I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you think Trump has advocated rolling back SS or Medicare, I don't know what Trump you were viewing. He's been consistent in stating he won't cut benefits, just taxes. That's a much different variant of problematic position than the one you're describing.

Have you been under a rock or something? Yes, Trump hasn't walked back from what he said on the stump. But the people he's put in his cabinet have a history of advocating these things. You think he picked them despite disagreeing? And Paul Ryan has said he's going propose them.

We'll see if Trump stands up to them. I kinda doubt it.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12...ttlements.html

Why would they do this now? Seems a short sighted slap at a key friend that Obama said he supported.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12...ttlements.html

Why would they do this now? Seems a short sighted slap at a key friend that Obama said he supported.

Because the resolution was up for vote now? And let's not forget that the illegal settlements are, well, illegal. Despite previous pledges to stop from Bibi and his predecessors, settlement keep getting built. Pretty soon (and deliberately) the growing population in the expanded settlements will make annexation of much of the West Bank into Israel a fait accompli.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Because the resolution was up for vote now? And let's not forget that the illegal settlements are, well, illegal. Despite previous pledges to stop from Bibi and his predecessors, settlement keep getting built. Pretty soon (and deliberately) the growing population in the expanded settlements will make annexation of much of the West Bank into Israel a fait accompli.

So that might be why to do it a year ago, but now? Isn't it almost petty? I mean it will have no effect other than to record that Obama wasn't all that happy with Israel after all.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So that might be why to do it a year ago, but now? Isn't almost petty? I mean it will have no effect other than to record that Obamacare wasn't all that happy with Israel after all.

Was there a resolution re settlements last year? Granted, there are constant General Assembly resolutions attacking Israel ("Zionism is racism" etc.), but I don't know (and am Not Inclined to Google) how often the Security Council considers a resolution that Bibi's government opposes -- but which isn't actually contrary to US policy -- such as condemning new settlements.

But then again, to the GOP and certain Jewish groups* in the US, any disagreement with Bibi is anti-Semetism, so ...

*Like Trump's proposed ambassador to Israel, who calls Jewish groups opposed to Bibi "kapos" -- the term for the Jews who cooperated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Was there a resolution re settlements last year? Granted, there are constant General Assembly resolutions attacking Israel ("Zionism is racism" etc.), but I don't know (and am Not Inclined to Google) how often the Security Council considers a resolution that Bibi's government opposes -- but which isn't actually contrary to US policy -- such as condemning new settlements.

But then again, to the GOP and certain Jewish groups* in the US, any disagreement with Bibi is anti-Semetism, so ...

*Like Trump's proposed ambassador to Israel, who calls Jewish groups opposed to Bibi "kapos" -- the term for the Jews who cooperated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

1 apologize for the Obamacare typo. 2 appreciate the holocaust history lesson but do not need it. 3 you didn't answer my question. 4 your last month as President you transition, you don't make a major policy change, especially when it just seems pathetic, given what is coming.

edit 2011 veto https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cal...134545510.html

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

1 apologize for the Obamacare typo. 2 appreciate the holocaust history lesson but do not need it. 3 you didn't answer my question. 4 your last month as President you transition, you don't make a major policy change, especially when it just seems pathetic, given what is coming.

edit 2011 veto https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cal...134545510.html

1. What Obamacare typo?

2. By "history lesson" do you mean my point about how Not Unconditionally agreeing with Bibi is anti-semitic? Or that I explained the definition of the slur used by the next US ambassador?

3. I did answer your question - Obama directed Power to abstain because there was a Security Council vote being held and that's the way he wanted to handle it.

4. And if the issue hasn't come up for a SC vote since 2011, then when would it have been too late in his administration to cast a vote (or to Not Veto) such a resolution? Any time after 1/1/2016 because it is an election year? And what is the US policy change you mean? Not saying that the settlements are illegal and the should t be expanded, because that is and has been for a long time current US policy. Or do you mean the policy of giving the Israeli government veto power over our UN vote?

I do agree with you that it is a good idea generally to avoid anything controversial between the election and the inaguration. It probably would have been prudent to not rock the boat now and maybe it does seem petty. And I'd probably feel differently if I agreed with Chuck Schumer on the issue. Anyway.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

1. What Obamacare typo?

2. By "history lesson" do you mean my point about how Not Unconditionally agreeing with Bibi is anti-semitic? Or that I explained the definition of the slur used by the next US ambassador?

3. I did answer your question - Obama directed Power to abstain because there was a Security Council vote being held and that's the way he wanted to handle it.

4. And if the issue hasn't come up for a SC vote since 2011, then when would it have been too late in his administration to cast a vote (or to Not Veto) such a resolution? Any time after 1/1/2016 because it is an election year? And what is the US policy change you mean? Not saying that the settlements are illegal and the should t be expanded, because that is and has been for a long time current US policy. Or do you mean the policy of giving the Israeli government veto power over our UN vote?

I do agree with you that it is a good idea generally to avoid anything controversial between the election and the inaguration. It probably would have been prudent to not rock the boat now and maybe it does seem petty. And I'd probably feel differently if I agreed with Chuck Schumer on the issue. Anyway.

1. Who cares?

2. Calm down. Every single one of you. Calm the fuck down.

3. Fuck you.

4. Fuck me? No, scotch!

5. What?

6. I said scotch. Do I need to spell it out for you? Here, for a special Christmas Eve Daily Dose is the Jive Turkeys with "Get Down Santa." Happy Holidays! Unless my saying happy holidays offends you, in which case bite me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkV-gmyr7w

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

1. Who cares?

2. Calm down. Every single one of you. Calm the fuck down.

3. Fuck you.

4. Fuck me? No, scotch!

5. What?

6. I said scotch. Do I need to spell it out for you? Here, for a special Christmas Eve Daily Dose is the Jive Turkeys with "Get Down Santa." Happy Holidays! Unless my saying happy holidays offends you, in which case bite me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkV-gmyr7w

We're Jewish.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

We're Jewish.

Then you are part of the War on Christmas and are part of the reason the multicultural pagan hippies satanists insist that everyone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas like God-fearing Americans who worship at the Church of the White Santa say because they are not afraid to tell it like it is, and Kwanzaa is totally made up and the Jewish one I can't spell is probably made up too because the anti-Christian zealots are totes jelly are afraid that if we recognize that there is only one true holiday this season, some lil' feewings of the non-Jesus-worshiping heathens will be hurty hurt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Then you are part of the War on Christmas and are part of the reason the multicultural pagan hippies satanists insist that everyone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas like God-fearing Americans who worship at the Church of the White Santa say because they are not afraid to tell it like it is, and Kwanzaa is totally made up and the Jewish one I can't spell is probably made up too because the anti-Christian zealots are totes jelly are afraid that if we recognize that there is only one true holiday this season, some lil' feewings of the non-Jesus-worshiping heathens will be hurty hurt.

Well, we know we are doomed to hell when we die, but it would be nice to get a little love while we are still here

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

6. I said scotch.

By the way, I quit drinking scotch. i drink bourbon. Kentucky voted for President Trump. Scotland voted AGAINST Brexit. Not sure how far the expulsions will go, but better safe than sorry.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

By the way, I quit drinking scotch. i drink bourbon. Kentucky voted for President Trump. Scotland voted AGAINST Brexit. Not sure how far the expulsions will go, but better safe than sorry.

I've been hedging my bets and drinking both.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I've been hedging my bets and drinking both.

I think that gets you duty building the wall, but you'll be on the right side of it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

1. What Obamacare typo?

2. By "history lesson" do you mean my point about how Not Unconditionally agreeing with Bibi is anti-semitic? Or that I explained the definition of the slur used by the next US ambassador?

3. I did answer your question - Obama directed Power to abstain because there was a Security Council vote being held and that's the way he wanted to handle it.

4. And if the issue hasn't come up for a SC vote since 2011, then when would it have been too late in his administration to cast a vote (or to Not Veto) such a resolution? Any time after 1/1/2016 because it is an election year? And what is the US policy change you mean? Not saying that the settlements are illegal and the should t be expanded, because that is and has been for a long time current US policy. Or do you mean the policy of giving the Israeli government veto power over our UN vote?

I do agree with you that it is a good idea generally to avoid anything controversial between the election and the inaguration. It probably would have been prudent to not rock the boat now and maybe it does seem petty. And I'd probably feel differently if I agreed with Chuck Schumer on the issue. Anyway.

Pretty much consistent US position since 1967: Settlements are contrary to international law, as established by the Geneva conventions, expansion beyond pre-1967 borders not proper, ultimate borders, since Oslo, are meant to be "based on" pre-67 borders with swaps.

Up until now, despite Netanyahu's atrocious behavior, Obama has kept the Israel/Palestine issues out of the UN and in the hands of the quartet or other ad-hoc international bodies. The last security council resolution the US allowed to go through happened 11 days before Obama's term began, and was one of 8 during the Bush II years. No US President has allowed fewer resolutions than Obama since the occupation began.

Obama's approach during the last eight years is probably best viewed as a last-ditch effort to save Oslo, but Oslo was doomed by Israeli domestic politics. There is no replacement peace process.

Throwing it back to the UN rather than leaving it to Putin and his new sidekick, Trump, seems wiser than the alternative, if your goal is to simply avoid fucking it up even worse for four years. Ultimately, whether a peace process can take hold is going to be entirely dependent on Israel (wisest words on Israel ever spoken were when Bob Dole gave them his phone number and told them to call him when they were ready), and the international community simply can't force the issue in any useful fashion. Netanyahu, by cutting off significant ties to the rest of the world, is cooperating in the project of side-lining the dispute. Best thing the international community can do is to just try to keep the endless Israel/Palestine conflict from destabilizing surrounding countries (and visa versa - the new Russian naval port in Syria is going to be an issue for a long time to come).