Agree Or Not: The Republican Strategy Of Shutting Down Government Should Have Been Used To Block Bush.?

OK, please understand that anything I say should not be taken personally. I am not using foul language or insulting you in any way.

This is NOT uncommon. It is a part of our 'checks and balances" built into our Constitution. It has been used MOST OFTEN by Democrats. Under the Reagan admin. Tip Oneil shut down the gov't 8 or 9 times.

OK, with that said, I am not old enough to recall the actual events leading up to our involvement in Vietnam, and frankly, I'm too lazy to do any research at this time.

I am more intrested in strategy and implementation of force than what got us there.

As to The War in Iraq, that never NEVER was contested. And, despite what was said by that anti-american pseudo-arian Hans Blicht, WMD's WERE found in Iraq. Why, you may ask, did we think they had them? Because in 1979-1980 we GAVE them to Iraq to use against Iran.Many of us presumed they may have been moved over the border (sold, traded, whatever) to Syria. Coincidence?

As for Afghanistan, Osama Bin Ladin claimed responsibilityfor the World Trade Center tragedy years before it happened. Clinton refused to act, even when we knew where he was and when he was there.

Now, I am a conservative, and unlike most Liberals, I think "what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So, NO, I would not have a problem with Democrats doing it in the future. As I stated earlier, It was done many more times by Democrats than by Republicans.

Once again, it is a Constitutional guarantee. I think its ok to question the motives, but, don't attack someone for doing their constitutional DUTY, while defending a Pres who has violated the Constitution 17 times, with one single law in just 3 years.

Was that fair?

I'm not really sure you have a complete grasp of what's going on here. Shutting down the govenment is not a "strategy" that can be used if you don't agree with the administration.

The government requires a budget in order to fund its operations, and there is a built in deadline for producing and signing that budget. In this case, the House budget was presented without funding for Obamacare, the Senate refused this budget.

The deadline passed, so no funding was provided for the day to day operations of the government.

This actually did happen during the Bush administration, but those in the Senate and in the Executive Branch did not dig in and flatly refuse to negotiate. Both sides gave a little, the budgets were passed, and a shutdown was avoided. That's not happening here.

In 2005, an Iraq Emergency Funding bill was brought before Congress. Understanding the importance of this funding bill (it was for armor for Humvees, ammunition, resources that the troops needed), Democrats in Congress decided to use this emergency to get what THEY wanted - i.e, language with a date-specific withdrawal of troops from Iraq. No date, no money - and then they tried to blame it on the Republicans for not "caring about our troops".

So what's the difference? The bill doesn't pass today and the Government doesn't have the money to keep their domestic operations going and people get laid off. The bill doesn't pass in 2005 and soldiers die. Either way, it's a hostage situation.

Better yet...why have a government at all???? Let's all live in anarchy. It really works great in places like Somalia.

The Democrats are the ONES who shut the government down, NOT the Republicans. The Republicans have tried to deal, but the Democrats are the ones insisting that it is their way or no way....

We can expect to the dems to shut down the government if the House doesn't pass their gun control bill. Then the republicans will shut down the government for their next issue they can't pass.

Like the founders intended.

You really have no clue, do you?