>>>>>>As a wise dude once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." What you're expecting now, is one of those other forms of goverment that clearly deviates from the way it was designed. Apparently the expectation is that if you pile up invective you can trump the legislative process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact is that the act has been passed. It was challenged in the Supreme Court. The challenge did not succeed in delaying or overturning the bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rest is smokescreen, since it doesn't matter how much invective or allegation can be stacked up. What matters who is voted into power and is able to pass or repeal bills. The others are entitled to holler and decry, but demanding re litigation of a passed act as the price of government? Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not rabid on the subject of Obamacare one way or the other since unlike apparently everyone who is, I am neither an expert on the economics of the health care industry nor am I familiar with every single detail of the thousands of pages defining it.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I am kind of interested in the ideas of separating partisan passion from constitutional argument. I suggest this article and if there are real constitutional arguments against the point Sowell makes I'm interested.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100413.php3#.UlLl51MQMvP
>>>>
>>>>"....If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility....."
>>>>
>>>>That is a pretty lame-brained way to look at it - take a looong close look at that sentence & tell me otherwise..haha -
>>>
>>>Ok, but that means they are shutting down all of the government because they cannot get funding for the part they want from the body which has the constitutional authority to determine what gets funded.
>>>
>>>Personally I don't believe funding for anything should all get bundled together. I think if someone wants to vote for or against funding school lunch programs or cancer research or a post office in West Virginia named for Robert Byrd they should go on record and take responsibility for their vote. Bundling stuff together is how pork gets in a worthwhile stuff can get left out.
>>
>>Yes I agree completely. Since AHA is a law now (passed all the muster to go from bill to law) ..the only option that the GOP has to screw everyone is to tie it to something else like what they've done.
>
>I'm not sure that is exactly right as to what happened. My understanding was the House made it clear they would pass a bill that funded everything else or bills to fund FEMA, Defense, whatever on a per item basis but Harry Reid said the Senate would not consider a bill that did not include Obamacare and the bill would be all or nothing. Is this not right?

So the GOP shuts down government because they don't like Obamacare - which is a passed law. I see your point but if the GOP does not like Obamacare, then they should be working on new law or amendments to deal with that - not hold all the other parts of federal government hostage because of it. Trying to pick and choose which parts of the fed gov stay operational & then blame the impasse on Obama is just stupid man. I just think that if they REALLY want to accomplish their goal that there is a proper way to do it - and this is not it. Of course having a 'goal' that doesn't involve denying millions of people heath care might help their cause too.