The Biden administration says it may restart construction of the border wall to fill 'gaps' left by Trump

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Please proceed, governor.

Let's go. We will start here. This should keep you occupied for a while.

THE UNTOLD STORY: JOE BIDEN PUSHED RONALD REAGAN TO RAMP UP INCARCERATION — NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

Biden has argued that the focus on his 1994 crime bill as a driver of mass incarceration is misplaced. He’s right — it was his earlier push that was responsible.


<<Biden is correct that the surge began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, but a closer look at his role reveals that it was Biden who was among the principal and earliest movers of the policy agenda that would become the war on drugs and mass incarceration, and he did so in the face of initial reluctance from none other than President Ronald Reagan. Indeed, Reagan even vetoed a signature piece of Biden legislation, which he drafted with arch segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, to create a federal “drug czar.”>>


p57.jpg








 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Dude just types...that's why I told him to educate himself and come back

That's what is funny about AllUniverse. He's basically an economic neo-liberal and political paleoconservative but doesn't want to acknowledge it. Just look at the positions he takes. Yet he wants to chide us as being "Trump supporters".
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
That's what is funny about AllUniverse. He's basically an economic neo-liberal and political paleoconservative but doesn't want to acknowledge it. Just look at the positions he takes. Yet he wants to chide us as being "Trump supporters".
But but why didn't you guys make posts bashing trump. It's because y'all secretly like him.

Zzzzzz
 

ScottyPiffen745

BGOL CSI: Connoisseur of Sluts on Instagram™
Registered
He couldnt give me shit because none of those threads even exist. None of those posts exists.

You cant say both sides are the same but only ever attack one side.

Republicans were in office for 4 years he never said shit. Dems are in since January now he wants to put gloves on.

Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can.

If he only addressed one side, it's likely because he had no faith in the other side in the first place. It's very possible that he had no faith in the republicans, so he never talked about the republicans.

And the other side, the demos, the side everybody tells him he should have faith in, these guys are only showing y'all these articles and making these threads as a testament to why they are losing/have lost faith in the democrats.

But it's always going to be in vain because y'all keep deflecting.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can.

If he only addressed one side, it's likely because he had no faith in the other side in the first place. It's very possible that he had no faith in the republicans, so he never talked about the republicans.

And the other side, the demos, the side everybody tells him he should have faith in, these guys are only showing y'all these articles and making these threads as a testament to why they are losing/have lost faith in the democrats.

But it's always going to be in vain because y'all keep deflecting.
Exactly
 

Blkops

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Let's go. We will start here. This should keep you occupied for a while.

THE UNTOLD STORY: JOE BIDEN PUSHED RONALD REAGAN TO RAMP UP INCARCERATION — NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

Biden has argued that the focus on his 1994 crime bill as a driver of mass incarceration is misplaced. He’s right — it was his earlier push that was responsible.


<<Biden is correct that the surge began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, but a closer look at his role reveals that it was Biden who was among the principal and earliest movers of the policy agenda that would become the war on drugs and mass incarceration, and he did so in the face of initial reluctance from none other than President Ronald Reagan. Indeed, Reagan even vetoed a signature piece of Biden legislation, which he drafted with arch segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, to create a federal “drug czar.”>>


p57.jpg









Wait so your plan is to blame Biden for what Ronald Reagan did? Don't dazzle me with bullshit. This is Biden vs Trump like you said. Now you dragging St. Ronnie Ray Gun in this? Come on man. Please tell me this is not what you got me in my office ignoring my duties to argue with you cats on a porn board for. Do better. Biden v Trump. Use your words. Go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKF

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Wait so your plan is to blame Biden for what Ronald Reagan did? Don't dazzle me with bullshit. This is Biden vs Trump like you said. Now you dragging St. Ronnie Ray Gun in this? Come on man. Please tell me this is not what you got me in my office ignoring my duties to argue with you cats on a porn board for. Do better. Biden v Trump. Use your words. Go.

What did I initially say? Biden has a 50-YEAR POLITICAL RECORD! This is a big part of his political record, yet you, like the rest of the Bidets, want to ignore it and act as if the man never appeared on the political scene until 2008 with Obama.

Fuck it, I'll post the whole article, just for the record. I know you won't read it. "But what about Trump?!?" :smh:

THE UNTOLD STORY: JOE BIDEN PUSHED RONALD REAGAN TO RAMP UP INCARCERATION — NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Biden has argued that the focus on his 1994 crime bill as a driver of mass incarceration is misplaced. He’s right — it was his earlier push that was responsible.
September 17 2019, 7:48 a.m.
JOE BIDEN THIS weekend continued to draw attention to the complicated role he has played in the country’s history of race relations. On Thursday night, he drew criticism when he was asked what Americans can do about the legacy of slavery, and answered by suggesting parents put on a record player for kids, and that social workers should visit parents’ homes to teach them how to care for their children. He followed that by recounting on Sunday his run-in in the 1960s with a young gang leader named “Corn Pop,” a story that involved “the only white guy” at a city pool cutting him a 6-foot piece of chain to defend himself against the razor-wielding teen and his friends.​
The politics of race relations have been a central part of Biden’s career, from his high-profile opposition to busing to his authoring of the 1994 Biden Crime Bill. When he talks about his criminal justice record on the campaign trail, he argues today that the focus on the ’94 bill is unfair, because the real rise in mass incarceration happened at the state level and was long underway by then.​
Biden is correct that the surge began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, but a closer look at his role reveals that it was Biden who was among the principal and earliest movers of the policy agenda that would become the war on drugs and mass incarceration, and he did so in the face of initial reluctance from none other than President Ronald Reagan. Indeed, Reagan even vetoed a signature piece of Biden legislation, which he drafted with arch segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, to create a federal “drug czar.”​
At the time, many Republicans were hesitant about increasing federal spending, and in fact looking for ways to slash the budget. Domestically, Reagan wanted to focus on cutting taxes and reducing social welfare spending, and had little interest in an expansive federal spending program geared toward building new prisons and hiring new police. Biden, on the other hand, was a key policy leader among both parties on the issue of expanding funding to states and municipalities for policing and prisons.​
As governor of California, Reagan had been an infamous proponent for law-and-order politics, but when he ran for president in 1980 against incumbent Jimmy Carter, crime was not a significant issue in the race. Rather, the 1980 election focused largely on the economy, inflation, and unemployment.​
Biden, meanwhile, was criticizing Carter for not fighting the war on drugs forcefully enough. “I’m trying to alarm the policymakers,” he told the Washington Post months before the 1980 election. “I’m saying that business as usual won’t work.”​
Although mass imprisonment is and was primarily driven by states, at the federal level Biden shaped the punitive political culture of the 1980s and 1990s by reviving a policy agenda that was briefly in decline at the end of the 1970s. In three years under Carter, the federal prison population fell by a quarter, even as it was rising at the state level. By the final days of the Carter administration, the federal program that provided resources to states for policing and imprisonment, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, or LEAA, was being dismantled.​
In the weeks after the election, Biden argued that the problem with LEAA was inadequate coordination and poor management, and that the federal government should take a more assertive stance in this area while continuing to provide funds to states to expand their police and prison systems. “The American people believe we have waged war on crime and failed,” Biden, who was the U.S. senator for Delaware at the time, said. “Therefore, they concluded that nothing can be done about it.” In his view, though, federal funding was an essential piece of the drug war. He saw the need for a program like LEAA, but it needed a stronger manager in charge: a drug czar.​
Alongside Reagan’s entry into office, Republicans wrested control of the Senate from the Democrats. South Carolina Democrat-turned-Republican Thurmond replaced Ted Kennedy as Judiciary Committee chair, and Kennedy ceded the ranking spot to Biden. Biden had previously locked horns with Kennedy as they competed to lead the party on crime, with Biden wanting to shed the party’s image as being soft. “As most old-line Democrats view it, the only ways we can deal with violence will have a negative impact on civil rights and liberties. … I think that’s malarkey,” he told the New York Times.
“Give me the crime issue … and you’ll never have trouble with it in an election,” Biden was said to have begged party leadership during meetings. With his new position of power on the committee, he began to shape its agenda accordingly.​
As they each started their new roles on the Judiciary Committee, Biden approached Thurmond privately to sort out their shared priorities. Biden brought with him a 90-page draft bill and a promise: “If you keep your right-wing guys from killing this bill, I’ll keep the liberals off the bill. And if you and I stand fast and agree on what we can agree on and just hold firm, we can pass this thing,” Biden told the committee chair.​
At the time, the White House and Nancy Reagan were also beginning to focus on drugs and crime, but the president saw little need for increased federal funding. Due to its cost, he had recently scuttled a proposed prison expansion plan from his Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime.​
Biden disapproved of Reagan’s plan to scale back funding for crime fighting, complaining in October 1981 about inadequate money to combat drug trafficking. The Coast Guard “just doesn’t have as many boats as the bad guys,” he said. “The boats just aren’t as good.” Biden had joined with some of his Republican colleagues to offer the administration more money to spend on crime. Biden excoriated what he dubbed the White House’s “budgeteers” for the paltry funding being offered to the FBI. “You are cutting not only the muscle, but the bone,” he told the attorney general.​
Throughout Reagan’s first two years in office, Biden frequently criticized him for shortchanging the war on crime and drugs. In June 1981, Biden spoke before a House committee hearing on budget cuts to drug enforcement. “I, personally, am getting tired of rhetoric about the war on violent crime and the war on drugs. … These types of budget cuts certainly would seem to contradict a serious effort to develop a federal drug strategy,” he said. “My patience for action in the drug arena by this administration is beginning to waiver. Just as I criticized the Carter administration for a lack of innovative ideas in this area I will criticize this administration if promises and rhetoric are not soon replaced by results,” he continued.​

In September 1982, Biden gave a nationally broadcast Democratic response to the president’s weekly radio address. He accused Reagan of “unnecessary budget cuts” to crime funding. “Violent crime is as real a threat to our national security as any foreign threat,” he said. “We have a military budget of $253 billion in 1983, and yet in 1983, we’ll spend less than $3 billion a year to fight crime.” He then called on the federal government to support “state and local police agencies by training their people and giving them more money.”
The Biden-Thurmond bill increased penalties for drugs, including expanding civil asset forfeiture; created a sentencing commission; and eradicated parole at the federal level. It sought to limit access to bail — a provision denounced by the ACLU for “revers[ing] the presumption of innocence.” After the bill passed by huge majorities in the Senate and House (with the parole and bail provisions removed by the House), a question lingered: Would the president, who had in recent months agreed to pursue crime legislation largely in line with the Biden-Thurmond bill, sign it? Reagan had a major sticking point: He opposed Biden’s desired “drug czar” position. Despite a lobbying blitz from Biden and Thurmond, which Biden memorialized in his eulogy for the South Carolina senator, and despite Biden’s support of Reagan’s tax cuts and slashing of social welfare spending, Reagan vetoed the Biden-Thurmond bill, even while advisers fretted about undermining the president’s tough on crime credentials.​
Biden, who was the ranking Democrat on the committee from 1981 to 1987, and then chaired it until 1995, continued on this trajectory: shaping many of the laws that would in a sense recreate LEAA and institutionalize a federal drug war. A number of the priorities from the 1982 Biden-Thurmond bill would eventually become law. Biden shaped the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which curtailed access to bail; eliminated parole; created a sentencing commission; expanded civil asset forfeiture; and increased funding for states. Biden helped lead the push for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which lengthened sentences for many offenses, created the infamous 100:1 crack versus cocaine sentencing disparity, and provided new funds for the escalating drug war. Eventually, with his co-sponsorship of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, his long-sought-after drug czar position was created. These and other laws lengthened sentences at the federal level and contributed to an explosion of federal imprisonment — from 24,000 people locked up in 1980 to almost 216,000 in 2013. In short, these laws increased the likelihood that more people would end up in cages and for longer.​
In 1989, Biden criticized President George Bush’s anti-drug efforts as “not tough enough, bold enough or imaginative enough. The president says he wants to wage a war on drugs, but if that’s true, what we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not a limited war, fought on the cheap.” Then, in 1994, he pushed through the massive crime bill, which authorized more than $30 billion of spending, largely devoted to expanding state prisons and local police forces. He bragged of his accomplishments in a 1994 report: The “first [national] drug strategy sought a total of $350 million in federal aid to state and local law enforcement, with states matching the federal assistance dollar for dollar. The first drug strategy I offered—in January 1990—called for more than $1 billion in aid to state and local law enforcement—a controversial view at the time.”​
As Biden pushed Republicans to spend more on policing and prisons, he was part of a wave of “New Democrats” pushing the party in evermore punitive directions. Now, with upward of one in every two families having suffered the harms of mass incarceration, Biden says he worries that “too many people are incarcerated.”​
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
You responded to a Supernav post that he tagged me in so you could cape for AOC! You didn't even address what she actually said. Then you immediately pivoted to a "what about Trump" strawman argument in a discussion that really had nothing to do with Trump or Biden and the Democrats. Just a simple discussion about her inane response, which you never even addressed (because a sitting politician shouldn't discuss political issues). :rolleyes2:



I'm not sure what you don't get about the geopolitics and history of the modern Middle East - a big part of which concerns the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 and America's massive economic and military support for that state for its own reasons of realpolitik. Regardless of whether you think it should be an issue, it remains as a major, highly contentious issue here and on a global scale.



My narrative?!?! You're entitled to your own opinion....but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Trump administration praises Obama-era Israel aid package upon launch

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration marked the beginning of the fiscal year on Monday by praising the “bipartisan” support for Israel that secured a landmark defense agreement with the Jewish state.

The $38 billion memorandum of understanding – which allocates $3.3b. in foreign military financing and $500m. in missile defense each year to Israel – was negotiated in the final year of the Obama administration and amounts to the largest aid pledge in US history.

The State Department praised the launch of the aid calendar as an example of America’s “unconditional” support for Israel’s security.

“Our implementation of this historic MoU reflects the enduring and unshakable commitment of the president, this administration, and the American people to Israel’s security,” the State Department said in a statement. “The MoU was negotiated under the previous administration, reflecting the bipartisan nature of this commitment.

“Israel is a valuable and capable ally to the United States that today faces dangerously escalating regional threats, first and foremost from the Iranian regime’s sponsorship of terrorist groups seeking to attack not only Israel but also American interests,” the statement continued. “Israel is also threatened by the reckless proliferation of destabilizing weapons systems into the region that increase the possibility of an escalated conflict in an already dangerous and volatile theater.”

President Donald Trump has frequently criticized his predecessor, Barack Obama, for allegedly imperiling Israel in his policy toward Iran – a policy that many Israelis say justified such an ambitious defense agreement.


Him tagging you in the post doesnt mean that Im responding to you if i quote him.

You knew that, but you felt your man needed help, and i guess you are a ride or die chick. So good for you.

Here are more facts on this very issue.

Obama just took a parting shot at Israel — and Trump — at the UN

The move was Obama’s parting shot at Netanyahu, with whom Obama repeatedly clashed throughout his tenure. As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem writes, although the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal.
You responded to a Supernav post that he tagged me in so you could cape for AOC! You didn't even address what she actually said. Then you immediately pivoted to a "what about Trump" strawman argument in a discussion that really had nothing to do with Trump or Biden and the Democrats. Just a simple discussion about her inane response, which you never even addressed (because a sitting politician shouldn't discuss political issues). :rolleyes2:



I'm not sure what you don't get about the geopolitics and history of the modern Middle East - a big part of which concerns the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 and America's massive economic and military support for that state for its own reasons of realpolitik. Regardless of whether you think it should be an issue, it remains as a major, highly contentious issue here and on a global scale.



My narrative?!?! You're entitled to your own opinion....but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Trump administration praises Obama-era Israel aid package upon launch

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration marked the beginning of the fiscal year on Monday by praising the “bipartisan” support for Israel that secured a landmark defense agreement with the Jewish state.

The $38 billion memorandum of understanding – which allocates $3.3b. in foreign military financing and $500m. in missile defense each year to Israel – was negotiated in the final year of the Obama administration and amounts to the largest aid pledge in US history.

The State Department praised the launch of the aid calendar as an example of America’s “unconditional” support for Israel’s security.

“Our implementation of this historic MoU reflects the enduring and unshakable commitment of the president, this administration, and the American people to Israel’s security,” the State Department said in a statement. “The MoU was negotiated under the previous administration, reflecting the bipartisan nature of this commitment.

“Israel is a valuable and capable ally to the United States that today faces dangerously escalating regional threats, first and foremost from the Iranian regime’s sponsorship of terrorist groups seeking to attack not only Israel but also American interests,” the statement continued. “Israel is also threatened by the reckless proliferation of destabilizing weapons systems into the region that increase the possibility of an escalated conflict in an already dangerous and volatile theater.”

President Donald Trump has frequently criticized his predecessor, Barack Obama, for allegedly imperiling Israel in his policy toward Iran – a policy that many Israelis say justified such an ambitious defense agreement.


1. I really dont care what she responded. The question was dumb. She has no clue how to bring peace to the middle east. No US Rep does. No outsider can solve their problems. They shouldn't be expected to. Thats what I addressed.

2. Him tagging you and me quoting him doesn't mean that Im addressing you. But you felt your man needed help and i guess you are a ride or die partner so good for you.

3. Regarding Obama... You dont get to do half ass research and think you can get away with it. Again and again Obama asked Israel to cooperate. And you wonder why Im tired of them asking the US to fix their problems.


By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber.

It was the first time in nearly 40 years that the Security Council has passed a resolution critical of Israeli settlements. It was also a firm rebuke of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had strongly argued against it, and President-elect Donald Trump, who had taken the highly unprecedented move of weighing in Thursday and pressing for the measure to be vetoed.

The move was Obama’s parting shot at Netanyahu, with whom Obama repeatedly clashed throughout his tenure. As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem writes, although the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal.

But Obama’s parting shot was also aimed at Trump, who has indicated he wants to take a much stronger pro-Israel stance. For instance, he has said he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem: a step that, as my colleague Zack Beauchamp explains, “every US government has refrained from doing because the future of the disputed city is meant to be resolved as part of direct talks between the two sides for a final status peace deal.”

And Trump’s newly named ambassador to Israel, David Friedman — who has been a personal friend of Trump’s for about 15 years — is staunchly pro-settlement.

Indeed, it seems that an unprecedented intervention by Trump himself — in the form of a personal phone call to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — is the primary reason why Egypt, which had initially sponsored the UN measure, decided on Thursday to delay the vote indefinitely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKF

BKF

Rising Star
Registered
The reality is this, many democrats were and are in favor of the wall. Many democrats understand that border security is important. It is crazy how easy it is to sneak into the U.S. and stay as compared to other countries. You can sneak into some other countries, but the odds of you staying and working for a long period of time are slim.
Thing is a lot of people aren't sneaking in. They're coming in legally and overstaying their visa.
 
Last edited:

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can.

If he only addressed one side, it's likely because he had no faith in the other side in the first place. It's very possible that he had no faith in the republicans, so he never talked about the republicans.

And the other side, the demos, the side everybody tells him he should have faith in, these guys are only showing y'all these articles and making these threads as a testament to why they are losing/have lost faith in the democrats.

But it's always going to be in vain because y'all keep deflecting.

Dude this is BGOL.

I voted for the Dems, but I aint even out here telling everyone else to do the same, or have faith, or how good they are, or any other bullshit.

FOH with this false narrative.

He's out here saying both sides are the same. Im telling him why I believe he is wrong.

Thats it period. What's wrong with me telling him why I think his opinion is wrong?

Lets play this game out.

Who did you vote for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKF

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Him tagging you in the post doesnt mean that Im responding to you if i quote him.

You knew that, but you felt your man needed help, and i guess you are a ride or die chick. So good for you.

Wow, u mad? :giggle:

Here are more facts on this very issue.

Obama just took a parting shot at Israel — and Trump — at the UN

The move was Obama’s parting shot at Netanyahu, with whom Obama repeatedly clashed throughout his tenure. As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem writes, although the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal.

You call this a "fact"? Your own article tells you that this was a "parting shot at Netanyahu."

1. I really dont care what she responded. The question was dumb. She has no clue how to bring peace to the middle east. No US Rep does. No outsider can solve their problems. They shouldn't be expected to. Thats what I addressed.

If you didn't care, then why respond? The post was about her silly response to the question. If she had no clue, then she should have said so. Or lawyered and politicked her way out of the question by saying something like "I'll be better prepared to respond when I've done more research on the issue." But it was a litmus test question and you don't understand that. Just as you don't understand that the United States has been heavily involved in Israeli and Middle Eastern politics since the end of WWII.

2. Him tagging you and me quoting him doesn't mean that Im addressing you. But you felt your man needed help and i guess you are a ride or die partner so good for you.

So mad you had to repeat the same thing, huh? :giggle:

3. Regarding Obama... You dont get to do half ass research and think you can get away with it. Again and again Obama asked Israel to cooperate. And you wonder why Im tired of them asking the US to fix their problems.


By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber.

And your own article tells you that this was a "highly symbolic measure" done as a "parting shot" to political enemies Netanyahu and Trump. Political theatre, basically. But this is the political REALITY. Money talks nigga!! And these are the "facts" you need to be concerned about. And notice that I'm posting from Israeli publications.

Netanyahu thanks Obama for ‘historic’ military aid deal
PM says $38 billion package ‘will ensure an unprecedented level of defense aid for Israel in the next decade,’ will also help US security

And since you like quoting from Vox, why not study some more before speaking as if this is just some kind of local issue as far as American interests are concerned.


 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Wow, u mad? :giggle:



You call this a "fact"? Your own article tells you that this was a "parting shot at Netanyahu."



If you didn't care, then why respond? The post was about her silly response to the question. If she had no clue, then she should have said so. Or lawyered and politicked her way out of the question by saying something like "I'll be better prepared to respond when I've done more research on the issue." But it was a litmus test question and you don't understand that. Just as you don't understand that the United States has been heavily involved in Israeli and Middle Eastern politics since the end of WWII.



So mad you had to repeat the same thing, huh? :giggle:



And your own article tells you that this was a "highly symbolic measure" done as a "parting shot" to political enemies Netanyahu and Trump. Political theatre, basically. But this is the political REALITY. Money talks nigga!! And these are the "facts" you need to be concerned about. And notice that I'm posting from Israeli publications.

Netanyahu thanks Obama for ‘historic’ military aid deal
PM says $38 billion package ‘will ensure an unprecedented level of defense aid for Israel in the next decade,’ will also help US security

And since you like quoting from Vox, why not study some more before speaking as if this is just some kind of local issue as far as American interests are concerned.


he keeps ignoring the money
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Who did you vote for?

@Supersav

We should post a list of deflections they use!
  1. So you're a Trump supporter?
  2. Then go vote for the Republicans
  3. Who did you vote for?
  4. "Fuckyouhoassniggasinceyouwon'tsuckBidensandObamasdicklikeIdocuzIcan'tthinkformyselfandsayweshouldjusttowtheDemocraticlineevenifwehavenothingtoshowforit" :D
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
@Supersav

We should post a list of deflections they use!
  1. So you're a Trump supporter?
  2. Then go vote for the Republicans
  3. Who did you vote for?
  4. "Fuckyouhoassniggasinceyouwon'tsuckBidensandObamasdicklikeIdocuzIcan'tthinkformyselfandsayweshouldjusttowtheDemocraticlineevenifwehavenothingtoshowforit" :D

Why dont you share with us why you voted for Democrats?
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
@Supersav

We should post a list of deflections they use!
  1. So you're a Trump supporter?
  2. Then go vote for the Republicans
  3. Who did you vote for?
  4. "Fuckyouhoassniggasinceyouwon'tsuckBidensandObamasdicklikeIdocuzIcan'tthinkformyselfandsayweshouldjusttowtheDemocraticlineevenifwehavenothingtoshowforit" :D
5. Yall coons
6. Why didnt you bash trump
7. They gave yall 1400 what else do you want?
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Wow, u mad? :giggle:



You call this a "fact"? Your own article tells you that this was a "parting shot at Netanyahu."



If you didn't care, then why respond? The post was about her silly response to the question. If she had no clue, then she should have said so. Or lawyered and politicked her way out of the question by saying something like "I'll be better prepared to respond when I've done more research on the issue." But it was a litmus test question and you don't understand that. Just as you don't understand that the United States has been heavily involved in Israeli and Middle Eastern politics since the end of WWII.



So mad you had to repeat the same thing, huh? :giggle:



And your own article tells you that this was a "highly symbolic measure" done as a "parting shot" to political enemies Netanyahu and Trump. Political theatre, basically. But this is the political REALITY. Money talks nigga!! And these are the "facts" you need to be concerned about. And notice that I'm posting from Israeli publications.

Netanyahu thanks Obama for ‘historic’ military aid deal
PM says $38 billion package ‘will ensure an unprecedented level of defense aid for Israel in the next decade,’ will also help US security

And since you like quoting from Vox, why not study some more before speaking as if this is just some kind of local issue as far as American interests are concerned.




Tell me, is it a fact that Obama forced the Israelis to suspend their settlement expansion?

Yes or no?
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Ok you're being disingenuous now.
I'm gonna go enjoy the rest of my day.

Disingenuous? Where did I mention ADOS or reparations or Black agenda or anything under that umbrella in this thread?

Enjoy your day but ease up on the weed smoke.
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Why dont you share with us why you voted for Democrats?

Why don't you share with me what Democrats you think I voted for and how that is relevant to this thread?

Tell me, is it a fact that Obama forced the Israelis to suspend their settlement expansion?

Yes or no?

:hithead::hithead::hithead:

Obama forced the Israelis to suspend their settlement expansion? Do you read the articles you post or do you just skim through them?

"By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber."
"Highly symbolic" are the key words here. Obama didn't force Israel to stop doing anything.

Israeli settlements have grown during the Obama years

How Barack Obama failed to stop Israeli settlements
The beginning of Obama’s failed policies in the Middle East was his inability to stop Israeli settlements.
 

Tito_Jackson

Truth Teller
Registered
Seriously that's not even close to answering my question.

And Obama wasn't President in 1946.

Try again.
You know what's being said. Stop it.

The US has been complacent in the seizure of land by the Israelis since the country was forcibly taken from the Palestinians in 1946.

As president, Obama willingly continued the tradition of silently supporting the takeover.

I have no dog in the fight. But, I do like to report and repeat accurate information.
 

ScottyPiffen745

BGOL CSI: Connoisseur of Sluts on Instagram™
Registered
Dude this is BGOL.

I voted for the Dems, but I aint even out here telling everyone else to do the same, or have faith, or how good they are, or any other bullshit.

FOH with this false narrative.

He's out here saying both sides are the same. Im telling him why I believe he is wrong.

Thats it period. What's wrong with me telling him why I think his opinion is wrong?

Lets play this game out.

Who did you vote for?

False narrative? You're in this thread right now defending the democrats with "what about the republicans?"

You want to keep pointing out specific situations and policies like the parties are going to be the same in the literal sense.

They are the same as in they're both going to do their part to maintain white supremacy and let black people claim whatever crumb ass moral victories that fall on the floor, if they even get anything at all. I bet it ain't no debunking that.

False narrative, my ass. Like every nigga on the board that ain't on Biden's dick ain't been accused of being a Trump supporter somehow or a coon. Shit, that's probably where you was about to go with your little goofy ass voting game. Like I haven't been voting democrat ever since I could vote, even in the last two elections where I didn't even want to vote because I'm tired of the crumb shit and want real progress for black people in this country. But I did it anyway. I voted SOLELY hoping someone would prove me wrong. I ain't seen it yet.

So yeah, no thank you on the game.
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
You know what's being said. Stop it.

The US has been complacent in the seizure of land by the Israelis since the country was forcibly taken from the Palestinians in 1946.

As president, Obama willingly continued the tradition of silently supporting the takeover.

I have no dog in the fight. But, I do like to report and repeat accurate information.

False.

Obama tried again and again, privately and publically, to get Israelis to stop expanding their settlements.

This is specifically why the Israelis hate him.
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Why don't you share with me what Democrats you think I voted for and how that is relevant to this thread?



:hithead::hithead::hithead:

Obama forced the Israelis to suspend their settlement expansion? Do you read the articles you post or do you just skim through them?

"By abstaining — instead of vetoing the resolution, as the United States has reliably done to similar measures for decades — the Obama administration allowed the highly symbolic measure to make it through the chamber."
"Highly symbolic" are the key words here. Obama didn't force Israel to stop doing anything.

Israeli settlements have grown during the Obama years

How Barack Obama failed to stop Israeli settlements
The beginning of Obama’s failed policies in the Middle East was his inability to stop Israeli settlements.

If both sides are the same why did you vote for Democrats?
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Because so much Jew money is tied up in the US
economy that the US will always protect Israel no matter what.
Or because the US relies on israel as a proxy in that region. Ok so if you know this then you should also know that Obama like any other president has to kiss their ass. So like @VAiz4hustlaz said to you earlier that settlement talk was theater
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Or because the US relies on israel as a proxy in that region. Ok so if you know this then you should also know that Obama like any other president has to kiss their ass. So like @VAiz4hustlaz said to you earlier that settlement talk was theater

Dude, that doesnt mean that Obama didnt work towards peace between them and Palestine. He tried and it didnt matter because at the end of the day Israel will do what they want.

And now you see why I said Im sick of Jews asking Americans to find a solution to the Israeli/Palestine war. The US cant make it happen. Its not possible for an outsider to make it happen.

You posting that shit shows more about them then it does about AOC. You find her dumb, thats fine, but this wasnt it.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Dude, that doesnt mean that Obama didnt work towards peace between them and Palestine. He tried and it didnt matter because at the end of the day Israel will do what they want.

And now you see why I said Im sick of Jews asking Americans to find a solution to the Israeli/Palestine war. The US cant make it happen. Its not possible for an outsider to make it happen.

You posting that shit shows more about them then it does about AOC. You find her dumb, thats fine, but this wasnt it.

Obama’s actual record over his eight years in office makes him one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents since Harry S Truman. Obama has given Israel considerably more money and arms than any of his predecessors. He has fully lived up to America’s formal commitment to preserve Israel’s “qualitative military edge” by supplying his ally with ever more sophisticated weapons systems. His parting gift to Israel was a staggering military aid package of $38bn for the next 10 years. This represents an increase from the current $3.1 to $3.8bn per annum. It is also the largest military aid package from one country to another in the annals of human history
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Obama’s actual record over his eight years in office makes him one of the most pro-Israeli American presidents since Harry S Truman. Obama has given Israel considerably more money and arms than any of his predecessors. He has fully lived up to America’s formal commitment to preserve Israel’s “qualitative military edge” by supplying his ally with ever more sophisticated weapons systems. His parting gift to Israel was a staggering military aid package of $38bn for the next 10 years. This represents an increase from the current $3.1 to $3.8bn per annum. It is also the largest military aid package from one country to another in the annals of human history

Read the whole article.


The relationship was marked by one conflict after another, a reflection of not just personal differences but deeply held and diverging policy objectives of the men and their countries. Mr. Obama’s demand that Israel suspend new settlements to enter negotiations infuriated Mr. Netanyahu. The announcement of new construction in East Jerusalem while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was visiting infuriated Mr. Obama. Two major pushes for negotiations by Mr. Obama unraveled amid mistrust and animosity.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Read the whole article.


The relationship was marked by one conflict after another, a reflection of not just personal differences but deeply held and diverging policy objectives of the men and their countries. Mr. Obama’s demand that Israel suspend new settlements to enter negotiations infuriated Mr. Netanyahu. The announcement of new construction in East Jerusalem while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was visiting infuriated Mr. Obama. Two major pushes for negotiations by Mr. Obama unraveled amid mistrust and animosity.
lmao
 
Top