thunderous applause for NetanYahu

#251
#251
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they are friends. Not sure why you are so troubled by it
Click to expand...

If they are friends why do this in secret behind the President's back? Why break protocol and even drive a deeper wedge between two leaders? If this was just "friends" it would have happened the way it always did. Why do things differently?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#252
#252
CSpindizzy said:
Was either during an Israeli election? Or during ongoing negotiations of the US and another nation? With the intent of sabotaging those negotiations? Was either through the opposite party going behind the back of the Executive that always handles these arrangements? Those other two times and this one have nothing in common with the exception of the man giving the speech.
Click to expand...

Fine, if this was such a big deal to said negotiations (that again have to be approved by that very same Congress Obama is seething about) all the State Department had to do was say "you can't get off the aircraft. Go back to Israel." That's a sure fire way to put an end to that nonsense of Congress thinking it can just go behind their backs! And again, who gives a rat's bald behind if protocol in the invitation wasn't observed? I'm fairly sure that the proper arrangements for dignitaries were made even if they didn't want him here. And again, that's Boehner's House. He can invite the Prime Minister of Dirkdirkastan to speak if he wants. It's not up to the Executive Branch to say he can or can't.

It's partisan on both sides, but don't make the mistake of thinking one outweighed the other.
 
#253
#253
CSpindizzy said:
If they are friends why do this in secret behind the President's back? Why break protocol and even drive a deeper wedge between two leaders? If this was just "friends" it would have happened the way it always did. Why do things differently?
Click to expand...

Really?

Like for real serious?
 
#254
#254
CSpindizzy said:
If they are friends why do this in secret behind the President's back? Why break protocol and even drive a deeper wedge between two leaders? If this was just "friends" it would have happened the way it always did. Why do things differently?
Click to expand...

Honestly who cares? Obama does things differently all the time. Why does Congress need WH approval anyway? Does the WH need congress approval when they want to invite someone to speak at the Rose garden?Does the Supreme Court need congress approval if they want a guest speaker?
 
#255
#255
Grand Vol said:
Fine, if this was such a big deal to said negotiations (that again have to be approved by that very same Congress Obama is seething about) all the State Department had to do was say "you can't get off the aircraft. Go back to Israel." That's a sure fire way to put an end to that nonsense of Congress thinking it can just go behind their backs! And again, who gives a rat's bald behind if protocol in the invitation wasn't observed? I'm fairly sure that the proper arrangements for dignitaries were made even if they didn't want him here. And again, that's Boehner's House. He can invite the Prime Minister of Dirkdirkastan to speak if he wants. It's not up to the Executive Branch to say he can or can't.

It's partisan on both sides, but don't make the mistake of thinking one outweighed the other.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sending Bibi back to Israel...lol. That really would have gone over well. Sure Obama really would have done that. Inviting the guy here and making all the arrangements followed by releasing it to the public guaranteed he was coming. Bibi was the only one who could have stopped it at that point.

I never said it was not partisan on both sides. But this was initiated by one side for a specific reason. they used backroom methods not done to pull it off. Cry about the Dems response all you want but this was caused by one side for a distinct agenda. This is not how these speeches are typically done. Boehner gets his brownie points with conservatives for bowing up to Obama, AIPAC is happy, and Bibi gets to walk right into the seat of government and slap a US President around in his own backyard. For Boehner he gets one more feather in his cap. He's playing Republican groups masterfully as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#257
#257
CSpindizzy said:
Yeah, sending Bibi back to Israel...lol. That really would have gone over well. Sure Obama really would have done that. Inviting the guy here and making all the arrangements followed by releasing it to the public guaranteed he was coming. Bibi was the only one who could have stopped it at that point.
Click to expand...

Hey, it certainly would have gotten the message across that the WH wasn't happy with being circumvented.

CSpindizzy said:
I never said it was not partisan on both sides. But this was initiated by one side for a specific reason. they used backroom methods not done to pull it off. Cry about the Dems response all you want but this was caused by one side for a distinct agenda. This is not how these speeches are typically done. Boehner gets his brownie points with conservatives for bowing up to Obama, AIPAC is happy, and Bibi gets to walk right into the seat of government and slap a US President around in his own backyard. For Boehner he gets one more feather in his cap. He's playing Republican groups masterfully as well.
Click to expand...

Honestly I didn't think Boehner had the balls to stand up like that. Kind of surprised and happy he did since Obama has treated the remainder of the government like his ***** for the past four years.

I won't cry about the DNC response. I will say that it's far more childish to publicly state some would boycott the speech than calling out the leader of an allied nation.
 
#258
#258
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Honestly who cares? Obama does things differently all the time. Why does Congress need WH approval anyway? Does the WH need congress approval when they want to invite someone to speak at the Rose garden?Does the Supreme Court need congress approval if they want a guest speaker?
Click to expand...

If you are not a big fan of tradition, protocol, etc. then that is fine. Foreign leaders coming here always go through our State Department - you know the branch that serves as our voice to other nations. Congress can have guest speakers all they want. But when it goes beyond their domain and it serves to undercut the agenda of the President, then expect issues and responses. The Executive Branch is the one given responsibility to engage in foreign dialogue, etc. If the Legislative Branch just sabotages everything from the get-go, they've essentially neutered the powers and authority of the Executive. This is a slippery slope. For all the issues people have with Obama doing his own thing with no regard for protocols, tradition, Constitution, etc. it would make sense this applies to that thinking as well. It seems we've drifted into the "who cares" and "anything goes" or is fair game attitude now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#259
#259
Grand Vol said:
Hey, it certainly would have gotten the message across that the WH wasn't happy with being circumvented.



Honestly I didn't think Boehner had the balls to stand up like that. Kind of surprised and happy he did since Obama has treated the remainder of the government like his ***** for the past four years.

I won't cry about the DNC response. I will say that it's far more childish to publicly state some would boycott the speech than calling out the leader of an allied nation.
Click to expand...

Boehner definitely has a pair and uses them only when needed. He is a materful survivalist. It's why he is still in office. He can be weak and give in when needed and he can have some grapefruits to whichever side he needs to when needed. Just like he's already backing down over DHS and immigration. He knows how to game the system and give and take as needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#260
#260
CSpindizzy said:
It seems we've drifted into the "who cares" and "anything goes" or is fair game attitude now.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It's absolutely where we are going. It's been going on in Congress and at the executive level. This is the result.

I also agree Johnny should not have gone over the president's head. It looks bad for the country and could have dire consequences. This is the amount of respect Obama has earned after s**tting on everyone he works with on a regular basis.

Anybody complaining about process now that didn't speak up earlier is a fraud and is just concerned that Obama lost this round of the PR war. I'm enjoying watching the likes of LG squeal like a stuck pig about it.

Boehner's motivations was probably more than likely to give Obama the finger. Netanyahu's motivations were far different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#261
#261
CSpindizzy said:
If you are not a big fan of tradition, protocol, etc. then that is fine. Foreign leaders coming here always go through our State Department - you know the branch that serves as our voice to other nations. Congress can have guest speakers all they want. But when it goes beyond their domain and it serves to undercut the agenda of the President, then expect issues and responses. The Executive Branch is the one given responsibility to engage in foreign dialogue, etc. If the Legislative Branch just sabotages everything from the get-go, they've essentially neutered the powers and authority of the Executive. This is a slippery slope. For all the issues people have with Obama doing his own thing with no regard for protocols, tradition, Constitution, etc. it would make sense this applies to that thinking as well. It seems we've drifted into the "who cares" and "anything goes" or is fair game attitude now.
Click to expand...

Agree 110%. Protocal and order are being ignored by both sides in recent years.

I would add, your comment about the role of The State Department is interesting. We can carry on this discussion about the role of the State Department in the Ukraine thread.
 
#262
#262
Rasputin_Vol said:
Agree 110%. Protocal and order are being ignored by both sides in recent years.

I would add, your comment about the role of The State Department is interesting. We can carry on this discussion about the role of the State Department in the Ukraine thread.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about coups FYI...:)
 
#263
#263
We have certain countries who are our closest friends historically and some who have become our close friends since WWII. Great Britain, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany, S. Korea and Japan are probably our closest allies. We need to consider their interests above all others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#264
#264
Sandvol said:
We have certain countries who are our closest friends historically and some who have become our close friends since WWII. Great Britain, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany, S. Korea and Japan are probably our closest allies. We need to consider their interests above all others.
Click to expand...

Did I miss some historical event where we desperately needed the assistance of any of these nations? I could have sworn it's always been us providing the assistance they desperately needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#265
#265
Sandvol said:
We have certain countries who are our closest friends historically and some who have become our close friends since WWII. Great Britain, Canada, Israel, Australia, Germany, S. Korea and Japan are probably our closest allies. We need to consider their interests above all others.
Click to expand...

UK: The world's largest direct investment partnership; one that yields billions of dollars to the US economy each year

Canada: Largest trade agreement in the world, with us importing over 450 billion in 2013.

Israel: A stable ally in the Mideast is very valuable in more ways then one.

Australia: One of the first nations to come to our support regarding Iraq. Provides a stable balance to China in the East and keeps our interests on the forefront.

Germany: Work closely together in many fields of science and has signed extensive trade deals with the US.

S Korea- With our help they quickly became one of the most civilized countries in the world in more ways than one. Now we reap the benefits yearly with over 400 billion dollars of good exported there last year from American manufacturing plants.

Japan- They are our largest economic partner taking over 30% of our exports from us each year.


So, it's good to have allies?
 
#266
#266
mrorange211 said:
UK: The world's largest direct investment partnership; one that yields billions of dollars to the US economy each year

Canada: Largest trade agreement in the world, with us importing over 450 billion in 2013.

Israel: A stable ally in the Mideast is very valuable in more ways then one.

Australia: One of the first nations to come to our support regarding Iraq. Provides a stable balance to China in the East and keeps our interests on the forefront.

Germany: Work closely together in many fields of science and has signed extensive trade deals with the US.

S Korea- With our help they quickly became one of the most civilized countries in the world in more ways than one. Now we reap the benefits yearly with over 400 billion dollars of good exported there last year from American manufacturing plants.

Japan- They are our largest economic partner taking over 30% of our exports from us each year.


So, it's good to have allies?
Click to expand...

Nah, allies suck. We need to cut off all foreign relations and stop all foreign aid. Tell all those folks to f off........and then ask them if we can export some folks to work in their countries.......oh wait, silly me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#270
#270
The facts in this article will surprise some people. My how the GOP has changed in my lifetime.

http://rare.us/story/remember-when-israel-attacked-iraq-over-nukes-and-everyone-condemned-it-except-ron-paul/
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top