The letter to Iran from republicans in the senate...

BedellBrave said:
Now did the ones bitching the loudest about this, defend Pelosi? Be interesting to dig up an old thread or two, but I suppose that'd mean going over to the Pulpit and it ain't worth the effort. Maybe you guys can tell me where you landed when Pelosi went...
Click to expand...

from RealClear Politics January 2015

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill finds any analogy between Boehner’s Bibi invite and Pelosi’s Syria trip to be nonsense. Pelosi didn’t blindside Bush. Foggy Bottom helped plan the trip. Besides, the White House failed to criticize three Republicans who went to Damascus a week earlier, which in Hammill’ view makes Pelosi’s detractors “hypocrites.”
///////////////

Last I checked"Foggy Bottom" is a nickname given the Department of State which if I'm not mistaken was an arm of the Bush 43 administration.
correct me if I am wrong

////

One more reach of hey, "they all suck" today and I will scream.

Everytime a false equivalency is floated by the right it muddles the dialogue and invariably the conversation takes a permanent rightward bend.
Because the conversation gets muddled over RW talking points
No, Pelosi's trip and Boehners backhanded invite are not even close to being an apples to apples comparison.
Let alone the unprecedented letter from a 60 day Senator.
By the way, why Cotton ? Why not Oren Hatch or McCain or Lindsey (never sent an email ) Graham
"I know, we'll make the new kid do it"
What a childish event

But hey the 2 party system is broken and both parties are the same
 
Well you guys certainly don't disappoint me (I mean after all "it's no fun kicking a dead fish" as the saying goes). Y'all's "righteous" indignation is cute.

Responded about the way I expected. Dang you guys are predictable.

"My guys are better than your guys"

Or Hawk's classic,

"Rs got more bad guys than the Ds but whatevs"

Z had the best response in the thread thus far.
 
BedellBrave said:
Now did the ones bitching the loudest about this, defend Pelosi?
Click to expand...

Don't recall if I did then or not. I turned 21 since then and lots of things changed :elefant:

But yeah she was wrong to go to Syria and tell Assad that Israel's PM wants peace, 100% wrong. I'll jail Pelosi if you jail all the republican senators?
 
BedellBrave said:
Why jail any of them? What fun would that be? And some of them might like some of the action in prison anyway...
Click to expand...

They broke the law, why not send a clear and concise message. If they spend 1-3 years in jail, no one in the house or Senate will do this again.
 
BedellBrave said:
Well you guys certainly don't disappoint me (I mean after all "it's no fun kicking a dead fish" as the saying goes). Y'all's "righteous" indignation is cute.

Responded about the way I expected. Dang you guys are predictable.

"My guys are better than your guys"

Or Hawk's classic,

"Rs got more bad guys than the Ds but whatevs"

Z had the best response in the thread thus far.
Click to expand...

Sooooooo . . . on its merits? Self-aggrandizing, patronizing horse**** move, or not?
 
Some republican aides came out and said they thought it would a cheeky way to respond to the president

These republican jokesters. Hilarious
 
"Thanks Obama "

“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,”
.....

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

......

(R) fear appears to be that should there be a deal it might be a good one --- then we get no "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran "
and the fact Obama might get credit for a peaceful solution.

So in effect what (R) has attempted is a diplomatic Government Shut Down (another Beach Boy reference -- I'm ona roll)
Since the financial one worked so well --

who votes for these people ??
who puts these people in decision making positions ??
 
BedellBrave said:
Or Hawk's classic,

"Rs got more bad guys than the Ds but whatevs"
Click to expand...

First of all let me say that I condemn anyone and everyone who puts their own personal ambition over the good of the nation, but you know we've played this game for years. The Dems say/do something stupid and the Repub arm of the media is all over them calling them idiots, cowards, traitors, whatever, say they should be punished (which is probably true technically speaking) then later, a few days to a few years the Repubs say/do something stupid and the Dem army of the media gets on them and rather than see a dumb action/statement is dumb it's like "well you guys did it too and you didn't get in trouble for it". Why can't we agree, dumb is dumb, doing something under the (very flimsy) guise of patriotism and love of country, when all you're REALLY doing is trying to make a name for yourself and further your own career in politics is what it is. This is exactly what Scott Walker did in WI and he was a rock star to Repubs and still is in many Repub circles. Why can't you see it when it's the other side?

What did Sam Houston say about Jefferson Davis? He said he was as cold as a snake and as ambitious as Lucifer. Does this sound like any politicians (Dem or Repub) you know? Dumb is dumb, bad is bad, evil is evil. Did you ever see the movie The Dead Zone (from the Stephen King book, starring Christopher Walken)?? Remember the politician in that movie played by Martin Sheen if memory serves, Greg Stillson? That IS Tom Cotton, IMO. But, as you say "whatevs". This is just "the party of morality" doing what they do.
 
Getting back to policy.
I read this NYT article from Monday and it really puzzles me just what exactly they expected to accomplish.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ns-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html?_r=2

Click related article

This last paragraph:
" Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said. ""

Meaning to me, even if any (D) legislators agreed with the 47 by making it a partisan issue Obama will get what he wants.

Another reading is, the 47 are itching for conflict. Some are wondering who pushed this -- as in what donors .
Still curious why McConnell - McCain etal had Cotton lead this.
////
" First of all let me say that I condemn anyone and everyone who puts their own personal ambition over the good of the nation, but you know we've played this game for years."
Hawk you been reading this stuff for years and know that the Senate is made up of 100 people that see the next President in the mirror every morning :)
 
57Brave said:
Getting back to policy.

I read this NYT article from Monday and it really puzzles me just what exactly they expected to accomplish.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ns-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html?_r=2

Click related article

This last paragraph:

" Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said. ""

Meaning to me, even if any (D) legislators agreed with the 47 by making it a partisan issue Obama will get what he wants.

Another reading is, the 47 are itching for conflict. Some are wondering who pushed this -- as in what donors .

Still curious why McConnell - McCain etal had Cotton lead this.

////

" First of all let me say that I condemn anyone and everyone who puts their own personal ambition over the good of the nation, but you know we've played this game for years."

Hawk you been reading this stuff for years and know that the Senate is made up of 100 people that see the next President in the mirror every morning :)
Click to expand...

The Repubs are, right now, precisely where the Dems were in the mid-late 80's. The Repubs, under Lord Reagan and Bush 41 ran the country. The Dems countered with Mondale, Ferraro, and Dukakis, and the only one of those with any balls to attack the Repub positions on anything was Geraldine. The Repubs know they hate Obama, honestly more than any party has ever hated a president IMO, but they don't really know what to do about it. Who have they had to challenge the Dems lately, Palin? Bachman? Rafael Cruz? Jindal? Huck? McCain? Mitt? Tom Cotton sees an opportunity to step up at take the lead, and who knows what else? I can see their point, I've been hoping for a Repub, who's actually worth something, to step and take the lead for years, but all I ever get are "prima donnas", attention whores, and wanna-be mediums who try to channel Reagan's ghost so they can maybe latch onto some of his popularity.

Just because someone is willing to stand up and make noise doesn't mean they're a good leader or a good person, just like because a person who isn't into confrontation for confrontation's (and ambition's) sake doesn't mean they're a bad leader. Flash over substance is never a good idea IMO
 
I think it was a smart political move. Nobody actually believes Iran will stick to any deal. This is a way for certain politicians to say I told you so down the road.

It's incredibly naive to think that this letter would in any way effect the Iran negotiations. Obama wants it done so he can add something to his legacy and Iran wants it done so they can keep stalling. Lots of fake outrage on this one.
 
weso1 said:
I think it was a smart political move. Nobody actually believes Iran will stick to any deal. This is a way for certain politicians to say I told you so down the road.

It's incredibly naive to think that this letter would in any way effect the Iran negotiations. Obama wants it done so he can add something to his legacy and Iran wants it done so they can keep stalling. Lots of fake outrage on this one.
Click to expand...

Political move for ambition's sake?

EDIT: Oh and I agree with you about Iran, they aren't going to keep any agreement they make, with Dems or Repubs. If you'll recall their last president, Akkserelmsflsdmfksdidad, actually believed he was the guy from Islamic prophecy who was supposed to usher in the 12th Imam. Those people are crazier than Glenn Beck, there's no way in hell you can trust anything they say.
 
BedellBrave said:
Well you guys certainly don't disappoint me (I mean after all "it's no fun kicking a dead fish" as the saying goes). Y'all's "righteous" indignation is cute.

Responded about the way I expected. Dang you guys are predictable.

"My guys are better than your guys"

Or Hawk's classic,

"Rs got more bad guys than the Ds but whatevs"

Z had the best response in the thread thus far.
Click to expand...

You rolled em right up, Bedell. One of those classic issues where the outrage depends strictly on your point of view. And the Pelosi example is perfect.
 
I have been hearing impending doom over Iranian nukes since 1980.

The economic sanctions are having an effect , any deal is to be monitored by the international community and the key word is verifiable.

Let me think, who else has a nuke in the Middle East ---- wouldn't be another

The issue of Iran keeping their word -- didn't we once hear the same story about another Mid East country that began with an I ?
Funny thing is the same people trumpeting that rush to judgement are the same people ...
/////////////////

Why is everyone so certain Iran won't hold up their end ???
 
weso1 said:
You rolled em right up, Bedell. One of those classic issues where the outrage depends strictly on your point of view. And the Pelosi example is perfect.
Click to expand...

An apples to oranges comparison. Two totally different situations and two totally different subjects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top