Shutdown Supporters, Now That It's All Over But The Crying....

Would you, seriously, knock it off with that. That's the dumbest thing you've ever said, and you keep saying it over and over again.

There's actually a good lab experiment, several years underway, and it's been a resounding success.

As soon as you refute it.

After you refute the 3.1 million:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/mone...18/health-care-law-young-americans/55677268/1

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/19/pf/health-care-young-adults/

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Dai...form-implementation-young-adult-coverage.aspx

http://www.boston.com/politicalinte...th-coverage/R6MpQ7gBU5cRcnX0TbsHRN/story.html

http://www.workforce.com/articles/3...ained-coverage-through-health-care-reform-hhs

http://www.benefitspro.com/2012/06/19/31-million-young-adults-covered-under-health-refor

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120619/NEWS03/120619895

Ah, yes. That's why if you go to the National Archives, you'll find a yellowing piece of paper that reads "We the People of the Several States, in Order to form a more perfect Loose Assemblage ..."

That's already been done. Now, you keep on ignoring the fact that that's already been done.

Except that the original draft said, "We the States of...New Hampshire, New York, etc.", but it was taken out in the Committee on Style because they weren't sure which state would ratify and which one wouldn't. They didn't want to assume anything and upset one state or another so they took it out to make ratification easier. "We the people" still refers to the people of the several states and not the people as a whole because the people as a whole couldn't ratify the Constitution. The states; however, could and the people, through state action, could ratify the Constitution. The will of the people would have been impossible to discern, but through the states, it was possible to get a close proximity. Furthermore, Madison pointed out during the Virginia ratification convention that if a majority of the population were needed to ratify the Constitution, then Virginia's ratification would not be necessary because by the time Virginia ratified the Constitution, a majority of the people had ratified already.

You are confusing the Constitution with the Articles. Confederation failed miserably, it's the reason we have the Constitution in the first place.

As an interesting tangential thought:

Um, no I'm not, I'm stating historical fact.

You are stating an opinion about the historical record. Know the difference.

No one here is ignoring your inability to refute anything in that post. Except you, of course.

Can you back your statements up, because I can.

Fact # 1. The States ratified the Constitution

Fact # 2. There was no majority vote by referendum or any other means for the people as a whole to ratify the Constitution.

Fact # 3. The original draft of the Constitution did begin with, "We the States of...etc."

Fact # 4. The Committee on Style removed these words because they could not predict which states would not ratify the Constitution and they did not want to assume which states would ratify.

Fact # 5. There were people who were weary of the nationalistic tone of the Constitution as it was written.

Fact # 6. Madison did in fact assure Patrick Henry that the phrase, "We the people" did not mean the people as a whole, but the people of the several states, thus attempting to assuage the fears of nationalism and consolation amongst Anti-Federalists.

These are all indisputable facts. You can try to spin it another way if you want, but they speak for themselves.

These are my sentiments exactly. If anyone thinks the Republican establishment is on their side, they are mistaken. The establishment want just as much government as the Democrats, they just want it in other areas. Polls and re=election be damned, if I can vote a guy who will stand up for their convictions and not worry about getting reelected then I'd rather have him for one term rather than a lifer who doesn't do shit.

The people of the states = the people of the United States (see article 4)

CNN Poll: 75% say most Republicans in Congress don't deserve re-election

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-re-election/index.html

I thought this was kind of eye catching...

I would love to know what brought them to that conclusion.

Your tax refund next year could be delayed by the shutdown.

Better fucking not.

So here's the funny/ironic bit: (DISCLAIMER: HE WHO LAUGHS LAST LAUGHS BEST)

If the Dems had conceded to the Pubs would they, in fact, be better off than they are today?

To wit: At some point Obamacare was a bright and shining lie. If it had died on the vine they could have run ads in November with: "We tried to provide Federalized healthcare, but the bad ol' Repubs nixed it." Cue votes for the jackasses.

But they successfully got the GOP to cave on their line in the sand (like a mid '80s Khadaffi). So Obamacare became real. And it sucks. Will it cost votes? I dunno.

Today? Possibly. Dems are down at the moment (but not are far as Republicans). For once the Republicans are actually playing it right. IF they can keep it up, IF the website issue isn't fixed soon, and IF they can keep the crazies from being crazy next spring with the budget and debt ceiling then it is possible the Dems won't get much from the suicidal shutdown.

OK Sokar. (Volpone)

Except the republicans are poised to cause another government shutdown on 1/15. In the past I woul have said they aren't that stupid. Now I would say they absolutely are that stupid and want to play to the John Castles and Volpones of the party...no matter how many elections it costs them.

Just yesterday I read something about tea partiests concluding they have to actually cause a default in order to get any concessions. Yes, I'm sure that will play well.

While looking for this piece on how Republicans are playing this round well (by basically not doing anything) which I agree with and thought worth sharing, I found this piece (on how long term nothing has been fixed in the Party and if they don't shape up they're fucked):
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-scarborough-opinion-republicans-98527.html?ml=op

It all hinges on how long this storm lasts. The Obama admin really has to get the website up and running smoothly. Right now they're having to fight on two fronts and are doing poorly. If so, the Republicans need to be ready to pivot strategies. Right now the strategy is 'don't do anything that could take eyes off Obamacare' which while it's hard to keep the crazies from being crazy, isn't actually that hard. Do nothing is something that House Republicans are quite good at. But if Obamacare starts to clear up and the county move on, they will actually have to start doing something which will expose weaknesses. Immigration and Tax Reform are two big issues that are coming up and will need to be dealt with. Both have been shelved by House leadership not wanting to expose party weakness and distract from the Obamacare fumble, but they can't stay shelved forever.

"Let me be perfectly clear": I don't, for one second think either party can play anything well. American politics today is like reading the article about how the top stock pickers measure up to a monkey with a handful of darts. Whoever gets elected in '14 won't be the result of any brilliant strategery somuch as the complete and utter incompetence of their opponent(s). And whoever wins will be because the stupid things they did were less catastrophic than the stupid things their opponent did.

But insignificant numbers will vote for someone other than an Dem or Repub, because they can't win because no one will vote for them because they can't win.

You bet it's going to cost them votes. And you can see by how they're squirming now that they know it. They railroaded the country into this debacle. Guys like Cruz, Lee, and Paul tried to stop it, and they got loudly and repeatedly villified for trying to stop it. They lost, and now Obama and his pals have ended up in a situation where they're doing what Cruz and co. were trying to get them to do anyway.

Guess what that makes Obama and his pals look like?

I still don't understand the claims that the ACA some how is "Federalized health care" or a "government take over" because it isn't remotely any such thing. Hell, it doesn't even amount to health care reform and instead was mostly just insurance regulatory reform at best.

Last I saw Obama was at 42% approval, Republicans 22%, and Congress all the way down to 9% (which is down two points even since the tea party government shut down).

Some of us vote 3rd party. I voted 3rd party in 2012 because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a moderate like Obama again but you're right there is both institutional (as in legalistic restrictions) as well as mental (as in "they can't win so I won't vote for them) problems which hold 3rd parties back.

It's a confusing topic, and many are willing to exploit that confusion for political gain. Castle will come along to scream that it's not confusing because socialism, but he'll be wrong as usual. I wonder if he realizes he's just a tool of the corporatists?