:rolleyes:
Sorry, forgot who I was talking to for a moment.
Has anyone threatened that?
Yes. Good luck trying “the sky is falling” routine over FCC defunding, BTW.
Good luck getting it defunded. That’ll happen when hell freezes over.
Maybe that won’t fly, but defunding the FCC over net neutrality is going to make the Pubs look rotten bad.
I know, right? Voters just love the FCC. Its shutdown would be devastating.
Voters just love net neutrality.
BWAHAHAHAH! The stupid GOP controlled House couldn’t even fund the DHS for 3 weeks! Hey D’antonio or whatever your name is, come back and lets talk about those nasty obstructionist Republicans! Wow, so pathetic, now a midnight bill for a 1 week funding? Are you serious? Good luck on not getting blame for a week to week payment of the government!
I dare them to try and do this once a week until Obama leaves office. They’re crazy enough to do it, sure, but they won’t because they’ll be blamed for everything until then. So in the end, the GOP caves, yet again, with their tails between their legs and the orange man trying to be the adult in the room even though we know he’s, at most, a teenager.
I really could not have envisioned a less likely outcome for the GOP. Of course, coming from people who hate government, its no surprise they don’t know how to govern.
And before Terr or some other yokel complains about how its the Dem’s fault, hear this fact: The GOP will be blamed for it whether or not its the Dem’s fault. And there’s nothing you can do about it!!! 
It’s interesting how Terr, who is obviously not stupid like Magellan or Magiver or Clothy, is effectively stupid, because in his mind, nothing that undercuts his ideological position is possible.
It must be the Dems fault for the DHS being de-funded. No other option whatsoever. Whereas one of the three above would come to that conclusion because they aren’t smart enough to hold the variables in their heads, Terr comes to it because his ideological fervor deflects thoughts that suggest otherwise.
Or maybe he’s a dipshit, I dunno.
Also, it’s the GOP’s fault, because they’re the ones who are: 1. demanding a pound of flesh to fund the DHS. and 2. Trying to punt for a week or three in order to message their way out of Boehner’s folly.
A lot of the RW appears to be like that.
This is freakin hilarious. YOU pointing to ideological blinders in others?!!! And Chuckle Head, aka, Lobohan, calling more posters stupid. It’s a veritable Mr. Pot Party.
Oh, and I notice how you avoided commenting on the substance of my Economics 101 lesson to you. Unsurprising.
I think shutting down the FCC would be a mistake. I don’t know if it would be a political mistake or not. But from a practical standpoint, it would be a mistake. It would be bad for the economy in general and the teleommunications industry in specific. If nothing else, an extended shutdown of the FCC would disrupt licensing and frequency allocation, slowing down the buildout of new sites and license sales.
But then, I have a problem in general with refusing to fund agencies out of protest for a specific policy. If a policy is unconstitutional, that’s a matter for the courts. If it’s constitutional and you don’t like it, pass a law stopping it. If the political configuration means a law like that wouldn’t pass, then that’s the way things are. But if an agency’s work is important, then all not funding it does is make sure that important stuff doesn’t get done. And if the agency is so unimportant that holding up funding doesn’t have any negative effects, then why keep the agency in the first place?
I think you are mistaken. The bill that was submitted to the House was not the Senate bill, but a three week stopgap concocted by the House leaders. Dems voted against the three week special precisely because it wasn’t the Senate bill and some 50 Republicans voted against it, too. If the House leadership had gotten their fanatics under control the three week bill would have passed without any Dem. votes in favor of it. The GOP leadership refused to allow the Senate bill come to a vote. The Senate bill probably would have garnered enough Dem, and Repub. votes to pass if a vote had been allowed.
Of course, since all that the House has passed a one week funding resolution. We will se what the Senate does with that. Maybe we can go through this all again next week.
Let’s say you’re a principled politician (a rare bird but let’s stipulate). You know, one that swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and actually meant it. There is an executive order you think is blatantly unconstitutional. You’re about to vote on a bill that funds that executive order. How do you vote?
If you don’t agree with the order, don’t vote to fund it. You don’t vote on what you think is constitutional. That’s the Supreme Court’s call.
The Supreme Court has not decided. And even after it decides, if you still think it is against the Constitution, your principles should not allow you to vote for it.
Of course, I am arguing here with people with no principles whatsoever other than “stick it to the other side” so it is hard for you to understand that…
Terr sounds like George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse doorway.
Like I said, no Congressman (or any other pol) has any business voting on a constitutional basis. They have no idea what that phrase means. And that includes bothy sides of the aisle.
I understand “stick it to the other side”. I see it all the time from your political comrades.
I understand that you don’t like having people point out what a fool you are. And how most of what you cleave to is utter nonsense fantasy dreamed up by the RW media. But c’mon, that doesn’t mean we can’t still be friends. I think you have a contribution to make to society. It’s not like floors clean themselves.
About 90% of your contribution to any thread is calling other posters stupid. You’re a joke. But since you’re not using it, can I use your head for a mop?