President Obama firmly rejected advice from top congressional Republicans on Friday that he delay his promised executive action on immigration reform, dismissing calls from critics inside and outside his party to allow Congress to debate the issue next year.
Over a two-hour lunch of Bibb lettuce salad, herb-crusted sea bass and pumpkin tart, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and their lieutenants warned Obama that his acting alone on immigration would spoil chances for bipartisan agreement on other issues in the new GOP-controlled Congress.
Seated with 12 top members of the House and Senate in the Old Family Dining Room, Obama shot back that he intended to proceed, saying that he had already waited almost two years for congressional action on immigration. He added that his decision should not upend chances for cooperation on unrelated matters, according to aides familiar with the exchange.
He warned that if Obama tries to take executive action on things like immigration reform -- as the president signaled he would Wednesday if Congress continues to stall -- it would "poison the well" and prompt a harsh response from Republicans.
"When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself," Boehner said. "And he's going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path."
During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected.
(snip)
Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.
Quote by BobR:
Now the Republicans have 2 houses of Congress with which to obstruct
Quote by Mondobubba:
Hola!
Quote by Mondobubba:
Out on the Internets there is a video of me drinking out of two-litre bottle of Fireball whiskey. Said video is from a Go Pro camera attached to the bottle. The things you do for friends on their wedding day.
Quote by Raine:Quote by Mondobubba:
Out on the Internets there is a video of me drinking out of two-litre bottle of Fireball whiskey. Said video is from a Go Pro camera attached to the bottle. The things you do for friends on their wedding day.
Come on man… give us a link!!!
Quote by Raine:
As a side note, Mondo -- your new profile picture is amazing! You look great!
Quote by Scoopster:
Yep all the talking point machines are in high gear.
Quote by wickedpam:
and just like Surgeon General, I'm kind of doubting we're going to have an Attorney General for 2 years.
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by wickedpam:
and just like Surgeon General, I'm kind of doubting we're going to have an Attorney General for 2 years.
Yeah unless it get pushed through before the end of this session, which I suspect Harry Reid will try to do.
Quote by wickedpam:
That Thom has never heard of Mary Jane's and Laffy Taffy just tells me that pop culture is beneath him![]()
Quote by livingonli:
I don't think it's like anyone ever said Thom was hip.
Quote by Raine:Quote by livingonli:
I don't think it's like anyone ever said Thom was hip.
True, Thom is very much a wonk in every aspect of his life.![]()
Quote by wickedpam:
Why is it every time I see Brietbart I read it as Bieber?
Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
Quote by Raine:
KEep me the hell away from this Doctor. There is no such thing as a Doctor not taking Obamacare.![]()
Quote by Raine:
Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utilityRegulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utilityRegulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Regulating the internet as a utility would give service providers the liberty to charge us by quantity used, like water and electric. That means you'd pay by the kilobyte or megabyte. FUCK THAT.
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Why is it every time I see Brietbart I read it as Bieber?
They both rouse the same intellectual curiosity?
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utilityRegulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Regulating the internet as a utility would give service providers the liberty to charge us by quantity used, like water and electric. That means you'd pay by the kilobyte or megabyte. FUCK THAT.
Actually, it might move it closer to the European model treating the ISP as a common carrier which would mean that it should also actually allow for more competition since Europeans pay far less for internet access than we do.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Why is it every time I see Brietbart I read it as Bieber?
They both rouse the same intellectual curiosity?
excuse me?![]()
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Why is it every time I see Brietbart I read it as Bieber?
They both rouse the same intellectual curiosity?
excuse me?![]()
![]()
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Why is it every time I see Brietbart I read it as Bieber?
They both rouse the same intellectual curiosity?
excuse me?![]()
![]()
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utilityRegulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that's a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they're losing some control over what they sell, and that they can't favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it's because that's basically how the internet has worked up until now.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Regulating the internet as a utility would give service providers the liberty to charge us by quantity used, like water and electric. That means you'd pay by the kilobyte or megabyte. FUCK THAT.
Quote by Raine:
The problem I see is that companies like Netflix are already paying comcast for access to the internet.
That isn't anywhere close to a free internet.
I am very confused.
Quote by Raine:
The problem I see is that companies like Netflix are already paying comcast for access to the internet.
That isn't anywhere close to a free internet.
I am very confused.
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
The problem I see is that companies like Netflix are already paying comcast for access to the internet.
That isn't anywhere close to a free internet.
I am very confused.
I think it's time to flesh out all the facts and misconceptions into a single clearing house, kinda like what you did for the whole ACA debate. I'd personally LOVE to throw in for such a project since I already have a good idea what's going on but I also suspect I may be a bit misinformed too.
Quote by Scoopster:
![]()
Quote by Raine:At least I am not Ted Cruz.Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
The problem I see is that companies like Netflix are already paying comcast for access to the internet.
That isn't anywhere close to a free internet.
I am very confused.
I think it's time to flesh out all the facts and misconceptions into a single clearing house, kinda like what you did for the whole ACA debate. I'd personally LOVE to throw in for such a project since I already have a good idea what's going on but I also suspect I may be a bit misinformed too.
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Limbaugh's 4th wife forgot to change his diaper this morning.