Red_Dragon wrote: 





https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/israel-senate-jerusalem-trump-239157



"The Senate overwhelmingly agreed on Monday night to nudge President Donald Trump to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a campaign promise that he punted on last week.

The Senate voted 90-0 on a resolution marking the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification. The measure includes language that "calls upon the president and all United States officials to abide by" a 1995 law that urged then-President Bill Clinton to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem."

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Weinsteinian tactics just aren't as effective as they used to be...

 R_P wrote: 
I salute the UN for giving Donnie Johnnie the finger.

Jerusalem: UN resolution rejects Trump's declaration

The nine who voted against the resolution were the US, Israel, Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo

We vill be waiting in ze schoolyard when class is over...

On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.

“Due to this resolution’s overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression the United States cannot support it,” the U.S. mission said in a statement. That, and we just elected a fascist president.

The U.S. is still lonely at the United Nations

 oldslabsides wrote: 
"all courtesy of the Afghan government"——No sweat off Washington(I hestitate to say "us" as I feel Washington has NOTHING to do with me).

 IMO we shouldn't be in Afghanistan anyway and if we are going to mess with it we should make it flat first, that'll take care of that nasty"uninvadable" thing.

Afghan UN Ambassador's $4.2 million Manhattan apartment

brought this over from another thread - thanks Peter.

This is utterly unconscionable.  Washington doesn't give a damn about the people they are supposedly elected to represent.

Obscene.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

thanks for being of equal size

 musik_knut wrote: 
Thanks for being a big guy about it.
"hoo" now thats a new one. Maybe cuz  the 'oo' is after the apostrophe (Jade Wah'oo), and is actually said as a guttural stop suffix, pronounced 'oo' as in 'moo'. But 'hoo' will doo.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

hoo,
Not a prob.
mk

 musik_knut wrote: 
My poor attempt at humor, sorry. I thought you were an ex-police, no? Man, I am striking out zero for all today, eh?

And no, I am not a drug user. I stopped smoking pot when I was 22. I'm 59 now. Lo-o-ng time ago.

 jadewahoo wrote: 
I have no idea what a lawdog is/was. And I resent the suggestion I would shake down illegals if empowered to enforce US Sovereignty. I saw too much blood spilled by those in uniform. Perhaps if you had spilled something beyond bong water, you might see things differently...then again, perhaps not?

EDIT: My last comment was unwarranted. My apologies...

 musik_knut wrote:Hey, you are ex-lawdog, right? And looking for a new direction in life, as I recall... How about coming down here to Arizona and being a Vigilante in the Old West? Seems like you have the right credentials and attitude for it. The pay is nil, except for the cash you confiscate from those illegals, not to mention their drugs. This would be good on a resume for Blackwater (or whatever dodge they are calling themselves these days), or at least a Hollywood docu-drama script, eh?

 romeotuma wrote: 

You have not and will never hear me defend the deplorable and inexcusable spending habits under Mr. Bush and Republicans, a spending madness that continues unabated today under Mr. Obama and Democrats.
Our Southern Border is a sieve. Through it, come illegal aliens, seeking jobs and undercutting US Workers by taking lower wages. Along with those who come for economic reasons, come those who intend to continue, expand or initiate criminal enterprises. Among those enterprises are drugs and human cargo, extortion and various other felonies. Phoenix is now the #2 city in the world for kidnappings. How did that come to be? Look to those who engage in illegal activities, the career criminalists pouring over our Southern Border. US Citizens are being killed along the border and further inside The US by those who come here illegally. The primary obligation of a Government is to protect its People. Can anyone argue that that obligation is being met? No.
Those who own property on the border realize a property with no value and a property laid to waste by human waste and debris. Do we not have an obligation to them? To see that their property is protected? Is there no obligation to WE THE PEOPLE on a matter of personal security?
The Preamble to The Constitution speaks of the common defence (sic). Isn't it past time to see to that?
The ability to communicate with world leaders is not restricted to The UN as a point for doing so. That's a canard on the matter of global relations with others.
A few poor people? Those few cost California how much? Just California alone, is being bled out by illegals and the draw they make on services. Just a few? Somewhere North of 12 million, perhaps 20 million. That's beyond just a few... It is estimated that perhaps 10% of those who enter illegally, do so for the purpose of engaging in criminal activities. If that number has validity, perhaps 2 million criminals entered The US. And who feels that impact? Those who come for jobs, yes, but also those who are citizens of The US. Dead US citizens scattered here and there along The US-Mexico border is something we should not tolerate given their deaths are at the hands of a criminal element illegall entering this sovereign Nation.
I'd rather put money into protecting my fellow citizens than to pour it into a useless organization called The United Nations were 'united' is a misnomer. At best.
When US and British pilots were enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq, some of our 'united' partners were violating the same sanctions they too had sworn by vote, to enforce and uphold. The corruption in The UN runs top to bottom and most of those dollars, 22%, come from WE THE PEOPLE...even while our pilots were putting it on the line.
Sorry, but I can't support an open sewer of tyrants and liars playing on my dime.

 romeotuma wrote:  

This general sentiment you have expressed is why I always question those who espouse broad and amorphous principles like "I don't support Big Government."

One person's worthy government expenditure is another person's example of wasteful spending.

Somewhat the same thing happens when folk talk about State Rights.  For some, that's a big yes when it comes to, say, abortion laws, but a big no when it comes to, say, same-sex marriage. 

Principles are valid if they are applied consistently, across the board.  Talking in the abstract usually is not helpful.  The devil is in the details, so that is where the discussion must focus — specifics.           

 Atman wrote: 

When drowning in red ink, make cuts that will not impact WE THE PEOPLE.
The UN has 192 Member States and the tab picked up by The US is 22% of the total operating budget. Now, that makes sense? The UN is a fanciful notion where corruption runs rampant, feel good resolutions are ignored and promises made are regularly violated. Some years back, The US was booted from The UN Human Right's Commission, to be replaced by Sudan, home of Darfur...

One can always find an excuse to protect this or that against budget cuts...it would appear you found a rat hole to protect.

We are bleeding red ink...cuts can be made or taxes jacked. Pick one...

 musik_knut wrote: 
Uh, let's see, when was Isolationism ever a valid concept? Uh, never. Uh, when will Isolationism be a valid concept? Uh, never.