|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2013 13:35 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 13:26 Mindcrime wrote:
Yeah, being an "ally," Israel's bellicosity has the potential to cause a whole lot more trouble for the US than Iran could ever hope to. Certainly if geopolitics was about 'realism' the US would have abandoned its support for Israel as soon as the USSR collapsed. Easiest political move in the history of the world.
You don't arm a dog to the teeth and train it to rip throats out, then once the town is safe do you just let it go free. If the usa had dumped isreal they would become a unstoppable crusader state the world hasn't seen sense the crusades.
And thats best case. Worst case is you cause a second holocaust on either or both sides.
not to mention you'd never win new York or florida again if you broke faith with isreal.
|
On November 24 2013 13:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 13:35 Sub40APM wrote:On November 24 2013 13:26 Mindcrime wrote:
Yeah, being an "ally," Israel's bellicosity has the potential to cause a whole lot more trouble for the US than Iran could ever hope to. Certainly if geopolitics was about 'realism' the US would have abandoned its support for Israel as soon as the USSR collapsed. Easiest political move in the history of the world. You don't arm a dog to the teeth and train it to rip throats out, then once the town is safe do you just let it go free. If the usa had dumped isreal they would become a unstoppable crusader state the world hasn't seen sense the crusades. And thats best case. Worst case is you cause a second holocaust on either or both sides. not to mention you'd never win new York or florida again if you broke faith with isreal.
huh? why would Israel do that?
|
On November 24 2013 13:49 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 13:42 Sermokala wrote:On November 24 2013 13:35 Sub40APM wrote:On November 24 2013 13:26 Mindcrime wrote:
Yeah, being an "ally," Israel's bellicosity has the potential to cause a whole lot more trouble for the US than Iran could ever hope to. Certainly if geopolitics was about 'realism' the US would have abandoned its support for Israel as soon as the USSR collapsed. Easiest political move in the history of the world. You don't arm a dog to the teeth and train it to rip throats out, then once the town is safe do you just let it go free. If the usa had dumped isreal they would become a unstoppable crusader state the world hasn't seen sense the crusades. And thats best case. Worst case is you cause a second holocaust on either or both sides. not to mention you'd never win new York or florida again if you broke faith with isreal. huh? why would Israel do that?
Why not? Control the canal and hold the regions finances in your hands. Hold a core of armor near mecca and hold the region's religion. Never have to keep an uzi in your closet in fear of syrian and jordanian tanks from rolling into you home in under a day. The only one that has a leash on the modern sparta is america.
|
I feel like I'm doing shrooms again
|
How conveniently we forget all the wars from the arab world after 1948 designed to exterminate the new Israeli state. Israel is just as bad as the lot of them ... umm... hold the phone.
Is it any wonder that all these promises ring hollow to Israel? Famous holocaust deniers, previous leader stated publically he wanted to "eliminate the Zionist regime," and predicting that "it will collapse and its end will be near." And now there are some that would equate Iran's outlooks with Israel's, even putting Israel in front for adversarial actions? Historical revisionism and wishful thinking at its finest. I'm gonna wait until more details come out, but for now it looks like Obama is abandoning an ally by degrees, and practicing Chamberlain-esque foreign policy with an aggressive nation.
|
Can we all please stfu about the deal until any of us find out anything at all about it?
All we know is that they have a 6 month roadmap where things will happen and they'll be right where they started after. The econ sanctions will still be up and the iranians will still be able to run a nuke program.
|
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that?
|
On November 24 2013 13:36 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 12:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 24 2013 12:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Iran is a lot less evil than you've been led to believe It's not about good and evil. They're a geopolitical adversary. I'm honestly curious, what is your solution to the Iranian nuclear problem? I'm going to assume that you think whatever Obama did is terrible, I'm wondering what your alternative solution is.
I'm not yet prepared to say that what he did is terrible. If we get a disarmed Iran as a result of a deal that gets worked out in the next 6 months, then that's a win. Let's just say that I'm not holding my breath. I think it's more likely that we just gave Iran a bunch of money for nothing. We'll see though.
As for what I would do, it depends upon what the situation actually is. Part of the problem with analyzing what to do about a nuclear Iran from the outside is that we don't know really know what's going on. We don't know how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon. We don't even really know whether the US has the military capability to stop Iran.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that?
It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it.
|
On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it.
Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
Abuse of what system? The legislature checking the executive? Changing voting rules has been contemplated but never acted upon because one's party will not always be in the majority.
Not to mention if it was ever hard to negotiate between sides before this, there is far less incentive to do so in the future.
And before you start talking about 'unprecedented,' examine history and FDR's attempts to court pack during the New Deal era.
|
On November 24 2013 13:36 Sermokala wrote:
The way Israel acts is exactly as you can expect from someone who is surrounded by people who want nothing more then to wipe you from the globe and yet has flourished.
you can trust Isreal to be Isreal. Arabs get treated better there then in actual arab countries.
By practicing apartheid against Arabs? By destroying land rights for israeli settlements based on an ottoman law that Israel had no basis to claim? With their secret courts used to eliminate resistance?
|
On November 24 2013 14:40 itsjustatank wrote:
Abuse of what system? The legislature checking the executive? Changing voting rules has been contemplated but never acted upon because one's party will not always be in the majority.
Not to mention if it was ever hard to negotiate between sides before this, there is far less incentive to do so in the future.
And before you start talking about 'unprecedented,' examine history and FDR's attempts to court pack during the New Deal era.
Lest we forget the Republicans struck first by changing the rules in the House so only Cantor could introduce a bill.
EDIT: I think its really great that xDaunt and I differ on almost everything in this thread, but I agree with almost everything he posts in the NFL thread.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
The Senate's rules on cloture are far more of a big deal than restrictions on who can introduce what in the lower House, as they affect more than just one bill. Nice try though.
|
On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped.
It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions.
The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS.
There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on.
Edit: also, the Republicans have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed.
Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
|
On November 24 2013 14:50 itsjustatank wrote:
The Senate's rules on cloture are far more of a big deal than restrictions on who can introduce what, as they affect more than just one bill. Nice try though.
And you convenient left out that the changes to the Senate rules are limited to confirming nominations by the President.
|
On November 24 2013 14:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:50 itsjustatank wrote:
The Senate's rules on cloture are far more of a big deal than restrictions on who can introduce what, as they affect more than just one bill. Nice try though. And you convenient left out that the changes to the Senate rules are limited to confirming nominations by the President.
That is one of the core functions of the Senate.
It's not even comparable to the house rule change.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 14:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:50 itsjustatank wrote:
The Senate's rules on cloture are far more of a big deal than restrictions on who can introduce what, as they affect more than just one bill. Nice try though. And you convenient left out that the changes to the Senate rules are limited to confirming nominations by the President.
and that changes what exactly? the House doesn't do anything with nominations to courts and other positions that have the ability to steer policy for decades. they also don't have the power to give advice and consent to treaties.
the house is not the senate. comparing house rules to senate rules is folly.
|
On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different.
They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
