• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Not that it helps, but my understanding is that the executive order only protected state employees, I don't know that it protected all workers. And the gubners excuse is that this is something the legislature needs to vote on, not something the governor should do. That and the last governor was a D and for all the good she did for Kansas is no reviled as an Obama lover.
 
I am not a fan of executive decisions, but I think he should have waited until after his local congress took action.


On a side note I got into an interesting discussion with a friend from college. He wanted to know where the threshold on Freedom of Religion and LGBT Rights are. He was reading the stories about bakers refusing making wedding cakes for gay marriage and the owners siting their religious beliefs, but the courts siding with the LGBT couple. He wonders if it will progress to a point were those who can perform marriages cannot refuse to perform a ceremony if it violates their religious beliefs. He is looking at becoming a deacon and he is against LGBT marriages. He sits on city council for his small city and people are pushing him to toss his hat into a mayor's election. In Michigan, a Mayor can conduct a wedding. I explained to him that it might be in his best interest not to run for Mayor if (when) gay marriage is legalized here. Is argument against gay marriage is strictly religious.

What are your thoughts?
 
My understanding is that the cases like bakers, caterers, and restaurants refusing to provide services for same sex weddings on religious grounds is that they are operating a public accommodation and if that particular state or community has an anti-discrimination law for the LGBT community, public accommodations must serve them. These bakers and whatnot are not a religious organization and cannot therefore claim religious protection.

If your friend is a deacon and somebody asks him to perform a same sex wedding in his church or as the deacon, he can refuse if it is against the tenets of that church and his beliefs.

If he were to become a mayor (or judge) and is still a deacon and somebody comes to his mayoral office seeking him to perform a wedding a same-sex wedding he would be on shakier ground refusing to but, if it's legal in the state, he would probably be advised by the city attorney to officiate the ceremony. His being a deacon of whatever church would be incidental, not integral, to his duties as mayor. I agree with you that if his possible duties as mayor would conflict with his personal or religious beliefs, he should probably not run for the job.
 
I'd have to agree. I think the photographer case in New Mexico was decided based on public accommodation and the fact that New Mexico include LGBT as a protected class. Part of the argument was that photography was a first amendment right, but the court said as a artistic photographer yes, as a public photographer taking money for service, no.

I think for churches and religious institutions you would still discriminate based on your freedom of religion. In the case of your friend, if he did it as mayor, no discrimination. If he did it at the church as an official, go ahead and refuse. It just becomes harder to draw the line between when is he mayor and when is he clergy. I would guess it depends on if the people apply through the city or the church.

In my town they had passed a local anti discrimination law which was put on the ballot and shot down. It was a bunch of misinformation about how you couldn't refuse to allow gay people to attend you church or some BS like that. Suddenly gay people everywhere would take our jobs and live in our homes and we'd all be turned gay and god would smite us and then Obama would take our guns along with the rest of our freedoms and...
 
WSU MUP Student said:
My understanding is that the cases like bakers, caterers, and restaurants refusing to provide services for same sex weddings on religious grounds is that they are operating a public accommodation and if that particular state or community has an anti-discrimination law for the LGBT community, public accommodations must serve them. These bakers and whatnot are not a religious organization and cannot therefore claim religious protection.

If your friend is a deacon and somebody asks him to perform a same sex wedding in his church or as the deacon, he can refuse if it is against the tenets of that church and his beliefs.

If he were to become a mayor (or judge) and is still a deacon and somebody comes to his mayoral office seeking him to perform a wedding a same-sex wedding he would be on shakier ground refusing to but, if it's legal in the state, he would probably be advised by the city attorney to officiate the ceremony. His being a deacon of whatever church would be incidental, not integral, to his duties as mayor. I agree with you that if his possible duties as mayor would conflict with his personal or religious beliefs, he should probably not run for the job.
Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking, but was curious to hear what other people would think. His wife wants him to run... but I think he is happier just being a council member.
 
michaelskis said:
That is what I was thinking, but was curious to hear what other people would think. His wife wants him to run... but I think he is happier just being a council member.
Click to expand...

There's an easy answer out there for him... just don't officiate any weddings. It is so easy to get ordained to do weddings that it really isn't essential for a government official to be involved in the actual ceremony.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
There's an easy answer out there for him... just don't officiate any weddings. It is so easy to get ordained to do weddings that it really isn't essential for a government official to be involved in the actual ceremony.
Click to expand...

I spoke with him last night, and he told is wife that he's not going to run for Mayor. He had been thinking about it and he realizes that there are other parts of the job that he would have problems with.

To shift gears, three Muslim students were shot in North Carolina. Some people were saying that it was over a parking dispute, but others are questioning if their Muslim faith had something to do with the shooting. And now, some are questioning if the media in the US is doing a poor job of covering the story (BBC)

What are your thoughts on what happened and do you think the US media is avoiding it?
 
The NC story is being underreported, but that is true for most crimes that aren't committed against a blond-haired, blue-eyed 20-something females.

A good friend of ours is Muslim and her family has been subjected to discrimination despite being highly Americanized (doesn't cover head, wears Western clothing, born in the U.S., no accent, married to a white Methodist that looks like he belongs in a golf commercial). Her post-9/11 discrimination stories are pretty awful despite being at a very progressive university (she was 19 when 9/11 occurred). Her comment was that while this might have started as a parking dispute, she is certain it would not have escalated in this manner if the victims were white and/or not Muslim. And I think she is correct.
 
Based on what I read it sounded like this loser's wife said he'd been confrontational with other people about parking a number of times in the past.

So he's had a number of blow ups with a bunch of other people in the past. It's quite a coincidence, that the time he decides to make it lethal the victims just happen to be muslims.
 
Maister said:
Based on what I read it sounded like this loser's wife said he'd been confrontational with other people about parking a number of times in the past.

So he's had a number of blow ups with a bunch of other people in the past. It's quite a coincidence, that the time he decides to make it lethal the victims just happen to be muslims.
Click to expand...

Violent, confrontational male with guns competing for scarce resources. What could go wrong?
 
One of my commissioners makes an offhand racial remark (not cool btw), the thing goes national in a couple days. We're talking old white man accidentally insulting black people (I'll say accidentally because I think he's just old and insensitive and not strictly racist - still doesn't make it right). Actual hot button racial crime occurs and no one cares. Anyway, back to Brian Williams...
 
dvdneal said:
One of my commissioners makes an offhand racial remark (not cool btw), the thing goes national in a couple days. We're talking old white man accidentally insulting black people (I'll say accidentally because I think he's just old and insensitive and not strictly racist - still doesn't make it right). Actual hot button racial crime occurs and no one cares. Anyway, back to Brian Williams...
Click to expand...

10403699_10206067846923310_2666105070141707955_n.jpg
 
Did a workshop last night with City Council on how not to violate the Fair Housing Act. The basic message: don't fall into the trap of "tax credits are crime ridden cesspools full of those people" and other classic NIMBY arguments as a reason for denial.
 
I have always been fortunate that the places I've worked have not had to deal with Fair Housing Act. They generally had affordable housing and zoning didn't cross the lines by trying to discriminate somehow.
 
dvdneal said:
I have always been fortunate that the places I've worked have not had to deal with Fair Housing Act. They generally had affordable housing and zoning didn't cross the lines by trying to discriminate somehow.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with it in reference to group homes of different types.
 
I've done that, but never associated it with Fair Housing. There was a state law handling it for us. Maybe I was just lucky that it wasn't an issue about approving apartments or not and dealing with group homes.
 
dvdneal said:
In my town they had passed a local anti discrimination law which was put on the ballot and shot down. It was a bunch of misinformation about how you couldn't refuse to allow gay people to attend you church or some BS like that. Suddenly gay people everywhere would take our jobs and live in our homes and we'd all be turned gay and god would smite us and then Obama would take our guns along with the rest of our freedoms and...
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a story someone told me about an anti-sodomy law being argued somewhere in Texas in the 1990's (not sure if it was a state law or local muni). Apparently there was a rather large group of people advocating against this law, including one guy who was known to be very outspoken and particularly funny and who was present at every public hearing.

When the legislation eventually passed, two of the key lawmakers behind it walked toward each other and shook hands for a photo op. In reaction, the guy mentioned above yelled “Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest! I just saw this d!ck touch that a$$hole!”
 
The White House summit on Countering Violent Extremism starts today. Overall, I think this summit is going to be a good thing. People from around the world talking and discussing ways to reduce violent extremism is a great step forward.

The only concern that I have is the White House will not refer to ISIS or the Taliban as Islamic Terrorism.

Why do you think they are so unwilling to call it for what it is?
 
michaelskis said:
The White House summit on Countering Violent Extremism starts today. Overall, I think this summit is going to be a good thing. People from around the world talking and discussing ways to reduce violent extremism is a great step forward.

The only concern that I have is the White House will not refer to ISIS or the Taliban as Islamic Terrorism.

Why do you think they are so unwilling to call it for what it is?
Click to expand...

Because we also aren't willing to acknowledge that Christian Terrorism exists. Most in the U.S. view Christianity as this perfect faith devoid of the types of actions we read about in relation to middle eastern based terrorism.

ISIS & the Taliban are just plain terrorists--there is little scriptural link between what they are doing and text. For example, their favorite targets are actually other Muslims (which doesn't get much press over here). ISIS & the Taliban are the equivalent of a KKK members holding Bibles while lynching an African American supposedly in the name of God (remember, the Bible was broadly misused to justify slavery, Jim Crow & segregation). Should we refer to the KKK & antisemitic groups as "Christian Terrorism?" The difference is that ISIS/Taliban have access to more violent resources.

What about the Anti-Balaka "Christian" militias carrying out revenge killings on Muslims in the Central African Republic? What about anti-Hindu violence by Christian militants in the northeastern portions of India? Or should we talk about most of the far-right militia groups in the U.S. that have a strong Christian religious component as part basis for their actions? Are those that bombed abortion clinics back in the 80s & 90s "Christian Terrorists?"
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Because we also aren't willing to acknowledge that Christian Terrorism exists. Most in the U.S. view Christianity as this perfect faith devoid of the types of actions we read about in relation to middle eastern based terrorism.

ISIS & the Taliban are just plain terrorists--there is little scriptural link between what they are doing and text. For example, their favorite targets are actually other Muslims (which doesn't get much press over here). ISIS & the Taliban are the equivalent of a KKK members holding Bibles while lynching an African American supposedly in the name of God (remember, the Bible was broadly misused to justify slavery, Jim Crow & segregation). Should we refer to the KKK & antisemitic groups as "Christian Terrorism?" The difference is that ISIS/Taliban have access to more violent resources.

What about the Anti-Balaka "Christian" militias carrying out revenge killings on Muslims in the Central African Republic? What about anti-Hindu violence by Christian militants in the northeastern portions of India? Or should we talk about most of the far-right militia groups in the U.S. that have a strong Christian religious component as part basis for their actions? Are those that bombed abortion clinics back in the 80s & 90s "Christian Terrorists?"
Click to expand...

Those are absolutely Christian Terrorism and should be called out as such.

As with ISIS, heck the name it's self is Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIL stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They have "Islamic" right in their freaking name!
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I've dealt with it in reference to group homes of different types.
Click to expand...

Same here, currently working on trying to educate our P&Z and City Council that protections for disabled persons also extend to sober homes and those prescribed methadone treatments. We are working on a new group housing ordinance. Let's just say some of the members need more educating than others... :not:
 
michaelskis said:
The White House summit on Countering Violent Extremism starts today. Overall, I think this summit is going to be a good thing. People from around the world talking and discussing ways to reduce violent extremism is a great step forward.

The only concern that I have is the White House will not refer to ISIS or the Taliban as Islamic Terrorism.

Why do you think they are so unwilling to call it for what it is?
Click to expand...

Kind of what SR said. We don't want to recognize the right wing Christians who blow up abortion clinics as terrorists. We also don't want to make it a religious thing. They may do it for religious reasons, but Islamic people in the US are generally not terrorists (despite what local talk radio says - see I avoided blaming Fox News for you). :D I think in part the White House recognizes that Islamic people in the US are being treated poorly because of trouble in other countries and the tirade from the media about how bad Muslims are. We still want to protect their religious freedoms and not generate additional hate crimes in the US. The White House wants people to focus on the evil bastards that make up ISIS (or whatever they're called today), not all Islamic or Muslims as a group. And this is not because the president is a Muslim (blaming talk radio on that want too - not Fox).
 
michaelskis said:
The White House summit on Countering Violent Extremism starts today. Overall, I think this summit is going to be a good thing. People from around the world talking and discussing ways to reduce violent extremism is a great step forward.

The only concern that I have is the White House will not refer to ISIS or the Taliban as Islamic Terrorism.

Why do you think they are so unwilling to call it for what it is?
Click to expand...

ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc. represent the more immediate threats around terrorism and violent extremism, but this conference is intended to lay the groundwork for a long standing, global network of efforts to combat terrorism around the world and in the long term. The US itself has identified that Islamist groups are only one of a few different terrorist threats at the moment. And this will continue to change and morph over time. I expect this is the case for other countries as well. This is Big Picture thinking.

Consider this report about the top domestic terrorist threat in the US (and its not Islamist Extremism, although that is in the top 3)

The sovereign citizen movement is considered the top threat for domestic terrorism, according to a survey of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.

Islamist extremists and militia/patriot groups round out the top three threats to communities in the United States considered most serious by 364 officers of 175 state, local, and tribal law enforcement entities, according to a survey conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START).
Click to expand...

This report from the RAND Corporation also emphasizes the need to not focus in so specifically on Islamists because of how it impacts information sharing and deterrence:

Counterterrorism Experts with Divergent Views on the Terrorist Threat Have Several Areas of Agreement
•The terrorist threat has changed, from a strategic perspective.
•Local law enforcement focuses on how the terrorist threat manifests itself within the communities the agencies protect.
•Categorizing threats by group and compartmenting them by origin may unduly limit intelligence sharing and cooperation and pertains more to past threats than likely future threats.
•Building national resilience will require a more composed and nuanced national dialogue.
•Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) remain the central construct of the domestic counterterrorist structure.
•Some of the obstacles that limit cooperation, information sharing, and collaboration among the various layers of government were put in place for good reason.
•Privacy and civil liberties (notwithstanding the current furor) should not be used as a blanket excuse to keep the intelligence community and local law enforcement apart. We should think about how to smartly remove barriers that prevent cooperation and communication between these two communities that have so much to benefit and learn from each other.
•It is difficult for national intelligence structures to talk about domestic terrorism.
•The nation's zero tolerance for terrorism may soon come into direct conflict with the need to reduce budgets.
Click to expand...
 
Hink said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...ster_n_6779456.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Ahh the irony. Don't you love it how much the party in power hates when the other party makes actually accomplishing something hard?

I love Congress.
Click to expand...

Oh you congressmen of short memories. You're not allowed to get rid of the tool you used just because it's a problem to you now. Personally I think filibusters should go back to having a guy stand there and talk about crap until he pees his pants, but whatever, I'm cruel that way.

Now if I remember my lectures on gubmint right, it was designed so nothing would get done easily unless you had sufficient votes. 57% is obviously not sufficient so go get some more votes!
 
Does anyone else think that the banning of 5.56 M855 ammo is a bit ridiculous? For those of you are not familiar with this ammo, it is commonly use in AR-15 sporting rifles or as gun haters would call them evil assault rifles. The ATF is looking to ban this round claiming that it is ammo piecing despite not being made of the metals listed as armor piercing and not used in hand guns.

Here is a link to a report on it.

Given the political climate of Washington, they are not banning the guns, only the ammo used in those guns in an attempt to make the guns useless. :-{
 
Netanyahu is addressing congress. He seems like a classy guy who is above the partisan politics of the US. You can watch his address on the network of your choice, including BBC, FOX, and CNN.
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone else think that the banning of 5.56 M855 ammo is a bit ridiculous? For those of you are not familiar with this ammo, it is commonly use in AR-15 sporting rifles or as gun haters would call them evil assault rifles. The ATF is looking to ban this round claiming that it is ammo piecing despite not being made of the metals listed as armor piercing and not used in hand guns.

Here is a link to a report on it.

Given the political climate of Washington, they are not banning the guns, only the ammo used in those guns in an attempt to make the guns useless. :-{
Click to expand...

You can yell at me for my opinion later, but I have no problem with it. I generally support gun ownership, but I see no need for automatic weapons. It's not like you need covering fire while hunting deer and a handgun is more than adequate for self defense (again, no need for cover fire). Since no one wants to have the conversation about "reasonable" gun ownership, then at least we can regulate the ammo. That was the nuts who must have the automatic weapons can just manufacture their own ammo at a hopefully slower pace. What I'm not sure about, does that ammo preclude the use of any normal hunting rifles? I doubt it, but that might be an issue.
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone else think that the banning of 5.56 M855 ammo is a bit ridiculous? For those of you are not familiar with this ammo, it is commonly use in AR-15 sporting rifles or as gun haters would call them evil assault rifles. The ATF is looking to ban this round claiming that it is ammo piecing despite not being made of the metals listed as armor piercing and not used in hand guns.

Here is a link to a report on it.

Given the political climate of Washington, they are not banning the guns, only the ammo used in those guns in an attempt to make the guns useless. :-{
Click to expand...

Generally I support gun rights, but why do regular people NEED an AR-15? Just wondering.
 
michaelskis said:
Given the political climate of Washington, they are not banning the guns, only the ammo used in those guns in an attempt to make the guns useless. :-{
Click to expand...

That is the problem I have with this. I am OK with people owning AR-15 if they want to. The statement that the gun lobby and apparently now you is that banning this one round out of hundreds of available 5.56 rounds is somehow a back door way to ban the rifle is ridiculous. I do think banning the round is stupid as well, but let's all be realistic. Everything the ATF does does not mean the sky is falling for gun rights. At least you didn't claim that it was Obama that was banning the round like I have seen in other forums. I know "slippery slope" and all that jazz. Spare me, this isn't a big deal.
 
Hink said:
Generally I support gun rights, but why do regular people NEED an AR-15? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Do regular people NEED a car that will go faster than 70 mph?
Do regular people NEED cigarettes?
Do regular people NEED alcohol?
Do regular people NEED fireworks?

The answer is no, people don't need a lot of very dangerous things... but firearms are the only things listed that are constitutionally protected.

dvdneal said:
You can yell at me for my opinion later, but I have no problem with it. I generally support gun ownership, but I see no need for automatic weapons. It's not like you need covering fire while hunting deer and a handgun is more than adequate for self defense (again, no need for cover fire). Since no one wants to have the conversation about "reasonable" gun ownership, then at least we can regulate the ammo. That was the nuts who must have the automatic weapons can just manufacture their own ammo at a hopefully slower pace. What I'm not sure about, does that ammo preclude the use of any normal hunting rifles? I doubt it, but that might be an issue.
Click to expand...

Wonderful... however most Americans can't own automatic weapons. The civilian AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle. My .308 deer hunting rifle is also a semiautomatic with a center feed magazine. The biggest difference between he two is my deer rifle has more wood and less plastic.

giff57 said:
That is the problem I have with this. I am OK with people owning AR-15 if they want to. The statement that the gun lobby and apparently now you is that banning this one round out of hundreds of available 5.56 rounds is somehow a back door way to ban the rifle is ridiculous. I do think banning the round is stupid as well, but let's all be realistic. Everything the ATF does does not mean the sky is falling for gun rights. At least you didn't claim that it was Obama that was banning the round like I have seen in other forums. I know "slippery slope" and all that jazz. Spare me, this isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

The reason this is a big deal is this round does not fit the standards that they are using to ban it and the characteristics of this ammo are not much different than other ammo. It is a commonly available steel-core ball ammo. It would be like banning street use of trucks because they have a grill, 4-wheels, and might hit someone. This is not an armor piercing round that can be used in a hand gun.
 
I'm convinced these proposed bans on various types of weapons and ammo are a rouge done as a favor to the NRA & firearms industries, as it causes a run on whatever is being considered for a ban. This allows them to inflate their prices. I know that's what I've seen play out at the very large outdoor outfitter store known for hunting gear, guns & ammo in my fair city.

The ATF is reclassifying M855 as armor-piercing, since it both has a steel penetrator and can be used in certain pistols--the same reasoning they used when they killed all the cheap 7N6 a few months ago.

You're kidding about Netanyahu, right? The guy practically endorses GOP candidates (see relationship with Romney 2012). And I won't even begin to discuss how inappropriate it is that he is speaking to Congress without a Presidential invitation; in fact, his actions constitute direct lobbying by a foreign power in my eyes. While some blame Obama for the issues in the US/Israel relationship (and I think the Obama Administration does have some fault), Netanyahu has or has had relationship issues with multiple western world leaders due to his belligerent nature.
 
Last edited:
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm convinced these proposed bans on various types of weapons and ammo are a rouge done as a favor to the NRA & firearms industries, as it causes a run on whatever is being considered for a ban. This allows them to inflate their prices. I know that's what I've seen play out at the very large outdoor outfitter store known for hunting gear, guns & ammo in my fair city.

You're kidding about Netanyahu, right? The guy practically endorses GOP candidates (see relationship with Romney 2012). And I won't even begin to discuss how inappropriate it is that he is speaking to Congress without a Presidential invitation; in fact, his actions constitute direct lobbying by a foreign power in my eyes. While some blame Obama for the issues in the US/Israel relationship (and I think the Obama Administration does have some fault), Netanyahu has or has had relationship issues with multiple western world leaders due to his belligerent nature.
Click to expand...

Why is it inappropriate that he is speaking to congress without a Presidential invite? I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says he can't speak to them without a Presidential blessing? What people forget is we have three equal but separate branches of power with checks and balances. Is congress going to overthrow the WH after the speech?

He liked Romney because he realized that Romney would be better for Israel than Obama. I think Obama's actions have proved that Netanyahu's assessment was correct.
 
michaelskis said:
The reason this is a big deal is this round does not fit the standards that they are using to ban it and the characteristics of this ammo are not much different than other ammo. It is a commonly available steel-core ball ammo. It would be like banning street use of trucks because they have a grill, 4-wheels, and might hit someone. This is not an armor piercing round that can be used in a hand gun.
Click to expand...

We established the ban was stupid, but it is a far cry from even coming close to banning the rifle.
 
Protocol bars meeting with foreign leaders so close to elections in their home countries to avoid the appearance of undue influence. Netanyahu is using this as an election tactic for Israel's elections in a couple of weeks since his party is lagging behind the Israel Labor Party. We don't run around endorsing candidates for election in other countries, nor do we invite others to do the same. We have enough issues playing world police; we don't need to add manipulation of foreign elections to the list of reasons cited for American disdain abroad. We don't need to hand foreign candidates a megaphone two weeks prior to a hotly-contested election. How would you feel about the British Prime Minister handing one Presidential candidate lagging in polls the microphone at the House of Commons under the same circumstances?

I never said Congress was going to overthrow the White House. What I'm saying is that this action is further exacerbating the relationship problems between the U.S. & Israel and between the executive & legislative branches.
 
michaelskis said:
Why is it inappropriate that he is speaking to congress without a Presidential invite? I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says he can't speak to them without a Presidential blessing? What people forget is we have three equal but separate branches of power with checks and balances. Is congress going to overthrow the WH after the speech?

He liked Romney because he realized that Romney would be better for Israel than Obama. I think Obama's actions have proved that Netanyahu's assessment was correct.
Click to expand...

Is the constitution the only document that matters in the world? Come on, Netanyahu is a political ideologue. He clearly doesn't like Obama, and he is meeting to make it clear that he doesn't like that the U.S. is supporting neutral dialog with Iran. His speech was about as political as you can get. I can only imagine if the democrats did this while GW was in the White House. It would have been that the Democrats don't love America, blah blah blah.

This is political pandering and it is dirty. As if John Boehner needed more to show he is the captain of the two-faced machine.
 
michaelskis said:
Why is it inappropriate that he is speaking to congress without a Presidential invite? I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says he can't speak to them without a Presidential blessing? What people forget is we have three equal but separate branches of power with checks and balances. Is congress going to overthrow the WH after the speech?

He liked Romney because he realized that Romney would be better for Israel than Obama. I think Obama's actions have proved that Netanyahu's assessment was correct.
Click to expand...

True there is nothing that says that Congress can't invite whoever they want to the party, but I don't think it has been done in the past. I believe traditionally foreign affairs and foreign relations has always been an administrative or executive function, not legislative. Is this guy helping write American laws? Then why is he talking to the legislative branch? It's just bad form for any Congress (R or D) to invite a foreign dignitary to speak against our other elected leaders or against or policies. I'm sure the speech is all supportive of selected policies, but you get the idea. It's like having the developer bypass the planner and go straight to the mayor because you won't let him get away without filing a traffic study. Okay, maybe not just like that, but still hugely disrespectful.
 
Hink said:
Is the constitution the only document that matters in the world? Come on, Netanyahu is a political ideologue. He clearly doesn't like Obama, and he is meeting to make it clear that he doesn't like that the U.S. is supporting neutral dialog with Iran. His speech was about as political as you can get. I can only imagine if the democrats did this while GW was in the White House. It would have been that the Democrats don't love America, blah blah blah.

This is political pandering and it is dirty. As if John Boehner needed more to show he is the captain of the two-faced machine.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the powers and duties of Congress, the SCOTUS, and the President, yes, the Constitution trumps the rest.

WSU MUP Student said:
You sir, have won the Cyburbia Successful Trolling Post of the Day award.
Click to expand...

What, because I didn't reference MSNBC? Do you fear hearing his words?
 
michaelskis said:
What, because I didn't reference MSNBC? Do you fear hearing his words?
Click to expand...

Because any foreign leader invited to address Congress in a lobbying manner by a politician pushing a political agenda might be one of the best examples of partisan politics that I can think of. Especially a foreign leader who is running for re-election and receives a substantial chunk of his campaign funds from American donors.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Because any foreign leader invited to address Congress in a lobbying manner by a politician pushing a political agenda might be one of the best examples of partisan politics that I can think of. Especially a foreign leader who is running for re-election and receives a substantial chunk of his campaign funds from American donors.
Click to expand...

Or possibly one that realizes that our current president is undermining many of the security measures that have been put into place to prevent Iran from moving forward with their plan to "Wipe Israel off the map." Faced with the possible mass destruction of his nation, why do you think it is wrong for him to address a joint session of Congress? Did he do harm to America? Nope. Is he running for election in the US? No.

Is the WH working with Iran on nuclear power options that will be controlled by Iran, thus possibly allowing them the tools to do what they have said that they want to do for years now... Yes.

I seriously believe that many people in here are angry because it was a Republican who invited him. Would there be this level of backlash of it was Pelosi?
 
michaelskis said:
Or possibly one that realizes that our current president is undermining many of the security measures that have been put into place to prevent Iran from moving forward with their plan to "Wipe Israel off the map." Faced with the possible mass destruction of his nation, why do you think it is wrong for him to address a joint session of Congress? Did he do harm to America? Nope. Is he running for election in the US? No.

Is the WH working with Iran on nuclear power options that will be controlled by Iran, thus possibly allowing them the tools to do what they have said that they want to do for years now... Yes.

I seriously believe that many people in here are angry because it was a Republican who invited him. Would there be this level of backlash of it was Pelosi?
Click to expand...

I really don't care about the protocal and sticking to traditions because "that's the way it's always been done" but Netenyahu is here to bolster his reelection and push his hardline bona fides among those back in Israel. He is using the fact that he is thumbing his nose at the U.S. president and SoS in his campaign materials at home and as a fundraising tool here in America yet claiming in his speech here that he isn't trying to ruffle any feathers among the administration. How is that not political? He cannot have it both ways.

And one cannot simply say, "Well, that's Israeli politics and has no connection to us here" since Israeli politics are so tied up with American politics and they are so dependent on us (both our government and private citizens) for aid, funding, and protection.
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone else think that the banning of 5.56 M855 ammo is a bit ridiculous? For those of you are not familiar with this ammo, it is commonly use in AR-15 sporting rifles or as gun haters would call them evil assault rifles. The ATF is looking to ban this round claiming that it is ammo piecing despite not being made of the metals listed as armor piercing and not used in hand guns.

Here is a link to a report on it.

Given the political climate of Washington, they are not banning the guns, only the ammo used in those guns in an attempt to make the guns useless. :-{
Click to expand...

The talk is about banning some types of 5.56 mm ammo. Not all kinds. Not all 5.56. Only some types that will pierce the bullet-proof vests of policeman. Stand for the Second Amendment. Just be sure when you stand for the Second Amendment absolute that there are a few cops in front of you so they can catch the armor-piercing rounds for you..
 
Netanyahu has been saying for the better part of 20 years that Iran is "5 years away from nuclear weapons." You see, that is his pattern. He cries wolf. He was a huge warhawk and champion of invading Iraq is 2002 on the basis that he was sure and Israeli intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMDs. I think we know how that turned out. His current stance is all but identical to what he was saying 13 years ago. But Netanyahu doubled-down on war with Iraq, incorrectly predicting that the war would inspire an Iranian democratic uprising that would topple the regime.

Meanwhile, Netayahu has been linked to a smuggling ring that attempted to bring nuclear triggers from the U.S. to Israel. Yep... that's your shining beacon of moral truth and one hell of an ally.:r:

Sharon was an Israeli PM that was universally respected that made legit progress toward peace while maintaining protection of the Israeli state. He could develop and foster relationships with virtually any country. His stroke not only incapacitated him--it incapacitated the peace process & 2-state solution that had shown so much promise.
 
michaelskis said:
Or possibly one that realizes that our current president is undermining many of the security measures that have been put into place to prevent Iran from moving forward with their plan to "Wipe Israel off the map." Faced with the possible mass destruction of his nation, why do you think it is wrong for him to address a joint session of Congress? Did he do harm to America? Nope. Is he running for election in the US? No.

Is the WH working with Iran on nuclear power options that will be controlled by Iran, thus possibly allowing them the tools to do what they have said that they want to do for years now... Yes.

I seriously believe that many people in here are angry because it was a Republican who invited him. Would there be this level of backlash of it was Pelosi?
Click to expand...

That's just it. Taking the politics of Obama being the root of all evil and the Republicans being the other branch of evil it was done wrong. It is the President who is making foreign policy decisions and as the leader of a foreign country he should be working with the President to create a solution. Foreign affairs is under the office of the President, not Congress. So yes, if Pelosi did it I would be just as upset. The only thing Congress can do is pass laws for the US. The best they could do is pass a treaty or declaration of war (I'm sure there is some other pointless thing they could do). If you're talking war, shouldn't you start with, I don't know, The Commander in Chief? Who is that guy? For me it goes back to everyone losing their civility and just trying to get one over on the other guy. Let's go back to doing things right.
 
dvdneal said:
That's just it. Taking the politics of Obama being the root of all evil and the Republicans being the other branch of evil it was done wrong. It is the President who is making foreign policy decisions and as the leader of a foreign country he should be working with the President to create a solution. Foreign affairs is under the office of the President, not Congress. So yes, if Pelosi did it I would be just as upset. The only thing Congress can do is pass laws for the US. The best they could do is pass a treaty or declaration of war (I'm sure there is some other pointless thing they could do). If you're talking war, shouldn't you start with, I don't know, The Commander in Chief? Who is that guy? For me it goes back to everyone losing their civility and just trying to get one over on the other guy. Let's go back to doing things right.
Click to expand...

If Obama was willing to work with him, I would say well done. But John Kerry is speaking for Obama working against Israel.

*** The republicans are just as evil as the democrats. ***
 
michaelskis said:
If Obama was willing to work with him, I would say well done. But John Kerry is speaking for Obama working against Israel.

*** The republicans are just as evil as the democrats. ***
Click to expand...

My point is that it's up to the President to work or not with other counties. It's his policy to form. If the President doesn't like what his adviser is saying, he'll give him better director or fire him. It's not Congresses place to interfere with the foreign policy. They don't have the same briefings and information given to the President.

I should say I'm not going to go out and defend Obama's policy, I'm just saying it's his to handle, but I have no problem condemning Congress for bringing in a ringer for their political gain over advancing any policy that actually needs to get addressed. It's another of those shiny distraction tactics.
 
dvdneal said:
My point is that it's up to the President to work or not with other counties. It's his policy to form. If the President doesn't like what his adviser is saying, he'll give him better director or fire him. It's not Congresses place to interfere with the foreign policy. They don't have the same briefings and information given to the President.

I should say I'm not going to go out and defend Obama's policy, I'm just saying it's his to handle, but I have no problem condemning Congress for bringing in a ringer for their political gain over advancing any policy that actually needs to get addressed. It's another of those shiny distraction tactics.
Click to expand...

Yea but I didn't get my way....I'm going to take my ball and go home!

The problem is that the Republicans in congress push too hard against the democrats for doing things, then do the exact same things. They break rules that if the democrats broke, would be a Fox News story for months. I am not saying the democrats don't do it too, but in this case, the Republicans are just being down right disrespectful to the democratic process, and are skirting the Presidents constitutional right to enter negotiations, diplomatic talks, or any other dialog with foreign countries.

Damn Republicans always tearing up the Constitution, when they aren't using it to beat someone on the head with about its importance.
 
Back
Top