Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/how-not-to-do-diplomacy/




Damn shame that there are idiots out there who actually support these sleezy scumbags.

"Any agreement you make with Obama won't matter because we have the ball and he has to go home soon anyways!"

Yeah, acting like spoiled insolent children, but that's been the attitude towards Obama for years

edit: I know it won't happen, but it would be hilarious if the DOJ goes after them

Originally posted by Robtard
"Any agreement you make with Obama won't matter because we have the ball and he has to go home soon anyways!"

Yeah, acting like spoiled insolent children, but that's been the attitude towards Obama for years

edit: I know it won't happen, but it would be hilarious if the DOJ goes after them

Isn't that what he did to congress with immigration?

The constitution says what it says for a reason. Unless congress is supposed to not uphold the constitution in your opinion.

Also DOJ cannot go after Congressional members for upholding constitutional conflicts because the parties dont agree.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Isn't that what he did to congress with immigration?

The constitution says what it says for a reason. Unless congress is supposed to not uphold the constitution in your opinion.

Also DOJ cannot go after Congressional members for upholding constitutional conflicts because the parties dont agree.


Is it? Seems it's still under review.

So you're saying these congressional Republicans did this because of the Constitution? Not following you here.

See above.

And the clown show continues...

So Hilary didn't break the law even thought she clearly didn't and its passed off as "oh I didn't know!?" But the senators did break it when it's within their powers given by constitution?

Hahahahaha

Rob you clearly gone mad.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So Hilary didn't break the law even thought she clearly didn't and its passed off as "oh I didn't know!?" But the senators did break it when it's within their powers given by constitution?

Hahahahaha

Rob you clearly gone mad.

1. Hillary did not break the law because it was not passed until a year after she was no longer in office.

2. These 47 did break the law because what they did is not within their Constitutional authority.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So Hilary didn't break the law even thought she clearly didn't

She clearly didn't

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1. Hillary did not break the law because it was not passed until a year after she was no longer in office.

2. These 47 did break the law because what they did is not within their Constitutional authority.

Wrong you have no idea what you are taking about.

Little history lesson Hilary was one of the lawyers the prosecuted Nixon for his hiding recorded tapes. She was also the one who went after Colin Powell for his email and she went after Bush openly for White House secret emails as well.

2. Nancy Pelosi went and vosted Syria during the Bush Administration when he was not on speaking terms with them.

Again you are off point and on the wrong side. Look up the laws and past discrepancies before you open your mouth.

Originally posted by Lestov16
She clearly didn't

Clearly she did. Are you high? Why are her computers being investigated and she has already admitted she didn't follow the rules.

I'm just saying what you said.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm just saying what you said.

Yea and I guess you think her taking donations from foreign countries is A-ok too. Hmm do you stand for anything?

Thought so.. clown

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So Hilary didn't break the law even thought she clearly didn't and its passed off as "oh I didn't know!?" But the senators did break it when it's within their powers given by constitution?

Hahahahaha

Rob you clearly gone mad.

Your non sequitur aside (because you just went from Obama to Hilary), as other people pointed out, it seems she didn't actually break any law(s).

Can you show me where in the Constitution it gives Senators the right to deal/dictate foreign policy directly?

Because on the surface if does seem like those 47 Roguelicans did try their hand at being the Executive Branch of the government and if you've ever read up on the Foreign Policy of the US, you'd eventually read something like this:

"The president and the executive branch have the most significant role in making foreign policy and are responsible for carrying it out. With the advice and consent of the Senate, the president makes treaties and appoints ambassadors. The president can hold summit meetings with world leaders. As commander in chief of the military, the president can, by executive order, rapidly project U.S. power around the globe." Link

Though I doubt anything will happen to those 47 even if there ever is an investigation and it is found that they indeed did commit a crime. So you can relax, your heroes are safe.

The Senate was simply telling Iran how our constitution works.

If you read the letter, you'd see it was an attempt to possibly sway foreign policy/relations with Iran when the President is currently dealing with Iran.

But that bit in the Constitution you said existed, can you copy/paste it for me here? Curious to read it.

It's common knowledge that congress must ratify the deal and any agreement made with Itan and Obama without it being ratified is just an executive agreement and can be pulled by the next president.

This isn't you showing me what you claimed existed. Anyhow; moving on.

The fact that the branches have to effectively vote on and approve any deal/treaty the President should make with Iran is besides the point of these 47 Republicans possibly overstepping their authority and breaking the law. See now?

Ah so this is somehow different then Pelosi visiting Syria?

Your so blind

So now your argument shifts to: "well, someone else broke the law first!" You realize that doesn't excuse these 47 if they indeed did break the law, right?

I have virtual eagle-vision.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wrong you have no idea what you are taking about.

Little history lesson Hilary was one of the lawyers the prosecuted Nixon for his hiding recorded tapes. She was also the one who went after Colin Powell for his email and she went after Bush openly for White House secret emails as well.

2. Nancy Pelosi went and vosted Syria during the Bush Administration when he was not on speaking terms with them.

Again you are off point and on the wrong side. Look up the laws and past discrepancies before you open your mouth.

1. Clinton admonishing Bush for using a private server or State Department employees for using private email accounts, while also using a private server and email account, is at best hypocritical (although, it could be argued that different protocols are necessary for different roles). It is not, however, criminal because the law prohibiting such activities was not passed until a year after she was no longer serving as Secretary of State. It is no different than Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who also used private email accounts to conduct state business.

2. Three Republicans met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a week before Nancy Pelosi. Not to mention that President George W. Bush helped plan her trip. Nice try though.

No it's funny the law is double standard for liberals. They break it so often it's basically pointless to talk about the law. Im sure in your mind what Pelosi did was legal though.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1. Clinton admonishing Bush for using a private server or State Department employees for using private email accounts, while also using a private server and email account, is at best hypocritical (although, it could be argued that different protocols are necessary for different roles). It is not, however, criminal because the law prohibiting such activities was not passed until a year after she was no longer serving as Secretary of State. It is no different than Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who also used private email accounts to conduct state business.

2. Three Republicans met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a week before Nancy Pelosi. Not to mention that President George W. Bush helped plan her trip. Nice try though.

No they didn't and I suppose you think taking donations from foreign governments is A ok as well.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No it's funny the law is double standard for liberals.

They break it so often it's basically pointless to talk about the law.

Im sure in your mind what Pelosi did was legal though.

Can you show this double standard with proof?

That's just angry-talk.

I don't fully recall the Pelosi thing, it was years ago. But if you have proof she broke the law, go ahead and post it, even though it still wouldn't excuse these 47 diaperbabies if they did indeed commit a crime with their silly little letter.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No they didn't

Yes, they did. Three Republicans from the Iraq Study Committee met with President Bashar Assad a week before Nancy Pelosi in 2007. It's a matter of public record. Look it up.

It violated the Logan Act, don't pull a Hilary now and say "I didn't know that!?"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, they did. Three Republicans from the Iraq Study Committee met with President Bashar Assad a week before Nancy Pelosi in 2007. It's a matter of public record. Look it up.

They were given permission and acting with presidential oversight unlike Pelosi..

Pathetic.
It took 47 dumbasses to make this piece of shit?
It's like a threat letter written by an angry grade-schooler.

They just made matters worse by committing this treacherous act.
I bet they did this without the consent of the President.

People really want s bad deal with Iran, sheep people.

If you only knew why there must be no deal.

The liberals have gone sympathetic and weak

Or you've grown hawkish.

Execute them for treason, says I.

The republicans seem to have something against Obama personally. After a while it starts to look like a race issue.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
They were given permission and acting with presidential oversight unlike Pelosi..

President Bush opposed the recommendation from the Iraq Study Group that the U.S. attempt diplomacy with Syria. Three Republicans of the bipartisan group went anyway. A week later, Nancy Pelosi also went. While Bush opposed the meeting, the State Department oversaw her trip.

Dems and Repubs are usually all crooked. Obama never got congressional approval when he militarily intervened in Libya. He lied about the cost of Obama care. He's not without fault either.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Dems and Repubs are usually all crooked. Obama never got congressional approval when he militarily intervened in Libya. He lied about the cost of Obama care. He's not without fault either.
I've yet to see an American politician who is not bought and sold.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
The republicans seem to have something against Obama personally. After a while it starts to look like a race issue.


The race card is really getting old.

Racism is timeless

Yes, there will always be racism but the frequent accusing other people of being racist without any proof to back up the ridiculous claims just because the accusers don't agree with the people they are calling racists is getting old. And irritating too.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/republicans-admit-that-iran-letter-was-a-dumb-idea.html

LOL

Originally posted by Star428
The race card is really getting old.

Umm....

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/i-paid-kill-ngers-you-cop-xbox-live-loses-player/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/james-ragland/20150310-as-ou-case-shows-embers-of-racism-still-burn.ece

*Yawn*... Whatever, dude. I'm not taking the time to read whatever you're linking because I know that it won't show undeniable proof that the republicans are indeed racist. So, don't waste your time trying to convince me of your ridiculous claims. I'm tired of people accusing someone else of being racist just because they don't agree with the people they are accusing of it. It's such a lame-ass tactic. Many people on this board have accused me and several others of being racist just because they don't agree with our views. Take the "Stop stealing white people's superheroes " thread, for instance.


Apparently, I'm a "racist" because I don't think that the race of characters like Captain America and Superman should ever be changed from white.

Wow. You claim racism is obsolete and I post links disproving that, and rather than offer a rebuttal or concede, you instead run away from the debate like a coward because you don't want to admit that racism is still around. Coming from the standpoint of objective debating...phuck you.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Wow. You claim racism is obsolete

Originally posted by Star428
Yes, there will always be racism

mmm

Then there will always be a race card. As long as there is racism, there will be people who can and will claim to have been victimized by racists in some form, overt or surreptitiously. Can't claim the race card is getting old unless you are claiming racism itself is obsolete.


But the thread is getting OT. Let's focus on these dumbass Repubichairs regretting their dumbass letter.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Isn't that what he did to congress with immigration?

Nope, the President does have the authority to move priorities around.

The Republicans don't like it, but it's not as flagrantly bad as this, and there are multiple legislative options to override that... at least, if they're willing to offer deals to get enough legislative support. Which they're not.

Basically Obama's used a very weak, easy to override tool there, one he does possess legally, and the Republicans are so against compromise that they're stuck anyway. They simply refuse to acknowledge their options because it'd involve giving someone who's not them something in some area.




They blatantly violated the Logan act. Not just a constitutional conflict, but a law.

No-one ever gets charged with breaking the Logan Act, but yea, they broke the law 100% there.

And did so incompetently for zero gain ^^

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-0311-wednesday-gop-iran-letter-20150311-story.html

You know shit has gone bad when even John McCain is regretting signing it

Originally posted by Lestov16
You know shit has gone bad when even John McCain is regretting signing it


He's one of the better ones nowadays. By, like, a margin ^^

That's even worse. Even at his age, his mental faculties far exceed that of his GOPussy peers

Glad to see McCain just signs stuff on a "Meh, guess it looks alright" approach.

Uh oh, Rob. You may want to edit that post or get a Crown Vic up the ass.


But yeah, glad to know McCain's process of analyzing laws is less reliable than covering his eyes and saying eeny meeny miney mo.

Damn it, how could I be so reckless!?

Originally posted by Robtard
Glad to see McCain just signs stuff on a "Meh, guess it looks alright" approach.

Though it is pretty sad that 'eh, whatever,' is the best response.



Still, just goes to show, when push comes to shove, they couldn't even get these full 47- which would not be enough to do anything anyway- to vote as they wanted on an Iran bill.

I can already see it. They probably were all on board when writing the letter, thinking they would be seen by the American public as the heroic progressive underdogs who took action against Iran when Obama did not. Soon as they were immediately exposed as being petulant near-traitors trying to start an unnecessary world war, they started jumping ship and backpedaling like mad.

Didn't take long for a treason charges petition to get 150k signatures

Damn skippy. If these dumbass Republicans want to make a fuss about a silly inconsequential email account, then by that same standard, they are also susceptible to the law and should be punished for the blatant treason (and warmongering) that they committed. Personally, I would punish them the way Benedict Arnold was 😉

Originally posted by Lestov16
Damn skippy. If these dumbass Republicans want to make a fuss about a silly inconsequential email account, then by that same standard, they are also susceptible to the law and should be punished for the blatant treason (and warmongering) that they committed. Personally, I would punish them the way Benedict Arnold was 😉

Make them live out the remainder of their lives in Great Britain?


I don't think England would appreciate us if we did that...

I thought he was executed.

Edit: Guess not. I must be thinking of another historical traitor.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/tom-cotton-iran-letter-logan-act/

Sadly, I am forced to agree. I doubt any legal repercussions will come of this.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Damn skippy. If these dumbass Republicans want to make a fuss about a silly inconsequential email account, then by that same standard, they are also susceptible to the law and should be punished for the blatant treason (and warmongering) that they committed. Personally, I would punish them the way Benedict Arnold was 😉

So you consider yourself a "smartass democrate?"

Calm down, spud.

Yes, there's very likely no legal consequences... it's just a really, really stupid political move that aims to undermine the US's dealings on the world stage, and makes the Republicans specifically come out as untrustworthy worms who try and undermine their own country.

Wow... that's.. wow.

Let the jackals eat themselves

This was absurd. Seriously who thought this could be a good idea.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I thought he was executed.

Edit: Guess not. I must be thinking of another historical traitor.

No, traitors generally got away with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, traitors generally got away with it.

I forgot Germany was the mecca of all good doers in the world.

Originally posted by ares834
Of course it did. It was an idiotic move in virtually every way. Not only does it undermine the president but it serves as a smokecreen and gives him an adequate excuse for whatever deal we end up getting.

Who cares what they did, the republicans are weak and can't do shit anyways. They can't even get a bill passed. All they care about is the the good of the party. Literally they cant get shit done, not now, not ever. McCain rolled over, and so did Romney.

"Who cares if 47 members of congress broke the law and tried to undermine the Executive branch in a matter of foreign policy?"

IMO, any citizen of the United States should care at least a little.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Who cares if 47 members of congress broke the law and tried to undermine the Executive branch in a matter of foreign policy?"

IMO, any citizen of the United States should care at least a little.

Except they didn't break the law. And show where the president stated they broke the law, and if they did break the law why are they not being prosecuted.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Except they didn't break the law. And show where the president stated they broke the law, and if they did break the law why are they not being prosecuted. Some lawyers have said they could easily be brought up under the Logan Act. Just that it won't happen because it is so old and out of date it wouldn't matter. They don't think there will ever be another Logan Act conviction again.

If even a hardcore Democrat like TI thinks the Republicans did nothing wrong, I think we can all agree they didn't.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Except they didn't break the law. And show where the president stated they broke the law, and if they did break the law why are they not being prosecuted.

They apparently did according to the Logan Act.

Not sure the President would be the one to charge them with a crime, if they indeed did break the law. How much power do you want to give the President anyways!?

Probably because it's not worth the Government's time to charge nearly 50 members of congress over a law that no one really cares about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If even a hardcore Democrat like TI thinks the Republicans did nothing wrong, I think we can all agree they didn't.

lol

Originally posted by Robtard
They apparently did according to the Logan Act.

Not sure the President would be the one to charge them with a crime, if they indeed did break the law. How much power do you want to give the President anyways!?

Probably because it's not worth the Government's time to charge nearly 50 members of congress over a law that no one really cares about.

The president is the top dog, law maker and upholding and enforcing the constitution is his job. He is who elects the Attorney General. Duh.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If even a hardcore Democrat like TI thinks the Republicans did nothing wrong, I think we can all agree they didn't.

A person from Germany who dismisses his countries past transgressions as "It was Polands fault" literally should not be talking or passing blame, and if you knew anything about moderate democratic politics you would know where I stand.

I know where you stand, racist republicanism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know where you stand, racist republicanism.



Where do you get your years of experience in in racial equality or American Politics to determine what is what? As of know you are just a foreign spectator to all that is of American.

Even if they did break the law, so friggin' what? Obama does that all the time and gets away with it. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is much worse than what the republicans did and can have far greater consequences.

Originally posted by Star428
Even if they did break the law, so friggin' what? Obama does that all the time and gets away with it. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is much worse than what the republicans did and can have far greater consequences.

I was going to mention this but it would fall on deaf ears, he had no constitutional power to do what he did, however according to everyone here, he didn't break the law. I would say the republicans were stupid to do what they did, however they didn't break the law.

Originally posted by Star428
Even if they did break the law, so friggin' what? Obama does that all the time and gets away with it. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is much worse than what the republicans did and can have far greater consequences.
By granting them amnesty, Obama was simply admitting the obvious: that there's really no way we can hope to prosecute and deport 11+ million illegals so we may as well do damage control now.

Here's the issue that Republicans have with Obama, as I see it: in cases such as Iran, Cuba, and the illegals' amnesty, Obama is facing the facts and seeing that the current policies (aggressive containment of Iran, the embargo, treating all illegals as criminals) have failed and is trying something else. Conservatives don't want to admit that these policies have been abject failures because these policies were set up by conservative Presidents.

In the pipe dream conservative world, Castro's Cuba is only a few years from collapsing and begging the USA to help them build a free market democracy, Iran's nuclear ambitions could be permanently stymied with a single bunker buster, and it's only a matter of willpower to round up, identify, and repatriate (or imprison) more than eleven million illegals of various nationalities scattered across the country, economically integrated with America.

If its always the Republicans fault or the democrats fault and nothing really gets done, why is that the only two parties that can be elected are of those? Seems to me the system is rigged for them and against us.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
If its always the Republicans fault or the democrats fault and nothing really gets done, why is that the only two parties that can be elected are of those? Seems to me the system is rigged for them and against us.

Ok, the system is a bit winner-takes-all, which means if you don't have a chance of getting 50%, there's not too much point in playing, but it should also be noted that each party is basically a coalition of what other countries would call parties, who band together and basically say, "Ok, I'm here for these social issues. Your economic issues aren't as critical to me, but I'll support most of yours and you'll support most of mine and we'll call ourselves a party, ok?".


Like, there's a group called the 'Dixiecrats'. They, as the name implies, were Southerners who voted Democrats. In the 60s, the Democrats pissed them off something fierce with the civil rights movement, so they left, and were in the proverbial wilderness for a bit, then the Republicans changed their strategy to court them, and now they're at the core of the Republican party.

The big business Republicans have traditionally been at the core of the party, but due to recent poor moves by the party, and the Tea Party having more say over the economics than they do currently- when they used to be *the* economics deciders within the Republicans- has caused them to be more marginalized within the party and it being expected that more will go Democrat unless things change. They didn't move, but the other factions within the Republicans moved away from them so they may be near a flip point, and a good number of individuals have already come over.



What happens is when there's a new faction that gains a lot of popularity, it doesn't form a new party like it would in Europe, it joins one of the prior parties, either because one obviously aligns with it or one actively courts it harder. The tea party being the most obvious example.

If neither party wants it/it doesn't find itself aligned with either, then it may hang around, but it fulfills a role fairly similar to what many marginal parties do in parliamentary systems. That is to say, while they may throw a small amount of influence on this issue or that, push larger parties when they can, they largely sit on the sidelines where the major voting blocks do their thing. The libertarians are an example of this in the US, though they seem to be drifting more towards the Republican side of things or, I should say, the Republicans have happened to drift a bit closer to them. If we have a parliamentary system, they'd only have a few votes anyway and wouldn't particularly have more influence then than they do with Ron Paul trying to push the Republicans does now.



Additionally, on the 'nothing really gets done' thing- that really is one side, and historically very unusual. The Republicans have a distinct lack of willingness to compromise on anything but 'you come over to our side,' and will block most things the opposition tries out of spite a lot of the time. This, in turn, has made it very hard for them to get stuff done, as the normal way of accomplishing things is to make a deal to let a little of the opposition's way past in exchange for a little of your way, in general proportion to who has the most advantage in seats and so on. Normally the self-interest of compromise in that situation is clear, i.e. at least you'll get *some* of what you want done, but the current batch is more interested in stopping the opposition entirely/thinks that if they muscle through they can somehow get all of what they want (largely the tea party rookies think this, btw, the old hands tend to at least understand there's limits to that), and because they think they can win by continuing this tactic, when really they cannot, we're stuck this way until they lose power.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If even a hardcore Democrat like TI thinks the Republicans did nothing wrong, I think we can all agree they didn't.

That's rather silly.


The people who think they did something wrong include 7 (or more) Republican senators, the other half of the government, many of the people in the country, multiple of our major allies involved in the negotiation, Iran (who've thankfully written it off as a cheap stunt), and most political experts everywhere.

What they did wrong isn't simply about legality, but credibility. They're making America come off as less credible on the world stage and our international commitments come off as less reliable.

Which is bad and, since it's being done in exchange for zero gain, really dumb.


Originally posted by ares834
Of course it did. It was an idiotic move in virtually every way. Not only does it undermine the president but it serves as a smokecreen and gives him an adequate excuse for whatever deal we end up getting.

Basically, it gives Obama an excuse to do any deal and shift off blame on the Republicans. It gives the Iranians an excuse to insist on more concessions and blame the lack of credibility caused by the Republicans. It gives a higher likelyhood of *no* deal, which would then be blamed on the Republicans...

They simply haven't learned, sticking your head into tense negotiations and saying "Even if our guy agree it means nothing, you gotta convince us!" when, in fact, they don't gotta be involved, it can be done without them (as both sides but apparently not them know), is a stupid move all around. It doesn't make anyone think they should be listened to, like they apparently thought it would do.






Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Except they didn't break the law. And show where the president stated they broke the law, and if they did break the law why are they not being prosecuted.

Because the Logan Act is one of the least-prosecutable laws in existence (it pretty much exists so one can point out, "hey, pulling this stuff is technically illegal!", and trying to prosecute almost half of congress for being idiots simply isn't going to work politically.

Its very stupid to have a law and claim it was broken then do nothing to enforce it? Rather seems politicians are above the law. Where is the average citizen who elects the politicians gets shitted on, a daily basis.

Bardock and Lest wants to focus on "Look what the republicans did" when literally it never ends with laws broken with politicians.

The funny thing is how Iran just shrugged it off, and called out how the US senators themselves have no idea about local treaties, let alone international treaties.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The funny thing is how Iran just shrugged it off, and called out how the US senators themselves have no idea about local treaties, let alone international treaties.

I might just give up talking about these jackasses, no sense in defending anyone anymore, they all fcked up.

The letter makes sense when you consider its author. Tom Cotton first came to the attention of his future voter base when he wrote a letter to the New York Times suggesting that the journalists who uncovered a US Government method for tracking terrorist finances (admittedly, I don't really approve of those kinds of articles, which complicate counterterrorist efforts for the sake of a good story) be imprisoned for espionage.

He's a hotspur, or in more modern parlance: a loose cannon. Most likely he didn't care what the diplomatic fallout would be because he has short term, selfish goals in mind: making a name for himself and hurting his domestic opponents.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The letter makes sense when you consider its author. Tom Cotton first came to the attention of his future voter base when he wrote a letter to the New York Times suggesting that the journalists who uncovered a US Government method for tracking terrorist finances (admittedly, I don't really approve of those kinds of articles, which complicate counterterrorist efforts for the sake of a good story) be imprisoned for espionage.

He's a hotspur, or in more modern parlance: a loose cannon. Most likely he didn't care what the diplomatic fallout would be because he has short term, selfish goals in mind: making a name for himself and hurting his domestic opponents.


Also known as, an idiot And like you say, a selfish one, who'll have the US cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

Its really shame to do such kind of things.

the-gshplaza.sg

Joe Biden gets unleashed

http://bluenationreview.com/joe-biden-ready-cut-47-republican-senators/

"Joe Biden is Ready to Cut the 47 Republican Senators"

Sounds interesting.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Joe Biden gets unleashed

http://bluenationreview.com/joe-biden-ready-cut-47-republican-senators/

Don't see it happening, but would be funny if at least one of the 47 is thrown under the bus and goes to jail for a bit, even if it's white-collar-resort-jail.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't see it happening, but would be funny if at least one of the 47 is thrown under the bus and goes to jail for a bit, even if it's white-collar-resort-jail.

http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/joebiden-300x158.jpg

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/joebiden-300x158.jpg You know, if you were inclined and had decent photoshop skills, you could add a penis to each of Joe's hands and it'd make for a funny spoof

It continues....
http://bluenationreview.com/israel-spied-u-s-fed-info-members-congress/

So now it really does seem like treason.

This shit is beyond the pale. Don't the Republicans see the awful precedents they're setting for future congresses interfering in foreign affairs?

They don't care about the future, what they care about is making Obama look so awful that it harms the Dem running in 2016.

This one flopped back in their face; hysterically so.

facepaln

Seriously the more and more I see the less and less I can say the Republican party is just not plain stupid.

Originally posted by Newjak
facepaln

Seriously the more and more I see the less and less I can say the Republican party is just not plain stupid.

That's been clear ever since they put Palin on their ticket.

Originally posted by Robtard
They don't care about the future, what they care about is making Obama look so awful that it harms the Dem running in 2016.

This one flopped back in their face; hysterically so.

Let's hope so. Of course the general public is laughably uninformed.

Well I mean there are intelligent Republicans and SOME of the ideas of the Republican party I can agree with.

The problem is it looks more and more like the party is ran by a bunch of ignorant morons who care more about their own biased forced agenda then actually doing anything helpful.

I honestly hope no one votes for them.

See, here's the problem: the people who vote for these Republicans (i.e. their constituents) don't have the same priorities and worldviews as us liberal yankee some-bitches.

It doesn't matter how stupid or radical they look on the national or world stage, if their local electorates approve, they'll get reelected. That's the major problem with having locally elected politicians steering the country as a whole. Unfortunately there's no good alternative.

Can we just take them all out back and shoot them?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
See, here's the problem: the people who vote for these Republicans (i.e. their constituents) don't have the same priorities and worldviews as us liberal yankee some-bitches.

It doesn't matter how stupid or radical they look on the national or world stage, if their local electorates approve, they'll get reelected. That's the major problem with having locally elected politicians steering the country as a whole. Unfortunately there's no good alternative. Yup

I would like to see a term cap on Congress members though.