some noise against it from the left because of its implicit subsidy to the insurance industry, but not that big of a deal.
I know nothing about you, apart from your willingness to be conveniently imprecise again and again during a discussion.
I am making the point that the original poster is a hypocrite for whining about the government cutting off the support I believe he denies accepting in the first place.
As I said before, I am fine with the shutdown. Laissez bon temps rouler!
On edit, I don't know the original poster either, and don't mean to be hostile toward him. I am unfamiliar with his blog, and am only reacting to this single post. From which I have the sense he is not an open acknowledger of all the benefits he receives from government.
At least you've got the distinction between public and private now. This is progress.
Explain to me why exactly I should spoon-feed you when you continue to evade the real issue here: The shutdowns of these facilities on public lands are unnecessary and there is no good reason for them other than the administration trying to hurt the people to get at his political opponents.
To disagree with this point, you could take one of the following avenues:
1. Prove that the original poster is wrong and the facilities did in fact close during previous shutdowns.
2. Provide a logical reason that this shutdown is different and provides a rationale for closing the facilities.
You've done neither, instead hanging on certain technicalities while ignoring anything you can't argue.
You've asserted a fact several times, and I've simply asked you to document it.
You can't.
But you assert it anyway. Some people are like that.