Utopia Talk / Politics / This startled me

williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 07:45:23 "Then there was this sight: Netanyahu standing at the podium where the president delivers the State of the Union speech, framed by two Republicans seated behind him — Boehner and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the president pro tempore of the Senate." -news.yahoo Had to admit that it was startling to see how deep a foreign state is allowed access to the deepest symbolic seats of USA power in that pic: http://cdn.../uploads/2015/03/netanyahu.jpg
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Mar 04 07:49:47 VP Biden was supposed to be in that second seat, why wasn't he? And the speech is not without precedent and it was perfectly legal. I don't see a problem.
Paramount Member	Wed Mar 04 07:55:43 "VP Biden was supposed to be in that second seat, why wasn't he?" Because he is an anti-semite. If Biden really supported Netanyahu – he who represents all Jews, then Biden would have been there.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:03:37 immensely powerful symbolism in that pic. There must be a hundred appropriate nostradamus and religious predictions for the fall of the empire of the eagle on the day the white star stands at the eagle's pulpet
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Mar 04 08:11:30 Sorry, I never heard any of them.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:20:42 It's called accepting diversity and crossing national boundaries (which we all know are merely fictional lines drawn on a piece of paper, maaaaan), WTB. Isn't this what you've wanted all along?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:33:17 Whether I think it momentous treason or a beautiful moment of feindship is irrelevant, since I havent given any moral opinions. Rather, I cant think of any precedence of a western power allowing another state so deep into its corridors of power, which becomes particularly interesting considering its occuring in the western power that is most outspken about its love for a belief that is essential to the core of is ideology, soveriegnty. Perhpas there is some precednece somewhere, but mainly, I found the imagery quite surprising. You can bet Bibi's heart puffed up at standing there.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 04 08:36:53 Reverse taxation and representation. Israel is living the American dream.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:38:54 "Rather, I cant think of any precedence of a western power allowing another state so deep into its corridors of power," http://upl...eign_of_Sigismund_III_Vasa.JPG Hehe
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 04 08:39:12 From The American Conservative, the last paragraph of a short editorial - "...The other remarkable thing was the embarrassing, rapturous response of the assembled members in the audience. Except for extremely rare occasions when an American president has enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings, I cannot recall such a loud, overwrought response from members of a Congress to a visiting speaker. The audience this morning enthusiastically cheered on the sabotage of a major U.S. diplomatic initiative, the undermining of an important U.S. policy goal, and the blatant meddling of a foreign leader in our domestic politics. It is one of the more disgraceful things I’ve seen an assembly of American political leaders do, and that is really saying something." http://www...raceful-spectacle-in-congress/
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:40:17 i know nothing about swedish history, so I dont kow what that refers to other than it happened 500 years ago...
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:41:20 Not Sweden. Think the other place he ruled.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:42:01 Also, williamthebastard Member Wed Mar 04 08:40:17 i know nothing about swedish history, WTF dude? YOU ARE SWEDISH. Did you not go through the educational system or something?!
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:42:06 Good example though, rugian, the last time that happened that a foreing leader occupied such an important position, it was to give up some soverien law to him.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:42:22 I went to school in the UK.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:44:55 *note to self: buy WTB a "Swedish History for Dummies" book for his birthday* Anyway, the comparison was not to the king, but to the legislative body in the picture. If you're unfamiliar with the history of the Polish sejm, I'm sure Aeros can fill you in on how foreign interference in that particular body worked out.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:45:23 UK school history clasess back then were solely about the glorious british empire, and a little fringe stuff about some tiresome infidels who broke off in the west and some brown skinners in india that caused a lot of trouble for a while.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:46:31 yes, note that I googled and already commented on the sejm. Its not a good sign when a foreign state goes that deep into another, at least not as exemplified by that instance.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:48:09 Could you please ask to get that deleted since it ruined the thread. Thanks.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:49:15 So that hasnt been used since churcill in the midst of WWII. Also immensely powerful symbolism.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:49:30 williamthebastard Member Wed Mar 04 08:45:23 UK school history clasess back then were solely about the glorious british empire, and a little fringe stuff about some tiresome infidels We all have our biases. Hot Rod: Yeah, but Churchill wasn't a Jew. Big difference.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:50:37 He wasnt a nuclear power facing Hamas. He was facing the Nazis. Big difference.
Rugian Member	Wed Mar 04 08:53:49 To be serious, I think that the whole "foreign head of government speaking to Congress" thing is overblown. It's been done before and Congress DOES have a say in the foreign policy of the United States. That having been said, it's a rare occasion for a reason. Congress currently feels obligated to be fully polite to a foreign head who makes a rare visit to the Capitol, but if he does it too much, or over issues that are trivial or too partisan, he risks eroding the high regard that he currently enjoys. This was probably a bad idea overall on Netanyahu's part.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Mar 04 08:57:11 wtb, does that go for Poreshenko too?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 08:59:42 Hillary's reactions would be interesting since she's going to be the next potus, and thus might glean a glimpse of US-israel relations during the next US govt, although I think she's generally quite liked in Israel.
Allahuakbar Member	Wed Mar 04 09:00:08 We will break your chains.
McKobb Member	Wed Mar 04 09:00:26 She's not.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 09:01:20 You should go bet some money, you could earn a nice little pile since every bookie disagrees with you.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 09:06:26 Although, apparently Hillary doesnt like Bibi personally. Amusiongly, for him playing a similar tick during Bill's era. I guess rugians theory of overplaying your hand might come back to bite him already. http://www...macy-defense/.premium-1.627798
seb Member	Wed Mar 04 09:10:58 Wtb: How old are you? Uk national curriculum barely talks about imperial history at all . 80s to 2010 it's all Rome, dark ages medieval, wars of the roses, Tudors&stuarts, Ww1 Ww2 and cold war. There is practically nothing about the colonisation and empire.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Mar 04 09:12:21 Yeah, I exaggerated, it was more the glorious royal history and their conflicts, or as you describe it.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Mar 04 11:56:24 http://www...anyahu-speech-brendan-bordelon lol@ 'the voice of the conservative movement' NR saying that Rand Paul wasn't applauding Bibi hard enough. And I see poor Rand declaring his undying love for natanyahu on twitter daily, lately. To little avail, apparently.
kargen Member	Wed Mar 04 16:29:54 I'm curious, was Netanyahu scheduled to give his speech at the annual conference of AIPAC before or after he agreed to speak to congress? The reason I ask is most Democrats are saying that the timing of the speech is why they object (President Obama being one) and if he were to talk after the Israeli elections there would have been no problems. But if he were scheduled to speak to AIPAC first then his talk to congress would have been scheduled out of the convenience of him already being in town. If that is true then really the Democrats excuse is lame at best.
Fred Felcher Member	Wed Mar 04 18:37:57 Boner should be executed for treason for pulling this fucking stunt.
obaminated Member	Wed Mar 04 19:00:17 How is this treasonous, Fred?
Fred Felcher Member	Wed Mar 04 19:27:15 House Speaker John Boehner’s annoyance with President Barack Obama is turning into a grudge match against the Constitution. Boehner’s decision to invite a foreign head of government to address Congress without first consulting the sitting president has no precedent in American history. And for a simple reason. It’s unconstitutional. Boehner (R-Ohio) fully admits that his failure to communicate with the White House was not an oversight. Like a schoolboy passing notes when the teacher turns to the blackboard, he sneaked behind Obama’s back to set the date for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech with his country’s ambassador to the United States. Boehner asked the foreign dignitary not to tell the U.S. president. U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner listens as U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting of Congressional leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington House Speaker John Boehner listens as President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders in the White House in Washington, January 13, 2015. REUTERS/Larry Downing “I wanted to make sure,” Boehner later explained on Fox News, “there was no interference.” Netanyahu is now scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on March 3. This is unheard of in U.S. history. American Congresses have sometimes rejected a president’s foreign policy, of course. That is within their rights. Though the president has the power to negotiate agreements with foreign countries, the Senate can reject or approve them. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, journeyed to Paris in 1919 to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles after World War One. Wilson was instrumental in writing the treaty, particularly those sections that created a new institution, the League of Nations, to provide collective security. When Wilson returned home, he conducted a whistle-stop campaign across the country to build support for the new league. But to no avail. The Senate was under the sway of isolationists. One influential senator, Henry Cabot Lodge, disliked Wilson personally. Wilson had also alienated the upper chamber because he took no senators with him to the peace talks. The Senate voted to reject the treaty. Its decision not to join the League of Nations may have been a mistake — but this was the Senate’s prerogative. There is one key job, however, that the founding fathers assigned to the president alone. The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments. madison James Madison. Courtesy of the Library of Congress Why did the founders do that? According to Stanford University professor Jack Rakove, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his book on the subject, they entrusted that responsibility to the president for a specific reason: to facilitate bilateral negotiations on complicated matters on behalf of the United States. Congress has the authority to declare war. The House and Senate hold the purse strings and represent the will of the entire nation. War is also a public, unilateral decision. It required only a “simple and overt declaration,” James Madison wrote in the notes he took at the Constitutional Convention. In contrast, the president is charged with making peace — and “peace [was] attended with intricate and secret negotiations.” So the founders placed the president in charge of meeting with foreign ministers on delicate matters requiring discretion. The founding fathers would be horrified by Boehner’s current actions. They had a passion for checks and balances. Madison, the father of the Constitution, distrusted power in the hands of mortal men. He feared both mob and monarchical rule. So Madison and the founders — George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and the other 51 delegates who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 — intentionally divided the federal government into three branches. The executive, legislature and judiciary each had its own powers and duties. In a few clearly defined situations, one branch could veto another’s decision. The men who met in Philadelphia over that muggy summer of 1787 were anticipating situations precisely like the one now at hand. US President Obama listens as Israeli PM Netanyahu delivers a statement in Washington President Barack Obama (L) listens as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a statement outside the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September 1, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed Obama is attempting to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The United States is cooperating across the board with other world powers in this volatile, dangerous situation because nuclear escalation potentially affects every nation on the planet. The United States, Britain, China, Russia, Germany and France all have negotiators at the talks trying to keep the peace and persuade Iran to stand down. Boehner disapproves. Or at least he wants Congress and the American public to hear Netanyahu’s advice on the matter at a formal meeting in the U.S. Capitol. Yet inviting the Israeli prime minister is an express — and entirely novel — breach of the Constitution. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was first to reprimand a foreign dignitary for appealing to Congress over the head of the executive. When Edmond-Charles Genet, who represented the revolutionary government of France, sought congressional support in 1793 for a policy opposed by President Washington, Jefferson brought him up short. Even though Jefferson himself had great sympathy for France’s viewpoint. The president, Jefferson wrote, “must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty . . . may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress.” Or, as Washington said on another occasion, the Constitution designated him the “sole channel of official intercourse” with foreign nations. EPSON scanner image Thomas Jefferson, as secretary of state, portrait in U.S. Capitol. Courtesy of Library of Congress. What’s the harm in setting a new precedent? History shows that the commander in chief has sometimes overstepped his bounds — or at least stretched them. At the outbreak of World War Two in Europe, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive agreement with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to trade U.S. naval destroyers for bases in the British West Indies. Newspaper editorialists labeled FDR “Dictator Roosevelt.” In this situation and others, members of Congress sometimes complained that the president had exceeded his mandate as commander. Similar concerns during the Vietnam War led Congress to push back. It approved the War Powers Act of 1973 to rein in executive authority and reaffirm its own. Our founders foresaw that the division of power invited competition. All sides would bump against the rules. So why shouldn’t Congress just do what it feels like? Take a flyer? Improvising on the Constitution is not a smart idea. Boehner should rescind his invitation, or Netanyahu should RSVP his regrets, because willful law breaking chips away at America’s most precious possession, the true bulwark of our liberties. This wise, sacrosanct document, the Constitution, is the one thing on which all political parties have agreed for more than 225 years. Treasure it. http://blo...-against-the-u-s-constitution/
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Mar 04 19:43:05 "Boehner’s decision to invite a foreign head of government to address Congress without first consulting the sitting president has no precedent in American history. And for a simple reason. It’s unconstitutional." Where in The Constitution is it unconstitutional? I can show you where The Constitution requires The President requires Congress' advise and consent though.
Fred Felcher Member	Wed Mar 04 19:46:45 "The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments." http://www...ticles/2/essays/97/ambassadors
TJ Member	Wed Mar 04 20:27:26 The response to ignoring precedent is obviously ignoring precedent. Examples of equal disrespect. It's like a snowball rolling downhill. Just keeps getting bigger. They've lost all respect for each other. How much respect do you think they have for those who supposedly they represent? All of them should be voted out of office. The U.S. government has made a mockery of itself.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Mar 04 21:04:49 "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." I can only assume that means they can decide who will speak in the well of their house.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: