National Director of Anti Defamation League Urges netenyahu To Cancel Speech

[Coyote]

Netanyahu's speech is almost certainly guaranteed to divide Israel's previously unified support along partisan lines. I don't see how that can be helpful in any way other than providing yet one more attempt for the Republicans to scuttle negotiations in an attempt to deny Obama any sort of success. It's really gotten to the point of irrationality where the Republicans are more interested in cutting Obama down then in leading our country.

Israel did not have unified support. Idiots like Ron Paul and others were opposed to Israel.
Democrats who support Israel will continue to support Israel because their voters want them to.
It will divide the Democrat party into those who support Israel and the anti-semites.

Israel had very strong bipartisan support. And Ron Paul never went and openly attacked and divided the US' foreign policy like this.

Israel will continue to have bipartisan support.
You understand you have moved the goalposts, first from "unified support" to "strong bipartisan support"
You also moved the goalpost from "support" to "openly attack and divide."
Do you do this because you are dishonest or are you actually too stupid to understand that's the case?

As to the first - it means the same thing to me.
As to the second - what are you talking about?

 

[Coyote]

Readers digest version: The Republicans care more about sinking any potential success of Obama then they do about what is best for our country. This was evident by their constant proclamation of making Obama a one term president. When that failed, they're going to make sure he has no legacy regardless of the effect on our country.

Standard Coyote version: Republicans are racists.

Making shit up woodie? Never said that.

Im sure you have.
Did Democrats work to insure Bush's success in his re-election? Or ddi they work to make him a one term president?

Democrats worked better with Bush then they Republicans have with Obama. And one thing the Democrats did not do was openly side with other nations against our President. In foreign affairs - while there was internal dispute, there was external unity. The Republicans of today have taken things to an unprecidented level - whether it's the sheer number of unfilled positions (compared to previous administrations) or this open split on foreign policy. Hell - you guys even openly applaud strong man dictators like Putin. It's a dangerous game.

It is more accurate to say Bush worked better with Democrats than Obama has worked with Republicans.
Someone already posted the story about Pelosi going to Syria against White House wishes, so your second statement is a lie.

I disagree. Since Obama's election in 2008, before he was in office, the Republicans drew their line. Every legislative effort they have made since has been to block or scuttle any of Obama's initiatives or appointments - even what should not have been controversial or had previously held Republican support. I'll grant that Obama has made mistakes too - but no other congress as been this dead set against a president that they would block even what they supported and that they would openly - on the international stage - go against his foreign policy negotiations like this.

 

[The Rabbi]

Netanyahu's speech is almost certainly guaranteed to divide Israel's previously unified support along partisan lines. I don't see how that can be helpful in any way other than providing yet one more attempt for the Republicans to scuttle negotiations in an attempt to deny Obama any sort of success. It's really gotten to the point of irrationality where the Republicans are more interested in cutting Obama down then in leading our country.

Israel did not have unified support. Idiots like Ron Paul and others were opposed to Israel.
Democrats who support Israel will continue to support Israel because their voters want them to.
It will divide the Democrat party into those who support Israel and the anti-semites.

Israel had very strong bipartisan support. And Ron Paul never went and openly attacked and divided the US' foreign policy like this.

Israel will continue to have bipartisan support.
You understand you have moved the goalposts, first from "unified support" to "strong bipartisan support"
You also moved the goalpost from "support" to "openly attack and divide."
Do you do this because you are dishonest or are you actually too stupid to understand that's the case?

As to the first - it means the same thing to me.
As to the second - what are you talking about?

So unified means strong?
OK, you answered my last question: you are too stupid to understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Standard Coyote version: Republicans are racists.

Making shit up woodie? Never said that.

Im sure you have.
Did Democrats work to insure Bush's success in his re-election? Or ddi they work to make him a one term president?

Democrats worked better with Bush then they Republicans have with Obama. And one thing the Democrats did not do was openly side with other nations against our President. In foreign affairs - while there was internal dispute, there was external unity. The Republicans of today have taken things to an unprecidented level - whether it's the sheer number of unfilled positions (compared to previous administrations) or this open split on foreign policy. Hell - you guys even openly applaud strong man dictators like Putin. It's a dangerous game.

It is more accurate to say Bush worked better with Democrats than Obama has worked with Republicans.
Someone already posted the story about Pelosi going to Syria against White House wishes, so your second statement is a lie.

I disagree. Since Obama's election in 2008, before he was in office, the Republicans drew their line. Every legislative effort they have made since has been to block or scuttle any of Obama's initiatives or appointments - even what should not have been controversial or had previously held Republican support. I'll grant that Obama has made mistakes too - but no other congress as been this dead set against a president that they would block even what they supported and that they would openly - on the international stage - go against his foreign policy negotiations like this.

That simply is not true. Republicans voted for plenty of his programs, including the stimulus.
I am sorry if facts do not agree with your bias.

 

[Coyote]

Netanyahu's speech is almost certainly guaranteed to divide Israel's previously unified support along partisan lines. I don't see how that can be helpful in any way other than providing yet one more attempt for the Republicans to scuttle negotiations in an attempt to deny Obama any sort of success. It's really gotten to the point of irrationality where the Republicans are more interested in cutting Obama down then in leading our country.

Israel did not have unified support. Idiots like Ron Paul and others were opposed to Israel.
Democrats who support Israel will continue to support Israel because their voters want them to.
It will divide the Democrat party into those who support Israel and the anti-semites.

Israel had very strong bipartisan support. And Ron Paul never went and openly attacked and divided the US' foreign policy like this.

Israel will continue to have bipartisan support.
You understand you have moved the goalposts, first from "unified support" to "strong bipartisan support"
You also moved the goalpost from "support" to "openly attack and divide."
Do you do this because you are dishonest or are you actually too stupid to understand that's the case?

As to the first - it means the same thing to me.
As to the second - what are you talking about?

So unified means strong?
OK, you answered my last question: you are too stupid to understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

You left out part of it. Unified and strong bipartisan support means essentially the same thing in my opinion.

 

[Coyote]

Making shit up woodie? Never said that.

Im sure you have.
Did Democrats work to insure Bush's success in his re-election? Or ddi they work to make him a one term president?

Democrats worked better with Bush then they Republicans have with Obama. And one thing the Democrats did not do was openly side with other nations against our President. In foreign affairs - while there was internal dispute, there was external unity. The Republicans of today have taken things to an unprecidented level - whether it's the sheer number of unfilled positions (compared to previous administrations) or this open split on foreign policy. Hell - you guys even openly applaud strong man dictators like Putin. It's a dangerous game.

It is more accurate to say Bush worked better with Democrats than Obama has worked with Republicans.
Someone already posted the story about Pelosi going to Syria against White House wishes, so your second statement is a lie.

I disagree. Since Obama's election in 2008, before he was in office, the Republicans drew their line. Every legislative effort they have made since has been to block or scuttle any of Obama's initiatives or appointments - even what should not have been controversial or had previously held Republican support. I'll grant that Obama has made mistakes too - but no other congress as been this dead set against a president that they would block even what they supported and that they would openly - on the international stage - go against his foreign policy negotiations like this.

That simply is not true. Republicans voted for plenty of his programs, including the stimulus.
I am sorry if facts do not agree with your bias.

What plenty of programs?

 

[The Rabbi]

Israel did not have unified support. Idiots like Ron Paul and others were opposed to Israel.
Democrats who support Israel will continue to support Israel because their voters want them to.
It will divide the Democrat party into those who support Israel and the anti-semites.

Israel had very strong bipartisan support. And Ron Paul never went and openly attacked and divided the US' foreign policy like this.

Israel will continue to have bipartisan support.
You understand you have moved the goalposts, first from "unified support" to "strong bipartisan support"
You also moved the goalpost from "support" to "openly attack and divide."
Do you do this because you are dishonest or are you actually too stupid to understand that's the case?

As to the first - it means the same thing to me.
As to the second - what are you talking about?

So unified means strong?
OK, you answered my last question: you are too stupid to understand. Thanks for clearing that up.

You left out part of it. Unified and strong bipartisan support means essentially the same thing in my opinion.

That's because you're stupid.
No point engaging someone who thinks like this.

 

[Hossfly]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Whutt???

 

[bravoactual]

SNIP:
Pelosi (Who Visited Syria's Assad In 2007 Despite WH Objections) Blasts Boehner's Bibi Invite
In 2007, Pelosi went to Syria to negotiate for the U.S. and for Israel. She had neither government's approval.

ALL of it here:
Pelosi Who Visited Syria s Assad In 2007 Despite WH Objections Blasts Boehner s Bibi Invite Truth Revolt

Really, is this all you got, the old TODIT(The Other Dude Did It To). As I recall Ms. Pelosi acknowledged that visit was NOT a State Visit and NOT at the request of the U.S. Government.

Did Ms. Pelosi ask Mr. Assad to address a Joint Session Congress, which is what this thread is about btw, BiBi being asked to address a Joint Session of Congress without Presidential Consent.

I mean really, you are one sorry ass, sad ass individual.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

Being informed of something is not the same as having been asked for consultation in a matter. I am quite sure that you understand this.

What Boehner did was plain old wrong on every level, and guaranteed this will come back to bite him in the ass.

 

[The Rabbi]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

Being informed of something is not the same as having been asked for consultation in a matter. I am quite sure that you understand this.

What Boehner did was plain old wrong on every level, and guaranteed this will come back to bite him in the ass.

(t will have zero affect on Boehner or Bibi. Bibi's speech will wipe out any reporting over this. And he will make Obama look like the bumbling amateur he is.
Do you ever get anything right?

 

[bravoactual]

If we must engage in the Ye Olde RePug Game of The Other Dude Did It Too, then how about the fact that 2008 RePug Presidential Candidate Grampy McCain had pictures taken with "Moderates" that turned out to BE THE LEADERS OF ISIL?????

Photos of Senator McCain 8220 chillin 8217 8221 with ISIS Leaders in Syria Before Their Rampage Through Iraq 8211 The Minority Report Blog


You know the terrorist group that beheads and burns their hostages..yeah them.

Gramy and ISIL....YEP Great Idea.......NOT!!!

 

[bravoactual]

The Boner violated Diplomatic and Political Protocol by inviting Netanyahu. St. John the Stupid of Orange attempts at creating a political embarrassment for the President of The United States is now a failure....just like the 56-Votes to Replace/Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

 

[bravoactual]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

Being informed of something is not the same as having been asked for consultation in a matter. I am quite sure that you understand this.

What Boehner did was plain old wrong on every level, and guaranteed this will come back to bite him in the ass.

(t will have zero affect on Boehner or Bibi. Bibi's speech will wipe out any reporting over this. And he will make Obama look like the bumbling amateur he is.
Do you ever get anything right?

Yes, every damn day. Your Canadian/Cuban who Poppi fought with and for Fidel will only get into the White House on a tour.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Boner violated Diplomatic and Political Protocol by inviting Netanyahu. St. John the Stupid of Orange attempts at creating a political embarrassment for the President of The United States is now a failure....just like the 56-Votes to Replace/Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

The undocumented worker squatting in the White House needs a lesson on Islamic Radical Terrorism. For starters he can practice saying the damn thing. Bibi is just the guy to give it to him.

 

[deltex1]

National director of the Anti Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, is urging netanyahu to not give that speech to our congress.

It looks like this is going to end the way us liberals said it would. Again. It's backfiring on netanyahu. It should backfire on boehner too but the republicans hate Obama too much for him to see any consequences to his very bad choice.

Anti-Defamation League Urges Benjamin Netanyahu To Cancel Congress Speech

We all know what Bibi will say...all I want is to see the steam come out of Obamas ears as he reminds us again of Jim Crow and Jesus.

 

[bravoactual]

Wow, a birther is heard from. Last I heard Hawaii is a state, President Eisenhower signed the Statehood papers in 1959. President Obama is Citizen, where as the Cruz Missile is not.

 

[Coyote]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

Sure. It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos and show support for their President in foreign affairs instead of pulling this garbage.

 

[Hossfly]

I posted this in Post #236 of the thread, "Netanyahu's Unwelcome Visit To The U.S."

*****************************************************************************************************
I posted before that the White House knew all along about Netanyahu's visit and that he accepted the invitation only after the White House admitted knowing it. Now all the Democrat comrades are on their high horse about the speech even while knowing that the Liar-In-Chief does it again. Here''s what the NYT had to correct.

In a surprising correction issued by the New York Times, who was one of the first news outlets to break the story, it appears that the administration had been informed well in advance of the invitation before Netanyahu accepted it.

The correction, which was added on January 30 in the online version of the article only, stated:

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Despite what the White House has been saying, officials were in no way blindsided by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to Congress.


Read more at White House Fabricated Spat with Netanyahu - Israel News

The Comrades in Congress are going to boycott the speech?
My suggestion to the Speaker would be to announce a roll call of the house members. The Senate can participate or not. After the roll call, introduce Netanyahu and have him speak. Anyone who walks out must submit to an interview in the Rotunda and explain the reason.
It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos schtick.

No comments from the left?

Sure. It's time for the people in Congress to stop acting out their Terrible Twos and show support for their President in foreign affairs instead of pulling this garbage.

Everyone I talk to is confused about what the big deal is about the speech