Speaker Boehner invites Netanyahu to address joint session of Congress in Feb

[hornadylnl]

It's impossible to defend Israels influence on US foreign affairs. The only real option is to deny its' existsence in plain opposition to the facts, marginialize those with their eyes open by calling them "antisemitic," and ignore it.

Zionist Jews run this country, they laugh at our dead soldiers from their luxury homes, and lower class well-to-do Midwestern folks continue to send their kids to the military to fight for another nations national security.

That truth hurts. In the soul.

Working class Republicans tend to be simple people. For them, the Arab problems supersede any instinct into investigation of who runs what, who controls who, etc. The question bores them, particularly when armed with the Israeli-controlled media wing which teaches us to laugh off the Jewish control of our nation as conspiratorial and racist.

Zionists run almost every institution in our country, but it's an aside. Coincidence. Nothing to see here. Don't talk about it. What are you, some kind of Muslim sympathizer?

I don't subscribe to the notion that it's a Zionist or any other ist conspiracy. This isn't driven by race, religion, nationality or any of that.

It is simply the desire of one person to exert control over another. Whether it's to regulate your neighbors grass height or make him go fight and die to further your agenda.

To make this issue about race or religion is nonsense.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

We could probably benefit by abstracting out the issue of Israel/Palestine etc.

To wit, if a President didn't particularly like the head of state of Fiji (or New Zealand or something), would it be appropriate for the House, in control of the other party , who had a more kind disposition towards Fiji to invite the head of state to address a joint session of Congress or whatever? It's that simple. In my mind - it's a non-issue. Congress can invite whom they want and if the President wants to be cordial, then cool. If not, so be it. All kinds of heads of state speak to Congress.

This President has chosen to insult this particular head of state on many occasions . Even to the point of having his administration openly referring to him as "chicken****" in the press. I don't recall a precedent for that except in the case of our enemies. Come to think of it, I don't think that this President has referred to Kim Jong Un in that bad of terms. It speaks poorly for his statesmanship, IMHO.

None of this should have ANYTHING to do with whether you agree with Israel, Fiji, or East Iguanacrapistan at all.

And the racist bullcrap above makes me ashamed to hang out here sometimes. NOBODY controls your destiny but YOU.

 

[printcraft]

It's impossible to defend Israels influence on US foreign affairs. The only real option is to deny its' existsence in plain opposition to the facts, marginialize those with their eyes open by calling them "antisemitic," and ignore it.

Zionist Jews run this country, they laugh at our dead soldiers from their luxury homes, and lower class well-to-do Midwestern folks continue to send their kids to the military to fight for another nations national security.

That truth hurts. In the soul.

Working class Republicans tend to be simple people. For them, the Arab problems supersede any instinct into investigation of who runs what, who controls who, etc. The question bores them, particularly when armed with the Israeli-controlled media wing which teaches us to laugh off the Jewish control of our nation as conspiratorial and racist.

Zionists run almost every institution in our country, but it's an aside. Coincidence. Nothing to see here. Don't talk about it. What are you, some kind of Muslim sympathizer?

LOL

Hey, are you bringing the matches and gas to the next meeting?

 

[mrjarrell]

The 10th Amendment Center makes a very good case for Boehner's invitation being unConstitutional. The power to treat with foreign ministers has always resided solely with the Executive branch and not congress. There are good and compelling reasons for them not to have the power to invite foreign heads of state to speak to congress. Then again, when have republicans ever cared about the Constitutionality of their actions?

Boehner's Plan for Netanyahu to Address Congress is Unconstitutional | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Then again, when have republicans ever cared about the Constitutionality of their actions?

 

[mrjarrell]

? Sorry, can't see anything. Care to use words?

 

[jamil]

The 10th Amendment Center makes a very good case for Boehner's invitation being unConstitutional. The power to treat with foreign ministers has always resided solely with the Executive branch and not congress. There are good and compelling reasons for them not to have the power to invite foreign heads of state to speak to congress. Then again, when have republicans ever cared about the Constitutionality of their actions?

Boehner's Plan for Netanyahu to Address Congress is Unconstitutional | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Speaking of constitutionality, why is that even an issue these days? In politics, "unconstitutional" only means, I don't like what you're doing. The president does this unconstitutional thing, the congress does that unconstitutional thing, the SCOTUS says both are either unconstitutional or not, because they either like it or not. Politicians on one side says the other side is doing something unconstitutional just to get their own sheep bleating about it.

This whole conversation seems silly in light of all the government does outside of the authority the constitution gives them. It's only a big issue because it steps on the unconstitutionalist-in-chief. And I think the only reason Boner invited the head of another state to speak was probably because Netanyahu asked. He's up for election and it helps with his anti-obama street cred.

I'd rather that instead of arguing about the constitutionality of what Boner did, we send a message that they should both STFU about the other side doing unconstitutional **** until BOTH sides stop doing unconstitutional ****.

 

[jamil]

BTW, I'm sorry about the near juxtaposition of "Boner" and "head" in one sentence. That was unintentional.

 

[jamil]

? Sorry, can't see anything. Care to use words?

Let me translate for you.

It means, "WTF?!"

 

[BoxingRef]

Hey all!
live on the line over here in Ohio ... yes, in Boehners district...

I think its the only thing he has ever done that sounds like he has some cahone's

 

[funeralweb]

One thing I think we all can agree on is the fact that we as a nation have never been more divided, not just in half but into many different camps. Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun, Conservative vs. Liberal, etc. ad nauseum. Our elected leaders, especially at the federal level, set no good examples to inspire any unification.

 

[printcraft]

Let me translate for you.

It means, "WTF?!"

Those aren't words man.. their like... letters dude.

 

[Kutnupe14]

One thing I think we all can agree on is the fact that we as a nation have never been more divided, not just in half but into many different camps. Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun, Conservative vs. Liberal, etc. ad nauseum. Our elected leaders, especially at the federal level, set no good examples to inspire any unification.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with that.

 

[rambone]

One thing I think we all can agree on is the fact that we as a nation have never been more divided, not just in half but into many different camps. Black vs. White, Gay vs. Straight, Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun, Conservative vs. Liberal, etc. ad nauseum. Our elected leaders, especially at the federal level, set no good examples to inspire any unification.

I can think of lots of divided times.

The War of 1861 when 800,000 Americans were killed, for example. (Here's a marker for the largest mass grave in the western hemisphere: Camp Douglas, Illinois.)




Then there was that time in 1942 when 110,000 Americans were rounded up and put in concentration camps.

Then there was that time in the 1960s when beating up minorities was a national passtime.

 

[pudly]

Obama’s National Field Director Running Anti-Netanyahu Election Campaign

 

[D-Ric902]

Figures. Anti-Netanyahu Talking Point That Israel ?Blindsided Obama? Was All a Lie | The Gateway Pundit

oops, maybe we did know about the invite

 

[HoughMade]

We've always been divided about something. Briefly, at times, there has been, at least some unity, but it never lasted. Our culture used to be more homogeneous on some cultural issues, but there were always others that led to division.

What we have now is the internet with its relative anonymity and the ability for anyone to reach nearly everyone. This leads to people dropping every pretense of politeness and decorum (an outdated concept to many), so our public discourse has coarsened, somewhat, but more than that, the courseness is pervasive.

 

[jamil]

We've always been divided about something. Briefly, at times, there has been, at least some unity, but it never lasted. Our culture used to be more homogeneous on some cultural issues, but there were always others that led to division.

What we have now is the internet with its relative anonymity and the ability for anyone to reach nearly everyone. This leads to people dropping every pretense of politeness and decorum (an outdated concept to many), so our public discourse has coarsened, somewhat, but more than that, the courseness is pervasive.

As a frequent purveyor of coarseness, I make no apologies, but I can agree that online conversations do tend to be more like that these days. I've used online media since before the internet got popular, back when there were still BBS forums on dialup. Rather than having a web browser and bookmarks, I had a database of BBS I liked and their dialup numbers. It was all text based. I remember debates in those days. Even though you still had an anonymous online existence, people were mostly more polite. I'm not sure when I got cranky, really. But it seems it was sometime after 2008.

So yeah, now cranky internet conversations are more pervasive. And as a nation we do seem more divided than ever. But I'm not so sure one led to the other.
I think certain groups who have something to gain by a divided America have more to do with it than just the crankiness. Look how the press covers things like the Zimmerman trial, Sandy Hook, Ferguson. People see the same events and draw completely different conclusions much because of our frame of reference. But does the media simply present things a certain way because they know their audience thinks that way, or do they present things a certain way because they want the conversation to go a certain way? And and when that conversation goes online, things do get cranky. So I think one exacerbates the other rather than causes it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As a frequent purveyor of coarseness, I make no apologies, but I can agree that online conversations do tend to be more like that these days. I've used online media since before the internet got popular, back when there were still BBS forums on dialup. Rather than having a web browser and bookmarks, I had a database of BBS I liked and their dialup numbers. It was all text based. I remember debates in those days. Even though you still had an anonymous online existence, people were mostly more polite. I'm not sure when I got cranky, really. But it seems it was sometime after 2008.

So yeah, now cranky internet conversations are more pervasive. And as a nation we do seem more divided than ever. But I'm not so sure one led to the other.
I think certain groups who have something to gain by a divided America have more to do with it than just the crankiness. Look how the press covers things like the Zimmerman trial, Sandy Hook, Ferguson. People see the same events and draw completely different conclusions much because of our frame of reference. But does the media simply present things a certain way because they know their audience thinks that way, or do they present things a certain way because they want the conversation to go a certain way? And and when that conversation goes online, things do get cranky. So I think one exacerbates the other rather than causes it.

Nailed it, it's good that you keep that in mind, because most don't.

 

[ArcadiaGP]