• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue Ridge hotel defies Park Service shutdown

ItAin'tFree said:
The longer Obama plays stupid 5th grade games the more people will rally against his and Harry's partial shutdown.

All the GOP has to do is stand firm. The truth is on their side, it's the Dems causing every bit of this.
Click to expand...
...and the Dems know it - which is why they're acting like mean-spirited, vindictive little hate-filled twerps.
 
justabubba said:
if the property owner tells you to close the property, close the property
then recover what you would have earned thru the courts
winning a contract dispute with the federal government is always an enriching proposition
Click to expand...

One that takes many many years and in this economy you have to fight to earn every cent you can just to survive.

The owner of the Inn did the right thing, told the pseudo owners to screw off.
 
What does he mean "essentially" private property?
 
Read the article. Loved this part:

Asked about the intimidation, he said that may be too strong a word, but “when you’ve got uniformed rangers directing you to cease operations, that’s what I call intimidation.”

He said he didn’t question the rangers, who he said were doing their jobs, but did question the way the park service handled it. He said he never heard from the park superintendent nor has he gotten a certified letter, but rather was sent an email from someone in the park business office telling him to close.

“I don’t even know it’s official,” he said.

The park superintendent’s office didn’t return a message left seeking comment on Friday.

Read more: Blue Ridge hotel defies Park Service shutdown - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...

What a peculiarly low standard for "intimidation". From now on, when I'm told to stop doing what I'm doing, I'll call it intimidation. For example:

1. Wife: HATUEY! Can you stop leaving the seat up?
Hatuey: You're INTIMIDATING ME!

2. Police officer: Sir, can you please not stand there?
Hatuey: You're intimidating me!

3. Clerk: Sir, can you stop reading our magazines without paying for them?
Hatuey: You're intimidating me!

---- Intimidation has now reached the point where the mere mention of stopping what you're doing is intimidation. I wonder what I can apply this to? We'll see.

Joking aside, please realize that the land his business is on is not on private land and is subject to the same laws as the park. It's called a concession and falls under the National Concessions Program - he should have known that if the federal government shuts down - regardless of who is in power, his business shuts down as well.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
Actually, no he cannot. It's called breach of contract.

He could take them to court, but there would be extensive punitive penalties because of damages.

It's not in the government's best interest to argue this. Of course, they've never been models of efficiency or sense, nor have people who blindly support it.
Click to expand...

Depends upon the state's laws. Republican-controlled states generally favour the property owner
 
Somerville said:
Depends upon the state's laws. Republican-controlled states generally favour the property owner
Click to expand...

The ultimate abuse of property rights - Eminent Domain - seems to be favored more by Democrats than Republicans.
 
Bronson said:
Another thing the mods need to start doing is putting a stop to the word "Teabagger" being used so frequently on these boards

It's in reference to a disgusting sexual act. Mods, Please address this and make it stop
Click to expand...


Why? It is was the clueless old white folks in the Tea Party who proudly used the term to begin with.
The evolution of the word 'tea bagger' - The Week

The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker). In a twist, some conservatives have recently advocated that the word be reclaimed. Here's a look at the evolution of the insult:

Feb. 27, 2009
At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."
Click to expand...
 
Gipper said:
The ultimate abuse of property rights - Eminent Domain - seems to be favored more by Democrats than Republicans.
Click to expand...

Pray tell: WHO owns the property in question? This is not an instance of "Eminent Domain" and if you think it does apply, you are truly clueless about the definition of the term.
 
There are so many Cons get away with, like TEAtard.
I'll play their game whereever they'd like.
Are their poor wittle feelings hurt after dishing it out for so long at the Halfrican American POTUS?
Somerville said:
Why? It is was the clueless old white folks in the Tea Party who proudly used the term to begin with.
Click to expand...
 
I believe the tremendous trio, Lincoln--T. Roosevelt--Eisenhower, were quite adept at eminent domain.
So are school systems, run by Red BOEs in Red population areas.
Somerville said:
Pray tell: WHO owns the property in question? This is not an instance of "Eminent Domain" and if you think it does apply, you are truly clueless about the definition of the term.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Pray tell: WHO owns the property in question? This is not an instance of "Eminent Domain" and if you think it does apply, you are truly clueless about the definition of the term.
Click to expand...

Calm down there, Trotsky. All I said is that ED is an egregious property-based violation.

In this case, the government "owns", but they are in contractual relations - which means that the squatter has rights that are clearly being violated here.
 
Gipper said:
Calm down there, Trotsky. All I said is that ED is an egregious property-based violation.

In this case, the government "owns", but they are in contractual relations - which means that the squatter has rights that are clearly being violated here.
Click to expand...


that is your opinion - and nothing more - unless you have a copy of the lease agreement before you as you type (which I doubt)
 
I find it rather interesting that Obama stationed more people and invested more resources to guard the WWII memorial in D.C. than he did for the American embassy in Benghazi.
 
EdwinWillers said:
I find it rather interesting that Obama stationed more people and invested more resources to guard the WWII memorial in D.C. than he did for the American embassy in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you're regurgitating Fox News talking points right on schedule.

Clearly without thinking about them.
 
justabubba said:
if the property owner tells you to close the property, close the property
then recover what you would have earned thru the courts
winning a contract dispute with the federal government is always an enriching proposition
Click to expand...

A property owner cannot tell you to close your business. The property owner has no say in what goes on on that property when the rent is paid.

Where do you get your ideas?
 
Mason66 said:
A property owner cannot tell you to close your business. The property owner has no say in what goes on on that property when the rent is paid.

Where do you get your ideas?
Click to expand...

Not completely true. A property owner is entitled to impose some reasonable restrictions on what a renter can do with the property.

A landlord cannot, however, prohibit a renter from using the property for exactly the purpose for which the property is being rented.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not completely true. A property owner is entitled to impose some reasonable restrictions on what a renter can do with the property.

A landlord cannot, however, prohibit a renter from using the property for exactly the purpose for which the property is being rented.
Click to expand...

You are correct and that is done when the property is rented, not down the road to hurt the renters business.

After the contract is signed by both sides, the changes have to be made by agreement by both sides.

In this case the property owner came in and says they have to stop their business. The property owner in this case has nothing to say as to what the renter is doing.
 
Deuce said:
I find it interesting that you're regurgitating Fox News talking points right on schedule.

Clearly without thinking about them.
Click to expand...
That's the thing about the truth - one can either lie about it; or, if they have yet a semblance of self respect, they do what you did here and merely joke about it. Either way, it remains the truth.
 
Mason66 said:
A property owner cannot tell you to close your business. The property owner has no say in what goes on on that property when the rent is paid.

Where do you get your ideas?
Click to expand...

you are correct. unless the contract indicates otherwise, the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property
and barring any contract language to the contrary, the tenant's decision to remain open is his to make
but being able to do something does not make it smart to do something
which is something i do not expect you to understand
 
Gipper said:
Actually, no he cannot. It's called breach of contract.

He could take them to court, but there would be extensive punitive penalties because of damages.

It's not in the government's best interest to argue this. Of course, they've never been models of efficiency or sense, nor have people who blindly support it.
Click to expand...

Without having read the contract how can any of us here determine whether this is or isn't breach of contract? Did the Blue Ridge hotel post their contract publicly somewhere?
 
justabubba said:
http://www.citizen-times.com/articl...Pisgah-Inn-reopens-defies-government-shutdown

the fellow is a fool
he should read his lease agreement
and if there is no provision for such closure (i would bet there is) he could sue for the feds violating the terms of the contract causing him loss of income and profits. he would then be able to make out like a bandit
suspect he is a teabagger, wanting to impose his personal views in the media
Click to expand...
Some of us like to actually work and earn what we get... not steal it from others pursuing the lazy path of non-productivity...some of us take pride in our work, feel an obligation to those who are taking time off and have maybe made reservations weeks in advance...makes us that have these values smile a lot more, makes us happy, easier sleeping at night...

...I mean, who has or needs insomnia...??

And I hate to bring this up, but I always do when folks on your side are just that insulting...but you are aware that the majority of the true "teabaggers" are by far on your side of the aisle...shouldn't you be a little more sensitive to their proclivities and that this is really more on their turf? A little presumptuous to use the term so disparagingly, perhaps?
 
justabubba said:
you are correct. unless the contract indicates otherwise, the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property
and barring any contract language to the contrary, the tenant's decision to remain open is his to make
but being able to do something does not make it smart to do something
which is something i do not expect you to understand
Click to expand...
Wow, a complete bail on your original premise, then quick, the big back-peddle/deflect...almost flawless in its succinct execution... being a gymnast or a contortionist in your past, or future maybe?
 
justabubba said:
you are correct. unless the contract indicates otherwise, the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property
and barring any contract language to the contrary, the tenant's decision to remain open is his to make
but being able to do something does not make it smart to do something
which is something i do not expect you to understand
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insult, but I do consider the source.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Wow, a complete bail on your original premise, then quick, the big back-peddle/deflect...almost flawless in its succinct execution... being a gymnast or a contortionist in your past, or future maybe?
Click to expand...

please point out any posts in which what i presented is at odds with the more current post
accept the challenge
dont run and hide from it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom