Park Rangers

nickthehunter wrote:
How about the natiaonal mall being open for a rally for illegal aliens (people that aren't even citizens) but the war memorials closed for people that risked their lives for our freedom. I suppose you think that is just a rumor also.

I don't like the the way things were handled regarding this anymore than some others here. I do believe though that certain media organizations have been sensationalizing it.

From this article in USA today you can find this official statement from the National Park Service:

"Susana Flores of Casa de Maryland, a community organization that assists immigrants and helped organize Tuesday's rally, said they were given clearance for the rally by the National Parks Service based on First Amendment grounds. National Parks Service spokesman Mike Litterst confirmed that the march will go on.

"Under the same First Amendment rights that are allowing Honor Flight veterans and their families to visit the veterans memorials on the National Mall, other groups will be granted access to the park for First Amendment activities in accordance with National Park Service established regulations," Litterst said in a statement."

If this is their position then it would seem some of the reporting that the Honor Flights had to be canceled would be false.

nickthehunter wrote:
Problem is the narrowly sighted who can't see the forest for the trees. Get Real and accept what you know is true but refuse to believe cause it would burst the bubble you're living in. I'll bet you don't have any problem believing anonymous sources when they reinforce your ideals. It's only when they go against your ideals that they couldn't possibly be true - that would make the bubble go "POOF".

Yes the narrowly sighted are a problem, they fall on both sides. All I can say is I am not one. I do not like much of what is happening on either side. Unlike some people, both here and elsewhere, though I do not form my opinions simply based on anonymous sources or hearsay. As I have demonstrated I actually make the effort to find the source of the story and verify it's validity. I don't just repeat what I heard somewhere, even though I may have heard it on TV. I already posted one of the best examples floating around the internet and elsewhere of a "reputable" television report being blatantly false. That was the statement made by Anna Kooiman on Fox News regarding President Obama personally funding a museum on Muslim culture. Even though it has been verified as being false and admitted by both Fox News and Kooiman there are still plenty of people repeating it as the truth and saying they heard it on TV. The fact that it aired on a major network such as FOX lends it credibility to them. Now before you accuse me of being biased I am also skeptical of much of the reporting from MSNBC and just about any other news source. Because of that I actually take the time to do a little research to so that I can ascertain what the truth really is.

Bird Freak wrote:
If I was the reporter who had talked with the ranger I would not disclose his or her name either. You could be sure the ranger would not have a job by morning.

I would not either. Now would they have a job, probably however they would have to fight to keep it. Their biggest issue would be if they were in uniform and on duty. If they were then they would at least face some form of disciplinary action. So I guess we agree on this. :)

1L243 wrote:
Shaky you might be able to convince yourself that one story has no merit because a reporter decided not to out the park ranger but when you hear of several stories like closing roads and parking lots to private historical sites for the only reason to make so the folks can't even drive by it shows a pattern.

I can only imagine the job the Rangers had to do to tell people they had to leave a park or historical site. Just doing what their told.

You are missing entirely what I have said. I never said there was no merit in the story. The way it was reported has some issues. I don't even have a problem with the quote being anonymous. The problem is that people are linking the statement directly to the White House. There has been no evidence of that given. The reporter just threw the statement out there in such a way so as to leave uninformed readers to make the link. Unfortunately there are too many people willing to make that link in their own minds and run around repeating it as the "truth". Is it? I honestly don't know so I am not going to say one way or another. What I will do though, as I have done here, is question and challenge those who say it is. Why? Because I am not narrow minded therefore if it is true and they have the evidence then I want to know. :@