Senate The US Politics discussion

It's a classic example of Republicans over the past several decades (and longer, really)-- when you don't like who's in charge, just ignore or otherwise marginalize them. The President is in charge of diplomacy-- there's no getting around that. Certainly they would rush to uphold that idea if a Republican was in the White House.

 

There might be a constitutional lesson here why the founders put diplomacy and policy in the executive and not the legislature(although they ratify treaties and ambassadors, etc). The confused and factionalizing going on around Netanyahu's speech is an example.
You can't have several hundred congressional sovereigns deciding what is the right thing to do or who should speak simultaneous with a chief executive.
We have a presidential system. If congress doesn't like it, amend the constitution.

 

I have to tell you, I'm in the rich, Jewish bastion-land down here in the crazy-pants state.

And the overwhelming sentiment is "Obama doesn't care at all for Israel," and "Anyone who doesn't attend the speech is disgusting and a coward."

So for those who call me out on my thoughts on Israel, just remember: it could always be worse!

 

They're crazy, and more than that, they're still very much in the minority. Do you happen to know if some of them felt or still feel similarly toward H.W., as he pushed Israel far more than this President ever will. If not them, perhaps their parents.

On many issues, I'm the furthest thing from a barometer. When it comes to Israel, I very much am one. I was raised to naturally favor Israel-- my father's side is heavily Jewish in ancestry. I'm inclined to back Israel if all things are equal. When people like me start to move away, it's a subtle but significant sign to anyone paying attention in Israel that their support among younger folks is eroding. It's not a concern yet, but in 15-20 years, support for Israel may have declined precipitously, to the point where any real political upport is almost completely isolated within the GOP, and many people in power by then feel that it's not worth backing Israel in such a one-sided way.

Also, David-- do they all watch Fox News? The doctor's office I used to go to belonged to a Jewish doctor, and they blared Fox News in there all the time. I long since stopped going, and that's part of why (that and I had ASU's campus facilities, which were superior anyway and easier to get to).

 

I have to tell you, I'm in the rich, Nazi bastion-land down here in Bavaria.

And the overwhelming sentiment is "The League of Nations doesn't care at all for Germany," and "Anyone who doesn't attend the rally is disgusting and a coward."

So for those who call me out on my thoughts on Jews, just remember: it could always be worse!

 

I suspect that the majority of them are Fox News watchers, yes. And most of whom are very, very intelligent people -- yet either through blinders or other reasons still unfathomable to me, are militantly anti-Obama simply on the pretense that "he doesn't care for Israel."

My sister, possibly one of the most reasonable, feminist, liberal people I know, just informed us that she's going to have to start voting Republican because of her paycheck. Yikes.

 

Thanks for narrowing it down to 40-50 states.

 

There's only one "crazy-pants" state where something happens and we're like "Oh, <state>..."

(plus a rich bastion of Jews sort of narrows it down... )

 

Florida? Shoulda just said a bastion of nudists.

 

I'm not really sure if you were being lazy here, or thought you were making a clever analogy (and weren't)?

 

I have to tell you,I'm in the rich, neo-Nazi bastion-land

I think he means northern Idaho.

 

What's funny is, if those nut-jobs ran into my Libertarian friends from Boise... that'd be a real interesting day.

 

I think most of the Aryan Nation at an organizational level moved out of the state, but there are still lone wolves in the panhandle.

About your libertarian friends, yeah Im not sure people outside the U.S. who equate American libertarians with radical right wingers really understand what radical right wing is until they understand the Aryan and skinhead nuts.

The thing that bugs me with American libertarianism is the single most popular figures of the last two decades, Ron and Rand Paul, have in their midst these neo-confederate/lost causers that really undermine nearly all of the libertarian philosophy. It's unfortunate. I can't follow a movement where that is tolerated.

 

mostly being lazy but also pointing out you dont get a pat on the back for only being sort of a monsterous human being rather than a complete one

 

on second thought maybe you should. nvm

 

Eh, I think though that drawing comparisons to Israel and Nazi Germany is a lazy and lowbrow form of stupidity that progressive will nevertheless pat themselves vigorously on the back for. You're above that. You also know how significant Israel is to Jewish identity and how it precludes many in the US in particular from seeing reason. Responding with an equally unreasonable analogy is a bit beezel.

 

I think we should start to run sentences with beezel in it more often, like Malkovich inside his own head in Being John Malkovich...

 

No, it has to have weight and effect. Hence; "Look, I think at the moment you're being beezel."

 

beezel is urban slang for a imaginary bong you can smoke heroin in. There you go.

 

Is that with the accent on the beez or the el?

 

Basil.

 

Conan is heading to Cuba.

O'Brien not The Barbarian

I hope he made the flight:







http://deadline.com/2015/02/conan-obrien-cuba-tbs-1201374174/

 

Don't they? Steve Scalise reminded us how little daylight there is between the two.

 

An important US political and foreign policy shift was just authorized, with what (so far) appears to be little fanfare:

U.S. to allow wider export of armed drones

The Obama administration will authorize the widespread export of armed drones for the first time, a step toward providing allied nations with weapons that have become a cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism strategy but whose remotely controlled power to kill is intensely controversial. The new policy, to be announced Tuesday after a long internal review, is a significant step for U.S. arms policy as allied nations from Italy to Turkey to the Persian Gulf region clamor for the aircraft. It also is a nod to U.S. defense firms scrambling to secure a greater share of a growing global drone market. The new policy is a delicate balancing act for the Obama White House, which has sought to elevate human rights in its foreign policy but also has employed drone strikes like no other government in history. Under previous administrations, the United States has only sold its armed drones to Britain. Unarmed UAV's, used primarily for intelligence, have been sold to a larger number of countries, including NATO allies such as France and Italy.

The policy also may face some opposition in Congress. Like all major weapons sales, drone exports above a certain dollar value would be subject to congressional notification, giving lawmakers an opportunity to hold up some if they have concerns. In 2012, a State Department plan to arm U.S.-made drones drew objections from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “Despite the best intentions, we will not be able to guarantee that purchasers of U.S. UAVs will be able to develop the same level of intelligence to discriminate between potential targets, take the same level of care to limit the number of innocent civilians killed, or follow our restrictions against assassination,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supported the plan.

It remains to be seen how much opposition develops to this, and how much of a future political issue it will become.