If refusing to fund it- to the point of shutting down the government creates action on it, then maybe so.
However, the government remains shut down largely due to Democrats refusing to take up individual spending bills and refusing to concede on very minor points in the law. The republicans have decreased their demands from de-funding it to removing the medical device tax which is also popular with a few democrats, to removing the special subsidy that Obama somehow created for congress and it's staff that the regular citizens don't get and paring the individual mandate with the exemption Obama gave to large businesses. They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens. The democrats are not being reasonable on this.
So if I adopt the "it is a stupid thing to do" approach, I would be hard pressed to claim those who started it remain the ones acting stupid if it is still a stupid thing. If I kept the "something needs to be done" approach, given the insistence to keep the law intact without any changes- even if it is simply applying it equally to big business, government, and citizens alike, it seems to be the only way.
He didn't misread, you are saying the same thing although you are saying more. The workers who work during the shutdown are by default considered essential as it is illegal and unconstitutional for them or the government to claim they are donating their time or the government to not compensate them for work done (unless it is a bona fide volunteer position established well before the shutdown and would most likely be non-essential).
The problem is that their paychecks will not be sent (deposited) out until funding is restored. So they are essentially working without pay if the shutdown lasts longer then the pay cycle and the pay is missed.
I understand that people need money, but I am completely against this bill, as it basically means that federal workers get a paid vacation while congress fights. We want federal workers to be afraid of losing money so they will lobby their representatives to get this fixed.
I understand what your sentiment is saying but I have to disagree. Too often congress does something because it is popular (this shut down happened because it was popular with certain portion of the country) or makes people angry. Hate crime for instance is one of those, you violently murder a person and face life in prison or the death penalty, yell an inflammatory racial slur in the process and you face life in prison or the death penalty. Then politicians say, see- we fixed the problem. Too much pressure ends up with bad law, ineffective law, or overly strict law. If you don't believe me, look at the patriot act and how it is applied today.
I do think that contractors should be paid provided they pay their employees too. I think a government shut down should have to cost the government money so it isn't used often.
I think the state did that with the southern rim of the grand canyon successfully back in 1995 too.
After some research, back in the 1980's most of the spending bills were passed separate then an omnibus bill so the shutdowns largely only impacted the areas in dispute instead of the entire government.
Democracy would seem to require the input of all involved. Not negotiating would literally be the end run around democracy. Perhaps you meant an end run around what you want?
Calling the republicans terrorist because they are using valid and existing tools of the trade to participate within this republic- and those tools have been used by democrats in the past 40 years as well, is just another symptom of a mindset that doesn't jive with reality.
In the last 40 years, there have been 17 shut downs, Of the 17 shutdowns in, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened when the democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. This isn't anything new, it just seems that way because even though G.W Bush was hated, he never got a shutdown (most likely because he never passed an opportunity to spend more).
This first link I suspect is a bit sided, but the second is wikipedia and I looked over the edits for the last 3 days only to find wording issues being changed (tonal and grammar)
So please stop with the Rhetoric about terrorist. It is untrue unless you want to call all the democrats who many are still in office terrorist too. This is the problem with government- when party politics come into play, one party does something, it's all puppies and kittens frolicking in a sunny field. When the other does the same things, it is terrorist and evil dead part 99.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.
No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.
The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.
You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.
Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.
It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congressâ(TM)s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congressâ(TM)s power to tax.
In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says
In answering that question we must, if âoefairly possible,â Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. âoeââoe[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . ..â or judicially rewriting it.â(TM)â Commodity Futures Trading Commâ(TM)n v. Schor, 478 U. S.
Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.
No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless
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.
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.
Lol. It cost more money to put the baracades and guards there then the removal of trash. The park is actually open, it was never shut doen. The memorials that are open air- you just walk by them in the park have been specifically blocked with guards posted at them.
It is nothing more then a petty attemp to score political points by the administration. Anyone paying attemtion can see that
Lol.. ok i submit. Go ahead and use every possible stretch of the imagination to justify it.
To anyone whos paying attention, this is just as petty as blocking if war mamorials in parks and threatening old vets with arrest for wanting to view an open memorial. The president already showed what he was capable of durring the sequestor that was originally his idea. Most people are seeing right through it this time. But if you insist it isn't to make more of a bad situation for political points, there is nothing i can do to relieve you of that delusion.
The comment wad not about what the founders wantef but what they gave us. I have read the federalist and anti-federalist papers and sm well aware of what was discussed. However, i have also read the US constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments which completely supports my position.
We/they didn't want a weak federal government either. This entire concept is polluted bullshit designed to be misleading. The federal government was supposed to be strong at a limited set of purposes which the articles of confederation couldn't make happen. The federal government is supposed to be a unitef front to foreighn policy and arbitrator between the states with a few other specific roles involved. This is why the state department deals with foreign relations and not the states. This is also why federal jurisdiction fot ctimes only exist on federal properyy unless the constitution specifically empowers congress to mske law concerning it. If you actually read and understood the federalist and anti-federalist papers as well as constitution convention notes, you never would have made your comment.
No, the founders gave the majority of power to the states wich was required to have a republic form of government. It gave a sizable portion of the power to the representatiives which are directly elected but the founders never envisioned this all encompassing type of federal government we see today.
There are several americans banned from entering eu countries for speech.
Anyways, bush had no problem (at least publically) with chavez and that iran president who called him satan entering the country and spewing thier crap.
This might be true. It certainly wss what i was thinking.
Interestingly, I have heard stories that they placed barracades around the WWII monument and a few others in washington. Evidently a WWII vet saw it and tore it down and started taking people to see it. I need to verify it as i haven't seen it in print yet.
According to cnn, ohio's average premium will rise 42 percent. Pbs reported that the premiums in Indiana will jump 72 percent. I don't think that is spread over 10 years either. I'm traveling until friday and have to use my phone for internet access or i would paste some links and try to average them out.
I guess most of the exchanges caught fir and kicked puppies today so it might be a little while before we have some fresh numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
If refusing to fund it- to the point of shutting down the government creates action on it, then maybe so.
However, the government remains shut down largely due to Democrats refusing to take up individual spending bills and refusing to concede on very minor points in the law. The republicans have decreased their demands from de-funding it to removing the medical device tax which is also popular with a few democrats, to removing the special subsidy that Obama somehow created for congress and it's staff that the regular citizens don't get and paring the individual mandate with the exemption Obama gave to large businesses. They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens. The democrats are not being reasonable on this.
So if I adopt the "it is a stupid thing to do" approach, I would be hard pressed to claim those who started it remain the ones acting stupid if it is still a stupid thing. If I kept the "something needs to be done" approach, given the insistence to keep the law intact without any changes- even if it is simply applying it equally to big business, government, and citizens alike, it seems to be the only way.
He didn't misread, you are saying the same thing although you are saying more. The workers who work during the shutdown are by default considered essential as it is illegal and unconstitutional for them or the government to claim they are donating their time or the government to not compensate them for work done (unless it is a bona fide volunteer position established well before the shutdown and would most likely be non-essential).
The problem is that their paychecks will not be sent (deposited) out until funding is restored. So they are essentially working without pay if the shutdown lasts longer then the pay cycle and the pay is missed.
I understand what your sentiment is saying but I have to disagree. Too often congress does something because it is popular (this shut down happened because it was popular with certain portion of the country) or makes people angry. Hate crime for instance is one of those, you violently murder a person and face life in prison or the death penalty, yell an inflammatory racial slur in the process and you face life in prison or the death penalty. Then politicians say, see- we fixed the problem. Too much pressure ends up with bad law, ineffective law, or overly strict law. If you don't believe me, look at the patriot act and how it is applied today.
I do think that contractors should be paid provided they pay their employees too. I think a government shut down should have to cost the government money so it isn't used often.
They did that to an inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/blue-ridge-hotel-defies-park-service-shutdown/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
I think the state did that with the southern rim of the grand canyon successfully back in 1995 too.
After some research, back in the 1980's most of the spending bills were passed separate then an omnibus bill so the shutdowns largely only impacted the areas in dispute instead of the entire government.
Democracy would seem to require the input of all involved. Not negotiating would literally be the end run around democracy. Perhaps you meant an end run around what you want?
Calling the republicans terrorist because they are using valid and existing tools of the trade to participate within this republic- and those tools have been used by democrats in the past 40 years as well, is just another symptom of a mindset that doesn't jive with reality.
In the last 40 years, there have been 17 shut downs, Of the 17 shutdowns in, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened when the democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. This isn't anything new, it just seems that way because even though G.W Bush was hated, he never got a shutdown (most likely because he never passed an opportunity to spend more).
You can validate those numbers here and here.+
This first link I suspect is a bit sided, but the second is wikipedia and I looked over the edits for the last 3 days only to find wording issues being changed (tonal and grammar)
So please stop with the Rhetoric about terrorist. It is untrue unless you want to call all the democrats who many are still in office terrorist too. This is the problem with government- when party politics come into play, one party does something, it's all puppies and kittens frolicking in a sunny field. When the other does the same things, it is terrorist and evil dead part 99.
No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.
The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.
Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,
In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says
No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol. It cost more money to put the baracades and guards there then the removal of trash. The park is actually open, it was never shut doen. The memorials that are open air- you just walk by them in the park have been specifically blocked with guards posted at them.
It is nothing more then a petty attemp to score political points by the administration. Anyone paying attemtion can see that
Sorry about spelling in that. The damn phone doesn't have a spell check that works on. Web forms.
Lol.. ok i submit. Go ahead and use every possible stretch of the imagination to justify it.
To anyone whos paying attention, this is just as petty as blocking if war mamorials in parks and threatening old vets with arrest for wanting to view an open memorial. The president already showed what he was capable of durring the sequestor that was originally his idea. Most people are seeing right through it this time. But if you insist it isn't to make more of a bad situation for political points, there is nothing i can do to relieve you of that delusion.
The comment wad not about what the founders wantef but what they gave us. I have read the federalist and anti-federalist papers and sm well aware of what was discussed. However, i have also read the US constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments which completely supports my position.
We/they didn't want a weak federal government either. This entire concept is polluted bullshit designed to be misleading. The federal government was supposed to be strong at a limited set of purposes which the articles of confederation couldn't make happen. The federal government is supposed to be a unitef front to foreighn policy and arbitrator between the states with a few other specific roles involved. This is why the state department deals with foreign relations and not the states. This is also why federal jurisdiction fot ctimes only exist on federal properyy unless the constitution specifically empowers congress to mske law concerning it. If you actually read and understood the federalist and anti-federalist papers as well as constitution convention notes, you never would have made your comment.
I never heard of anyone paying for bandwidth by the minute. In fact, most businesses i know of have contracts for months at a time- paid in advance.
The money had likely already been spent before the shutdown.
No, the founders gave the majority of power to the states wich was required to have a republic form of government. It gave a sizable portion of the power to the representatiives which are directly elected but the founders never envisioned this all encompassing type of federal government we see today.
I have no sense of humor when it comes to outright distortion of the truth comparing something to the worst of the worst criminals.
Eould you have an issue if i all the sudden said you were likee a child molestervbecause you purchased dome candy and i didn't agree with it?
There are several americans banned from entering eu countries for speech.
Anyways, bush had no problem (at least publically) with chavez and that iran president who called him satan entering the country and spewing thier crap.
This might be true. It certainly wss what i was thinking.
Interestingly, I have heard stories that they placed barracades around the WWII monument and a few others in washington. Evidently a WWII vet saw it and tore it down and started taking people to see it. I need to verify it as i haven't seen it in print yet.
According to cnn, ohio's average premium will rise 42 percent. Pbs reported that the premiums in Indiana will jump 72 percent. I don't think that is spread over 10 years either. I'm traveling until friday and have to use my phone for internet access or i would paste some links and try to average them out.
I guess most of the exchanges caught fir and kicked puppies today so it might be a little while before we have some fresh numbers.