Ok, come back when you can spell, its basically impossible to understand what you're saying.

Keep spluttering on, it amuses me to know you've been utterly defeated by facts.

@Jack - common sense makes no sense to you...so asking your opinion on whether or not something makes sense is like asking Putin what his favorite flavor of shit is - just not worht the effort, as the reply is irrelevant to any normal, sane person.

Jack....you lost. Republicans hold the House by legal implementation of the Constituion. All you ass clowns can whine all you want ...but we all know funding has been made available for the government so kids can get cancer treatment, and Obama/Reid are holding sick children hostage.

I'll bet you are so proud of your Emporer.

Obamacare can be questioned, under regular order, when the consequences of not doing so are not, well, the end of the world, a global recession, and the collapse of worldwide financial markets.

The Senate and White House have already agreed to fund the government at Republican levels, cutting about $300 billion from Obama's $1.2 trillion 2014 budget to the GOP's number of $988 billion.

On top of that, you want them to repeal a law that voters ratified by not electing the guy who ran on a platform to repeal it? Where's the negotiation and compromise here? It seems like you're just pissed off you didn't win the White House and are willing to ruin the lives of millions of Americans to pretend you did.

Wow, krellin, take it easy there, buddy. It looks like you really hurt yourself trying to write that last post.

There are times I wish we could return to the days of having to own property to vote...

Honestly, why the fuck should welfare recipients have a right to say what my tax dollars fund. One vote per dollar contributed to the Federal Government in taxes. Yeah. that's the solution. (and I'm serious, it is a solution). Those who have most to lose should have the most say in how it is spent.

Emperor.

C'mon, you're not this stupid.

Your web browser even tells you when you're fucking up.

Or have you gone back to hitting the sauce in the workday again? I almost wish that is the case... drunk is one thing. You can just stop drinking. But if you're actually that dumb, then I really pity you.

The Republicans control one half of one branch of the government, and that doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want and the rest has to knuckle under.

They're holding the government hostage, and the public knows it, and its having a serious backlash on the House races next year.

The American people aren't as stupid as you're hoping for. They can see who provoked this shutdown, and they're not happy.

Toodles, Krellin. I really suggest breathing into a bag to make sure you don't hyperventilate again.

@ StackelbergFollower

"The truth is, political scientists and sociologists for decades have predicted that a republican system, where the legislative and executive branches can be held by different parties both claiming to represent the will of the people, is just inherently unstable and doomed to collapse."

Which is precisely why we need to trust a strict interpretation of the Constitution in times like these. Democracy/"will of the people" is just glorified mob rule, which is exactly what the authors of the Constitution sought to avoid when they created this republic. A republic with democratically elected representatives and multiple partisan branches is indeed doomed to fail without a strong and healthy Constitution, which is why I'm such a firm advocate of small government and rigid adherence to the Constitution, even the parts I don't like so much.

"this is a constitutional [crisis], and it may well be the end of the American republic."

The Constitution has been ignored fairly consistently since the 1930s. This crisis is nothing new, but it is just now reaching the point of autoignition. This will end badly. Maybe not this year or the year after, but at some point America will crumble from within unless dramatic and unpopular changes are made to restore the federal government to its intended, constitutional size.

"However, you're wrong about Obamacare. It reduces the debt, in fact, according to the CBO when it was passed."

I'm not arguing against Obamacare on practical grounds; it may very well be cheaper than the current clusterfuck of a system. I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court decision regarding its constitutionality as well as previous Supreme Court decisions that allowed the federal government to interfere in the healthcare industry. The federal government does not have the authority to interfere with healthcare in any way. Leave it to the states or the people. If it were up to me, I'd scrap everything. No Obamacare, no Medicaid/Medicare, no nothing. Of course, the states can create their own systems if the people of the state choose to do so.

@ Jack_Klein

"If the people didn't want Obamacare, then why did they re-elect Obama?"

A variety of reasons. Romney was a terrible candidate; the best of a very terrible primary group. Obama is a hell of a campaigner; one of the best in the history of campaigns. The mainstream media didn't give any coverage to legitimate alternative candidates such as Ron Paul during the Republican primary. Ron Paul would have smoked Obama in a general election and we all know it.

But that is neither here nor there. I'm arguing that the federal government does not have the authority to legislate healthcare, even if the people overwhelmingly and obviously approve of the legislation. Before you mention the Supreme Court; they were dead wrong on this one. The Supreme Court can be wrong. See: Plessy v. Ferguson.

@Draugnar: if welfare works (and, you know, that's hard to do, but it should be goal), then today's welfare recipients are your customers and taxpayers tomorrow. That's why you don't want to exclude them from your civil society. Build a better welfare system that makes that a reality if you don't think you have it today.

Krellin, you're a hypocrite.

@Gunfighter: I understand what you're saying, although I disagree. But I'm glad we can at least have a civil discussion and air our disagreement.

@Jack - frothing at the mouth yet? lol I'm sorry that your Obama has not yet figured out a way to rule with absolute authority as you wish...but the Constitution still applies.

Like a good little authoritarian ass clown, you keep saying Republicans have no rights…that Obama should get whatever he wants, blah blah blah. That NOT how it works, ass clown, and with good reason, as designed by our Founders. Froth at the mouth all you want…but you are just wrong. Obama is not dictator, and he has to negotiate with Republicans. You can pretend they have done nothing, ignore their spending bills and pretend they don’t exist…but that just make you all the more the frothing fool you are.

You lose, Jack. Ha ha.

"We should have a majority Democratic House"

Why? Because Blue states happen to often be more populace than Red states (I'm talking to you Californification)? Even without the gerrymandering within states, the populace of many purple states would only have a minority of Democrats as the typical Democrat populace is urban and the Republicans have gone suburban. So divide the districts with a simple grid and you still get more Republican representatives than Democrat. Ohio is a good example. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton... Within the city limits, these are very Democrat districts, but the suburbs where the business people live trend Red, not Blue, making it a purple state.

Agreed. Believe me, krellin is getting on my nerves as much as your nerves.

@ StackelbergFollower

I realize that civil discourse is essential to any successful debate or discussion. I hope I gave you some food for thought at the very least.

ghug - you are an illiterate fool. If you have something to say, try being a big boy and explain yourself, douchebag.

@Stack and Klein -

There is more behind a presidential electin than *one* issue. Romney lost because he was wishy washy and rarely made a real stand on any issue except Obamacare. And even there he got wishy washy saying he would repeal parts but leave others while never truly standing behind what he would repeal and what he would leave intact. Romney lost cause he tried to be everything to everyone and came across as insincere to everyone. Personally, I didn't vote for either cause both were morons who didn't know their ass from their belly button.

Krellin, do you remember the last time you had something nice to say to someone with whom you disagree?

@Stack - I agree on the welfare issue. The problem is we'll never get the system reformed as long as the current status quo allows welfare recipients to stack the deck so they keep getting welfare. Take away their right to vote or at least reduce their influence on the vote and you will see them scratch and claw their way out of the welfare system tooth and nail.

I'm actually a big supporter of social programs when implemented correctly and the recipients properly vetted. People who *can't* work should be taken care of until they either can or they have moved on in life. The elderly, widows who are unskilled, orphans, even families with kids. But as long as we keep giving the inner city mothers more welfare for every kid they have and not taking it away every time they have a kid while already on the system and as long as we don't require the able bodied to show up for "menial" labor at minimum wage (think litter cleanup and other functions that we do have minimum security prisoners do) then we have a group of people willing to do nothing but collect a check.

We need incentives to get *out* of the system, but instead we provide incentives to stay *in* the system and even try to get more.

@Jack - He could still be using IE 9 on Windows 7. No spell check in that combination. I love IE 10 on Windows 8. It highlights all my misspelled words in *any* program it seems (part of Windows 8 I believe).

@Gunfighter: I've given a lot of thought to your view, now and in the past, but I think we just fundamentally have different views of what the role of government is. Where I disagree is that there is a strong popular support for the views you espouse: I don't think a nation demanding what you want could ever elect the last five or six presidents - or really, any president in the last 100 years, certainly any president since FDR. A mixed free-market system and relatively small (by international standards) welfare state are American for a while, and only changes will be made around the edges.

@Draugnar: sure, of course, Romney lost for many reasons. But if the intensity of opposition to Obamacare among the general public was really anything approaching what it is in the 80ish Republic House Reps dragging the world through this shutdown and default scare, Romney would have won in a heartbeat. Most of those Reps, after all, hail from districts where Republicans got about 55% of the vote. America-at-large does not agree with them.

As it stands, Obamacare has majority opposition, but half the people opposed to it want it expanded. The view of the American people does not justify the theatrics and extortion we see from the Republican conference and, in my view, absolutely nothing could ever possibly justify an act as recklessly irresponsible as seriously threatening not to raise the debt ceiling in this day and age.

Oh, Draug, missed your last post. I disagree, of course: disenfranchisement leads to resentment, and will never encourage welfare recipients, or anyone, to *want* to be a good citizen. We probably disagree on the merits of a good system and I don't your characterization of how it used today is accurate - but, I'm not about to write a book on welfare on these forums.

Obamacare can be questioned by a chamber of the legislature at anytime, it is "legislation." Duh!
The reason it is being questioned now is because the Democrats refused to negotiate before because they didn't have to and are now refusing to negotiate because they say it is wrong to use pressure. The Democrats simply refuse to negotiate on Obamacare at all despite the fact that the executive branch has made almost two dozen changes to the legislation arbitrarily without any consultation with Congress and if facing legal challenges because of these illegal changes to the legislation.

The Clinton administration didn't shut down the national park system in 1997, and neither did the Reagan administration in the shutdowns of the 1980's, orchestrated by Democrats FYI. In fact a National Park Ranger stated publicly "“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Government bureaucrats and employees are protecting their self-interest just like anyone else. The lesson of this shutdown is to limit the land under control of the federal government to end this type of turf protecting pettiness by bureaucrats.

@Stack - I'm not saying do away with it. I'm saying make it such that being on it is not an encouragement to continue on it. Seriously, the more kids the single moms have, the more welfare they get. My view is a simple one. Once you are *on* welfare, popping out more mouths to feed doesn't get you more money. I applaud the efforts taken thus far to eliminate fraud with the WIC card system in place of the old food stamps and other measures. But we still have a way to go as we still have people able to work but won't because they have their welfare checks.

Even the communist system believes "from each according to his ability" and we have plenty of people on welfare with the ability.

Things we need to do is make daycare affordable or provide daycare vouchers to families below 150% of the poverty level for their household so they can work without having to spend most of their check on daycare.

But you are right, that is for another thread and another time.

The argument that the ACA is the law of the land and here to stay ignores a harsh historical reality, the Volstead Act was a constitutional amendment that wasn't barely passed using reconciliation and it was repealed.

@ Stack

I'm not claiming that my views are popular. On the contrary (and largely as a result of the government indoctrination ("education") system and the mainstream media) the things that I would propose would be extremely unpopular.

The reforms that I would propose would be painful; there is no disputing that. People would most likely die as a result of my reforms. But in the same way that applying alcohol to a wound stings initially but later wards off infection, my reforms would be much better in the long run for the country as a whole.

@Emac: I suspect that if the Republicans opening bid had been, say, to repeal the employer mandate and medical devices tax in Obamacare in exchange for passing a budget at sequestration levels, or maybe slightly higher, and had independently raised the debt ceiling (perhaps with some face-saving entitlement reform thrown in around the edges), Democrats would have agreed.

The reasons Democrats are now refusing to negotiate without a CR and debt ceiling increase is that experience indicates that when they accede to Republican demands (for example, by accepting a CR at Republican levels of funding), suddenly the next demand is the entire Republican platform, including Wall Street dergulation and the Romney-Ryan tax plan. Under these circumstances, no negotiation under crisis can occur.

Hey Draug - affordable daycare is one of my pet policies, and IMO the #1 welfare policy any country needs to enact. We're 100% in agreement there.

The Democrats demand that Boehner hold a vote on a clean continuing resolution, and say its outrageous that he won't, but Harry Reid refuses to hold a vote in the Senate on suspending the personal mandate for a year and a vote to remove the waiver for members of congress and their staff from the same aspects of the ACA that apply to everyday Americans. Why don't both sides hold those votes? Both sides refuse so both sides share blame.