• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama shows up to casually threaten Britain, should they vote Brexit

You realize you can be an American citizen and still represent the interests of another state?

You realize that you can promote a position supporting a foreign state without being its representative I hope.

My "fascism"? Im a "fascist" now because I think AIPAC should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

Are you asking what fascism is? Because calling American citizens "foreign agents" due to them lobbying for government policies you disapprove of does seem like that. AIPAC doesn't receive financing from any foreign nation and doesn't receive orders from any foreign government, so it's crystal clear you merely call it so because they promote Israeli-American relations which you are against, and thus yes, because of your fascist values that you attempt to hide just as many other far-left extremists do.
 
You realize that you can promote a position supporting a foreign state without being its representative I hope.
This is a little different than just "promoting a position" this is literally a group that is "pro" another country...

Are you asking what fascism is? Because calling American citizens "foreign agents"
Re-read the post you are referring to: "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress... *Small wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them—Help AIPAC.”

Agents for a foreign government, not "foreign agents".


due to them lobbying for government policies you disapprove of does seem like that.
Even if I called them "foreign agents" that does not make me or someone a fascist.

AIPAC doesn't receive financing from any foreign nation and doesn't receive orders from any foreign government,
Yea its founder just originally worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and AIPAC was essentially formed out of the American Zionist Council to avoid being registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act :roll: AIPAC was established with funds from the Israeli government http://www.irmep.org/IRSAIPAC.pdf And we also cant forget that the Israeli Government had AIPAC officials work as spies for them (See the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal). And they totally dont recieve orders, I mean they just take US politicians on trips to Israel through the The American Israel Education Foundation where they receive seminars on Israel and Israeli politics :roll:

so it's crystal clear you merely call it so because they promote Israeli-American relations which you are against,
Im not against Israeli-American relations. I think we should have relations with the nation of Israel.

and thus yes, because of your fascist values that you attempt to hide just as many other far-left extremists do.
What "fascist values"? You do realize you just used contradictory terms here? You label me "a far left extremist" but I'm also a "fascist", a far right ideology? Hmmm....
 
This is a little different than just "promoting a position" this is literally a group that is "pro" another country...

And your point is? Being pro-another-country is holding a position. You have groups in the US that are pro-Iran and aren't "agents of a foreign government". Iran is not a US ally, Israel is, which really is irrelevant as both cases are not cases of being "agents of foreign governments" - that very assertion is ridiculous and you're only making it because AIPAC holds a position you are obssessively against - hence your fascism that dictates people with differing views than yours should be treated differently by the state.

Re-read the post you are referring to: "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress... *Small wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them—Help AIPAC.”

Agents for a foreign government, not "foreign agents".

Semantics. Calling them agents for a foreign government when they're American citizens promoting a political cause you disapprove of is awful TDS.

Even if I called them "foreign agents" that does not make me or someone a fascist.

Yea its founder just originally worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and AIPAC was essentially formed out of the American Zionist Council to avoid being registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act :roll: AIPAC was established with funds from the Israeli government http://www.irmep.org/IRSAIPAC.pdf And we also cant forget that the Israeli Government had AIPAC officials work as spies for them (See the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal). And they totally dont recieve orders, I mean they just take US politicians on trips to Israel through the The American Israel Education Foundation where they receive seminars on Israel and Israeli politics :roll:

You're really saying a lot but do you have any real argument here? You're saying that the previous organization was supposed to be registered under the FARA, meaning not AIPAC, you're saying its founder used to work for Israel, meaning doesn't work, you're saying the previous organization was funded first by Israel, which AIPAC isn't, so what exactly is your claim here? Can't you just say the obvious - I hate Israel and thus I think the state should treat this organization that says things I don't like to hear differently? That would be much more respectable you know.

Im not against Israeli-American relations. I think we should have relations with the nation of Israel.

Yeah only on your terms.

What "fascist values"? You do realize you just used contradictory terms here? You label me "a far left extremist" but I'm also a "fascist", a far right ideology? Hmmm....

The contradiction exists only if you're not seeing it for what it is. Many far-left extremists are sharing the mindset of their corresponding extremists from the far-right that views opposing theirs should be banned or challenged in one way or another. It's like how you say you're for human rights but several months ago you've argued in this Europe sub-forum that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terror organizations supplying some silly argument about who recognizes them as such and who doesn't, and how you've claimed more than once that throwing stones is a legitimate act or downplayed it as "child's play" or backed the PLO financial support for Palestinian terrorists' families claiming it's legitimate or many other views that put you on the other end of the scale far from the "human rights fighter" picture you want people to get from you. It's really a thing, extremists will always be supportive of immoral positions and holders of immoral agendas because they are extremists, whether far-left or far-right.
 
And your point is?
They are essentially putting Israel as priority number one. America is not priority number one. Israel is and Israel interests.

Semantics. Calling them agents for a foreign government when they're American citizens
Again, being labeled a "agent for a foreign government" does not mean your not an American citizen....

promoting a political cause you disapprove of is awful TDS.
Since I quoted someone who said, ""The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government," its somehow like this quote is the worst thing ever. Yea I openly disapprove AIPAC and one of the reasons why I disapprove of AIPAC is because they promote Israeli far right policies, they are a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, they openly brag about how they procure billions and billions in aid for Israel from congress, they hold Congress feet to the fire if they dare speak out against Israel or vote against some of their policies, they simply are a de facto agent for a foreign government that has obtained millions and millions all spread throughout the many PACS they run.


You're really saying a lot but do you have any real argument here? You're saying that the previous organization was supposed to be registered under the FARA, meaning not AIPAC,
Do you not understand? They essentially refiled their tax paperwork and simply just changed names.... Same organization, different name.


": The ongoing Jewish Agency conduit payments through the AZC to Kenen for lobbying reveal the AZCPA wasreally a “sham” organization. When the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) finally incorporated, itshould have claimed its major funders—the AZC and Jewish Agency—as its predecessor organizations. Instead, theAIPAC claimed the sham AZCPA as a predecessor."

you're saying its founder used to work for Israel, meaning doesn't work,
Lets see what the founder said of AIPAC:
""The lobby for Israel, known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 1959, came into existence in 1951. It was established at that time because Israel needed American economic assistance to enable her to absorb the huge influx of refugees who poured into the country soon after statehood."

And lets see what else he said about AIPAC: In his biography "Israel's Defense Line", Kenen revealed his transition to an unregistered lobbyist for Israel:"Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation … would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby on Capitol Hill? There were other questions. Should I continue my registration as an agent of the Israel government? Was it appropriate for an embassy to lobby? Embassies talked to the State Department, and American voters talked to their congressmen." http://www.irmep.org/irsaipac.pdf


you're saying the previous organization was funded first by Israel, which AIPAC isn't, so what exactly is your claim here?
Lets see here. The founder of AIPAC stating that the AIPAC was actually founded in 1951, thus essentially verifying what I stated earlier that the American Zionist Council was essentially AIPAC, we have the founder of AIPAC also stating that the whole purpose of AIPAC was founded to lobby America on Israel's behalf and Israel essentially also help found it, and we also have a money trail on how money was laundered to AIPAC from the Israeli gov...

Can't you just say the obvious - I hate Israel and thus I think the state should treat this organization that says things I don't like to hear differently? That would be much more respectable you know.
:lamo


Yeah only on your terms.
Sure, I think our relationship needs to be reformed. Still invalidates your claim.
 
The contradiction exists only if you're not seeing it for what it is. Many far-left extremists are sharing the mindset of their corresponding extremists from the far-right that views opposing theirs should be banned or challenged in one way or another.
So your'e completely misusing the word "fascist" here. And its a strawman. Its like saying, "well some left wingers are against the current borders of Israel and Neo-Nazis are against Israel so therefore all left wingers are Nazis".

It's like how you say you're for human rights but several months ago you've argued in this Europe sub-forum that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terror organizations supplying some silly argument about who recognizes them as such and who doesn't, and how you've claimed more than once that throwing stones is a legitimate act or downplayed it as "child's play" or backed the PLO financial support for Palestinian terrorists' families claiming it's legitimate or many other views that put you on the other end of the scale far from the "human rights fighter" picture you want people to get from you.
So I'm a "fascist" because I view Hamas's military wing as a terrorist organization but dont view their social wing as one? So I'm a "fascist" because I dont view throwing stones as a "terrorist act"? I'm a "fascist" because I view the stipend given to families of those who carried out what is deemed as terrorist acts while their primary breadwinner is in jail as not "terrorist enabling"? Im a fascist because you dont like my "human rights" stances?

It's really a thing, extremists will always be supportive of immoral positions and holders of immoral agendas because they are extremists, whether far-left or far-right.
So now fascism is just a word for "extremist"?
 
They are essentially putting Israel as priority number one. America is not priority number one. Israel is and Israel interests.

Which again is your insertion.
It's not even a logical thing to say because there never was an actual American interest that the official AIPAC position was against. The more you talk about this subject the more you should realize that you're really just opposing AIPAC because it's a bunch of American citizens with views that go against yours. Learn to live with it.

Again, being labeled a "agent for a foreign government" does not mean your not an American citizen....

Irrelevant to the fact that accusing a fellow citizen of being "an agent for a foreign government" just for stating a position you oppose is awful.

Since I quoted someone who said, ""The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government," its somehow like this quote is the worst thing ever. Yea I openly disapprove AIPAC and one of the reasons why I disapprove of AIPAC is because they promote Israeli far right policies, they are a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, they openly brag about how they procure billions and billions in aid for Israel from congress, they hold Congress feet to the fire if they dare speak out against Israel or vote against some of their policies, they simply are a de facto agent for a foreign government that has obtained millions and millions all spread throughout the many PACS they run.

Nonsense, AIPAC promotes basic and obvious core pro-Israeli positions that even the left-wing in Israel are promoting such as the Zionist Union party, you're being hysterical by calling them "promoters of Israeli far-right positions", you merely see it as far-right because you come from the extreme and radical far-left and anything that isn't anti-Israeli down to its very core is "far-right Israeli positions" in your eyes, such as the very righteous belief that Israel has a right to defend itself from its enemies.

Again you've failed to prove they're a "mouthpiece for the Israeli government" and you simply continue to make these baseless arguments but as I've proven before your arguments are practically nonexistant and you were unable to provide a single logical statement that should let us begin to understand what is your excuse for wanting to have the government treat AIPAC as such. AIPAC doesn't receive funds from Israel and doesn't take orders from Israel so you're just being consistently wrong and that's awful. AIPAC is a legitimate American lobby group and you should learn to live with it instead of pointlessly trying to deligitimize it as what it is.

They essentially refiled their tax paperwork and simply just changed names.... Same organization, different name.

Does it occur to you that they're allowed to do so? AIPAC, once formed, was never under an Israeli government payroll - which basically should tell you loud and clear that you have no point. Not even close to having one.

Lets see what the founder said of AIPAC:
""The lobby for Israel, known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 1959, came into existence in 1951. It was established at that time because Israel needed American economic assistance to enable her to absorb the huge influx of refugees who poured into the country soon after statehood."

Really now, so AIPAC does receive orders from Israel? Oh wait - it doesn't? So what exactly do you want to achieve here? Either show they receive orders from Israel and/or are funded by Israel or you can't claim that it should be registered under FARA. It's quite simple. I understand the obssession and the need to oppose a group of people due to their positions - wait, I really don't - but do realize that you're wasting time trying to argue it should be registered under FARA when you know it's a damn fact they aren't answering the conditions.

Lets see here. The founder of AIPAC stating that the AIPAC was actually founded in 1951, thus essentially verifying what I stated earlier that the American Zionist Council was essentially AIPAC, we have the founder of AIPAC also stating that the whole purpose of AIPAC was founded to lobby America on Israel's behalf and Israel essentially also help found it, and we also have a money trail on how money was laundered to AIPAC from the Israeli gov

It was AIPAC, point is that it isn't AIPAC, AIPAC is AIPAC and AIPAC doesn't receive orders from Israel as we speak and doesn't receive money from Israel as we speak and cannot possibly be registered under FARA and your claims are empty and as such we continue this waste of time discussing that which you want to be reality and not that whcih, you know, actually is.

Sure, I think our relationship needs to be reformed. Still invalidates your claim.

Does it? Does it really?
 
So your'e completely misusing the word "fascist" here. And its a strawman.

Only if you're misusing the word strawman.

Its like saying, "well some left wingers are against the current borders of Israel and Neo-Nazis are against Israel so therefore all left wingers are Nazis".

No, that would be idiotic. It's like saying hey these guys may be socialists but they believe in the race theory and want to see a German conquest that would end in German world domination. Guess what these views they're promoting are.

You can be a declared far-leftist who argues for some form of socialism and still hold positions that are rooted in far-right values.

So I'm a "fascist" because I view Hamas's military wing as a terrorist organization but dont view their social wing as one? So I'm a "fascist" because I dont view throwing stones as a "terrorist act"? I'm a "fascist" because I view the stipend given to families of those who carried out what is deemed as terrorist acts while their primary breadwinner is in jail as not "terrorist enabling"? Im a fascist because you dont like my "human rights" stances?

No, that just makes you a terror-supporter. Get with the program. If you wanted the definition of a strawman argument well this is it. Your expectation that the state will act in some manner against positions you do not like is that which is fascist. I've given the rest as examples of how you're also holding anti-human-rights positions while claiming to be a human rights activist.

So now fascism is just a word for "extremist"?

Fascism is a radical ideology.
 
Meanwhile, back on topic, Brexit is looking ever more unlikely. Thanks Obama! (Though it was on the slide before his comment.)

ChCy_tsW4AAGNhd.jpg:large
 
Your comment is highly unnecessary, I was drawing a line differring between lobbying for a cause, in this case lobbying for Israel, and being a foreign agent - which was what TDS had claimed it to be. Even if the cause is relations with a foreign entity the cause belongs to citizens of the state and it is highly legitimate to attempt to influence government policy towards that cause.
I do not see any sugarcoating in my post.

Of course you don't see any sugarcoating in your posts, for people are rarely aware or willing to admit of their prejudices or biases.

Israel isn't a cause; it's a foreign country. No matter how close of an American ally it is, its interests will inevitably diverge from those of the U.S, and the Israeli geopolitical and ideological reality only exacerbates that inevitability.

The conclusion takes us back to your original comment and my response to it. AIPAC can't be a pro-Israel lobby and advocate for Israeli-American relations; that's just verbal camouflage. To reiterate, don't defend something that compels you to resort to such obfuscation - either renounce it or fully endorse it. Foreign agents are what AIPAC comprises, but since it overtly operates within the limits of the law, neither Israel nor the Jewish lobby - but the country that admits of it - is to blame for it.
 
Of course you don't see any sugarcoating in your posts, for people are rarely aware or willing to admit of their prejudices or biases.

I've seen none because there was none. It is quite obvious that this would have been your answer regardless of what the reality was - whether I was sugarcoating anything or not - so I'm afraid your assertion is highly irrelevant.

Israel isn't a cause; it's a foreign country. No matter how close of an American ally it is, its interests will inevitably diverge from those of the U.S, and the Israeli geopolitical and ideological reality only exacerbates that inevitability.

You are wrong to suggest it's impossible for citizens of one nation to be interested in better relations between their nation and another nation.
Citizens of the state can advocate for whatever foreign policy they're willing for, that's definitely a cause.

The conclusion takes us back to your original comment and my response to it. AIPAC can't be a pro-Israel lobby and advocate for Israeli-American relations; that's just verbal camouflage.

One is a result of the other. If they were not pro-Israeli - why would they advocate for Israeli-American relations? And vice versa. But I do wonder what makes you think in such twisted manners and actually believe that the two are mutually exclusive. Is it not obvious that the American lobby group lobbying for American-Iranian relations is pro-Iranian?

To reiterate, don't defend something that compels you to resort to such obfuscation - either renounce it or fully endorse it. Foreign agents are what AIPAC comprises, but since it overtly operates within the limits of the law, neither Israel nor the Jewish lobby - but the country that admits of it - is to blame for it.

The FARA that defines foreign agents in the US states clearly the organization has to be under a foreign entity's payroll and/or be placed under the command of officials from a foreign entity. Neither is true for AIPAC, as such they cannot be labeled as "foreign agents". It's quite simple you must agree. We're speaking of American citizens who advocate for a government policy, in this case a foreign policy that is supportive of Israel. A foreign agent is first and foremost a body/individual that is controlled by a foreign entity, you can't just use the term on anyone who willingly promotes issues that are supportive of another country.
 
Last edited:
Haha, but he insists he's not trying to influence the British Vote!!! How embarrassing for him. Whoever wrote in the script that he's not trying to influence the British vote should be fired.

He may have written it himself, and I agree.
 
:lamo Netanyahu thinks thats funny...
Obama certainly didn't think it funny when his goofy and dangerous Iran deal was criticized. Obama's Netanyahu Comments Reflect Ugly Double Standard for Israel | US News Opinion

Look at his comments:
"Those championing that effort have repeatedly said Britain would negotiate on its own with the U.S. on trade agreements. Not so fast, Obama said.
“I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a U.K.-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done,” he said. “The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue.”

-You leave the EU America is still going to be wanting to be negotiating with the EU when it comes to economic trade deals mainly because the EU is a bigger piece of the world economy rather than just the UK alone. UK wont be priority number one when it comes to "free trade agreements". Call it whatever you want, call it "trying to swing an election" or call it "being pissed off", I think its simply called "potential policy repercussions".[/QUOTE]The next President, no matter who it is, will be much brighter than Barrack Obama. They'll decide the policy, not this lame duck.
 
Which again is your insertion.
It's not even a logical thing to say because there never was an actual American interest that the official AIPAC position was against. The more you talk about this subject the more you should realize that you're really just opposing AIPAC because it's a bunch of American citizens with views that go against yours. Learn to live with it.
:doh It was literally founded as an organization for Israel to lobby.



Irrelevant to the fact that accusing a fellow citizen of being "an agent for a foreign government" just for stating a position you oppose is awful.
:lamo Its so "irrelevant" that you kept on bringing up the fact that they are "American citizens"...


Nonsense, AIPAC promotes basic and obvious core pro-Israeli positions that even the left-wing in Israel are promoting such as the Zionist Union party, you're being hysterical by calling them "promoters of Israeli far-right positions", you merely see it as far-right because you come from the extreme and radical far-left and anything that isn't anti-Israeli down to its very core is "far-right Israeli positions" in your eyes, such as the very righteous belief that Israel has a right to defend itself from its enemies.
What "left wing positions"?



Does it occur to you that they're allowed to do so? AIPAC, once formed, was never under an Israeli government payroll - which basically should tell you loud and clear that you have no point. Not even close to having one.
The fact they "are allowed to do so" is completely irrelevant in this discussion


Again you've failed to prove they're a "mouthpiece for the Israeli government" and you simply continue to make these baseless arguments but as I've proven before your arguments are practically nonexistant and you were unable to provide a single logical statement that should let us begin to understand what is your excuse for wanting to have the government treat AIPAC as such.
Really now, so AIPAC does receive orders from Israel? Oh wait - it doesn't? So what exactly do you want to achieve here? Either show they receive orders from Israel and/or are funded by Israel or you can't claim that it should be registered under FARA. It's quite simple. I understand the obssession and the need to oppose a group of people due to their positions - wait, I really don't - but do realize that you're wasting time trying to argue it should be registered under FARA when you know it's a damn fact they aren't answering the conditions.

Funny how you ignored this: "And lets see what else he said about AIPAC: In his biography "Israel's Defense Line", Kenen revealed his transition to an unregistered lobbyist for Israel:"Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation … would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby on Capitol Hill? There were other questions. Should I continue my registration as an agent of the Israel government? Was it appropriate for an embassy to lobby? Embassies talked to the State Department, and American voters talked to their congressmen." http://www.irmep.org/irsaipac.pdf "

It was AIPAC, point is that it isn't AIPAC, AIPAC is AIPAC and AIPAC doesn't receive orders from Israel as we speak and doesn't receive money from Israel as we speak and cannot possibly be registered under FARA and your claims are empty and as such we continue this waste of time discussing that which you want to be reality and not that whcih, you know, actually is.
Wow.... :doh


Does it? Does it really?
Yup
 
Meanwhile, back on topic, Brexit is looking ever more unlikely. Thanks Obama! (Though it was on the slide before his comment.)


He came, he saw, he went. But did he conquer?

...The first opinion-poll results on President Obama’s intervention in the Brexit debate since he left London for Germany and the EU summit have now been published. They show two things of interest: a small movement toward the Leave campaign, and a clear majority of voters who disapproved of the president’s intervention. Of four polls, all four shifted toward Leave, by between one and four percentage points. That still left Remain ahead in two polls, and Leave in the other two (but by smaller numbers, in or close to the margin of error). Probably the fairest interpretation is that Remain is slightly ahead but Leave is closing a small gap and that Obama helped to close it further.

Disapproval of Obama’s intervention is far clearer, however. Majorities of 55 and 60 percent were critical. This popular response was expressed in a cartoon of Obama seated opposite the Queen at a Palace dining table, saying airily, “She’ll have the fish” — as the Queen winces and the butler staggers back in horror. But Obama is popular in Britain, and this reaction was not very harsh. It seems to have focused on his arrogance in telling the Brits that if they left the EU and wanted a separate U.S.-U.K. trade deal, they would have to go to the back of “the queue.” That word is a Britishism that commentators immediately cited as evidence that the speech had been written in Downing Street. It wasn’t personal arrogance so much as calculated pressure from both governments.....
 
So your President follows the British government (and majority) line, and is lambasted in the "anti" press? Thanks Obama.
 
Remain campaign maintains gain. Britain shrugs off "casual threat".

" The campaign for Britain to stay in the European Union retained its lead for a second consecutive week, according to a TNS online poll on Wednesday which put the "In" camp on 39 percent against 36 percent for the "Out" campaign.

The previous such TNS poll had "In" on 38 percent and "Out" on 34 percent.

It was the first TNS polling completed since U.S. President Barack Obama urged Britain last month to stay inside the 28-member bloc, an appeal which TNS said had not caused a significant shift in opinion.

"We are now starting to see the 'Remain' campaign edge into a lead, although without a major boost which some may have predicted following (Obama's visit)," said Luke Taylor, Head of Social and Political Attitudes at TNS UK. ..."

UK 'In' camp retains lead ahead of EU referendum: TNS poll | Reuters
 
Back
Top Bottom