PDA

View Full Version : This was ill-advised



TJMAC77SP
03-09-2015, 09:50 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republican-senators-iran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

I think this was just a frapping dumb thing for these GOP senators to do. While I have serious doubts about the whole process under way with Iran over it's nuclear problem and pre-doubt the validity or usefulness of any agreement that may be reached (and that outcome is far from assured) I still find this a dumb-ass amateur move.

The Iranians don't need a lesson in the workings of our Constitution and that 'motivation' is seriously doubtful anyway.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Rainmaker
03-10-2015, 03:01 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republican-senators-iran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

I think this was just a frapping dumb thing for these GOP senators to do. While I have serious doubts about the whole process under way with Iran over it's nuclear problem and pre-doubt the validity or usefulness of any agreement that may be reached (and that outcome is far from assured) I still find this a dumb-ass amateur move.

The Iranians don't need a lesson in the workings of our Constitution and that 'motivation' is seriously doubtful anyway.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Just wait. We ain't seen nothin yet. CONgress got their marching orders. when Bibi says jump. They say how high. Nomsayin?

Rollyn01
03-10-2015, 12:21 PM
Just wait. We ain't seen nothin yet. CONgress got their marching orders. when Bibi says jump. They say how high. Nomsayin?

More like they was already jumping and when Bibi said jump, Bibi says " See, I'm a leader cause I made them did that."

Rollyn01
03-10-2015, 12:32 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republican-senators-iran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

I think this was just a frapping dumb thing for these GOP senators to do. While I have serious doubts about the whole process under way with Iran over it's nuclear problem and pre-doubt the validity or usefulness of any agreement that may be reached (and that outcome is far from assured) I still find this a dumb-ass amateur move.

The Iranians don't need a lesson in the workings of our Constitution and that 'motivation' is seriously doubtful anyway.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

So, once again, Republicans are acting in a manner that they will no doubt claim that they wasn't really acting, i.e. "I swear I'm not racist. I'm just trying to say...". Now they are just threatening a country and basically stating that the president isn't really important to the political process. Unless he was a white Republican then they wouldn't even make a peep. They are definitely up to their old tricks. The sad part is, if this all pans out badly, they would be the first ones to blame the president for some asinine reason that they pull out of their ass. It's as if they do everything they can to make this country fail so they can swoop in and make it look like they can fix it while doing very little to fix anything (even if it's their fault entirely).

sandsjames
03-10-2015, 12:41 PM
So, once again, Republicans are acting in a manner that they will no doubt claim that they wasn't really acting, i.e. "I swear I'm not racist. I'm just trying to say...". Now they are just threatening a country and basically stating that the president isn't really important to the political process. Unless he was a white Republican then they wouldn't even make a peep. They are definitely up to their old tricks. The sad part is, if this all pans out badly, they would be the first ones to blame the president for some asinine reason that they pull out of their ass. It's as if they do everything they can to make this country fail so they can swoop in and make it look like they can fix it while doing very little to fix anything (even if it's their fault entirely).

Good thing the Dems don't do this when there is a Rep President...

TJMAC77SP
03-10-2015, 12:53 PM
So, once again, Republicans are acting in a manner that they will no doubt claim that they wasn't really acting, i.e. "I swear I'm not racist. I'm just trying to say...". Now they are just threatening a country and basically stating that the president isn't really important to the political process. Unless he was a white Republican then they wouldn't even make a peep. They are definitely up to their old tricks. The sad part is, if this all pans out badly, they would be the first ones to blame the president for some asinine reason that they pull out of their ass. It's as if they do everything they can to make this country fail so they can swoop in and make it look like they can fix it while doing very little to fix anything (even if it's their fault entirely).

Oh come one. This is exactly what I am talking about. Letting a narrative guide your every thought and action.

I am sorry to challenge your personal narrative but the GOP has no exclusive grasp on idiocy or hypocrisy.

Rainmaker
03-10-2015, 01:48 PM
Rainmaker sure as hell ain't no Obama fan...... BUT, bringing a foreign head of state into the people's house, to be worshiped like a conquering Cesar by the CONgressional puppets on a stick, against the will of the United States President is appalling.

Illegal Amnesty, IRS scandal, VA scandal, NSA scandal, Benghazi, Fast&Furious , Obamacare, Bergdahl, Ukraine, Syria, AP tampering, Spying on James Rosen, Solyndra scandal, Sebelius, Pigford scandal etc. etc. etc............. Any number of things they should make a stand on and they give him a pass.

MF'ing Rome is burning and they do nothing..... Yet, Fail to toe the AIPAC line and all Hell's gonna break loose......

MitchellJD1969
03-10-2015, 06:04 PM
Yeah...Chappaquiddick Ted tried to backdoor Reagan and tried to set up stuff with the soviets to influence the 84 elections and people on the left still want to kiss that POS left cheek.

Rollyn01
03-11-2015, 12:31 AM
Oh come one. This is exactly what I am talking about. Letting a narrative guide your every thought and action.

I am sorry to challenge your personal narrative but the GOP has no exclusive grasp on idiocy or hypocrisy.

No, they don't. I have no problem agreeing on this. What I have a problem with is their inability to understand, and sometimes underscore, much of the negative aspects of what they do. It seems to be hard to find a Republican own up to, or even apologize for, their actions when it's found that such actions led to negative consequences (except Nixon, but only because he was caught). Besides, are they trying to say that they don't agree with the president's proposal? If so, why send a letter in the first place? Why threaten military action? They always talk about how the president is too weak. It appears that, to them, diplomacy shouldn't be the first act or military action is not used enough. I leave a link to a video that exemplifies this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunK-36aELw

TJMAC77SP
03-11-2015, 01:52 PM
No, they don't. I have no problem agreeing on this. What I have a problem with is their inability to understand, and sometimes underscore, much of the negative aspects of what they do. It seems to be hard to find a Republican own up to, or even apologize for, their actions when it's found that such actions led to negative consequences (except Nixon, but only because he was caught). Besides, are they trying to say that they don't agree with the president's proposal? If so, why send a letter in the first place? Why threaten military action? They always talk about how the president is too weak. It appears that, to them, diplomacy shouldn't be the first act or military action is not used enough. I leave a link to a video that exemplifies this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunK-36aELw

I agree with you but again I hardly think that lack of a sense of responsibility it the exclusive domain of the GOP. Whether you classify it as too weak or just ineffective, overall Obama's foreign policy fails to deliver or is at best late to the game time and again.

I doubt the GOP was disagreeing with any salient point of the agreement because right now there is no agreement and only the administration knows any details that are pending in any case.

Where in the GOP letter did they threaten military action?

Your point seems to merely parrot the President's remarks. I think it merely a dismissive talking point to simply claim that GOP members always want to go military first. That is silly and a disingenuous argument. The truth is that any hardship Russia is feeling economically right now is more due to the falling oil prices (which the President had nothing to do with) than any of his laser focused sanctions. To claim victory there is also disingenuous. As a counterpoint to the 'attack first' claim I would say that a default reaction of imposing sanctions is generally and historically ineffectual which leads to escalating situations and in the end leave military action as the last resort.

Finally, I am not sure how the video you linked proves your point of a refusal by the GOP to admit their errors. I don't necessarily disagree with the position of that being a failure of the GOP leadership but again I don't see that being solely in the GOP camp and I don't see how the video illustrates that. I find it interesting the various videos that are recommended along the right of the screen. They all seem to have a common theme.

Rollyn01
03-11-2015, 03:26 PM
I agree with you but again I hardly think that lack of a sense of responsibility it the exclusive domain of the GOP. Whether you classify it as too weak or just ineffective, overall Obama's foreign policy fails to deliver or is at best late to the game time and again.

I doubt the GOP was disagreeing with any salient point of the agreement because right now there is no agreement and only the administration knows any details that are pending in any case.

Where in the GOP letter did they threaten military action?

Your point seems to merely parrot the President's remarks. I think it merely a dismissive talking point to simply claim that GOP members always want to go military first. That is silly and a disingenuous argument. The truth is that any hardship Russia is feeling economically right now is more due to the falling oil prices (which the President had nothing to do with) than any of his laser focused sanctions. To claim victory there is also disingenuous. As a counterpoint to the 'attack first' claim I would say that a default reaction of imposing sanctions is generally and historically ineffectual which leads to escalating situations and in the end leave military action as the last resort.

Finally, I am not sure how the video you linked proves your point of a refusal by the GOP to admit their errors. I don't necessarily disagree with the position of that being a failure of the GOP leadership but again I don't see that being solely in the GOP camp and I don't see how the video illustrates that. I find it interesting the various videos that are recommended along the right of the screen. They all seem to have a common theme.

Hmm... A little late seems more likely true. As a whole, the U.S. government is trying to work its way back to pre-9/11 status and move the country along with it. I totally get that, but at the same time, they are stretching their resources to also face many of the current challenges. Somethings got to give and prioritizing what to do and what resources should go where is the main concern of all parties. To be honest, I'm not even sure how they get anything done when most of the time that we hear about either side, it's mostly about mudslinging at the guy. I thought the campaign attacks cease when the person takes office, but apparently not. I'm all for cheering for my favorite team and hissing at their rivals (it's only natural to), when both sides are doing stupid, it just makes me pity my team and criticize their rivals even more. I guess this is where my bias comes from.

After reading the actual letter and rereading the article, it seems I was wrong in saying that they threaten military act. As penance, I will buy a 12-pack of Budweiser and watch "The O'Reily Factor" (only because he gets a pass for hilariously debating Jon Stewart).

It wasn't my intention to parrot the president. My intent was to demonstrate that the GOP is taking it upon themselves to directly address the leaders in a manner that makes the agreement with the president unimportant. This is a bad call on their part. It makes the president look useless if whatever agreement comes can be voided just as easily as it was made. Checks and balances was meant so that no one person/group can have all the power to affect the entire government, not as a tool to render someone useless.

As for the video, it was meant to show how many Republicans tend to underscore the president's efforts wherever he goes. He's always weak in their eyes and nothing he can do can change that apparently, which is very sad. He always has to be on the defensive when it comes to his foreign policy, even when it actually helps. In this case (in the video), it did.

TJMAC77SP
03-11-2015, 04:13 PM
Hmm... A little late seems more likely true. As a whole, the U.S. government is trying to work its way back to pre-9/11 status and move the country along with it. I totally get that, but at the same time, they are stretching their resources to also face many of the current challenges. Somethings got to give and prioritizing what to do and what resources should go where is the main concern of all parties. To be honest, I'm not even sure how they get anything done when most of the time that we hear about either side, it's mostly about mudslinging at the guy. I thought the campaign attacks cease when the person takes office, but apparently not. I'm all for cheering for my favorite team and hissing at their rivals (it's only natural to), when both sides are doing stupid, it just makes me pity my team and criticize their rivals even more. I guess this is where my bias comes from.

After reading the actual letter and rereading the article, it seems I was wrong in saying that they threaten military act. As penance, I will buy a 12-pack of Budweiser and watch "The O'Reily Factor" (only because he gets a pass for hilariously debating Jon Stewart).

It wasn't my intention to parrot the president. My intent was to demonstrate that the GOP is taking it upon themselves to directly address the leaders in a manner that makes the agreement with the president unimportant. This is a bad call on their part. It makes the president look useless if whatever agreement comes can be voided just as easily as it was made. Checks and balances was meant so that no one person/group can have all the power to affect the entire government, not as a tool to render someone useless.

As for the video, it was meant to show how many Republicans tend to underscore the president's efforts wherever he goes. He's always weak in their eyes and nothing he can do can change that apparently, which is very sad. He always has to be on the defensive when it comes to his foreign policy, even when it actually helps. In this case (in the video), it did.

The attacks never cease when the polls close. I have heard that now since 2008 but those saying it have very selective memory. Even here on the MTF it became a running joke to "blame Bush". Whatever the disaster, whatever the crisis, Blame Bush. Now we see a mirror of that behavior and there is a huge cry of 'Foul'. Stupid knows no party, no political belief system.

Were you referencing the "white privilege debate"? I will admit the Jon Stewart (as a comedian) is funnier than Bill O'Reilly. That much is beyond question.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 05:02 PM
I agree with you but again I hardly think that lack of a sense of responsibility it the exclusive domain of the GOP. Whether you classify it as too weak or just ineffective, overall Obama's foreign policy fails to deliver or is at best late to the game time and again.

I doubt the GOP was disagreeing with any salient point of the agreement because right now there is no agreement and only the administration knows any details that are pending in any case.

Where in the GOP letter did they threaten military action?

Your point seems to merely parrot the President's remarks. I think it merely a dismissive talking point to simply claim that GOP members always want to go military first. That is silly and a disingenuous argument. The truth is that any hardship Russia is feeling economically right now is more due to the falling oil prices (which the President had nothing to do with) than any of his laser focused sanctions. To claim victory there is also disingenuous. As a counterpoint to the 'attack first' claim I would say that a default reaction of imposing sanctions is generally and historically ineffectual which leads to escalating situations and in the end leave military action as the last resort.

Finally, I am not sure how the video you linked proves your point of a refusal by the GOP to admit their errors. I don't necessarily disagree with the position of that being a failure of the GOP leadership but again I don't see that being solely in the GOP camp and I don't see how the video illustrates that. I find it interesting the various videos that are recommended along the right of the screen. They all seem to have a common theme.

With regard to Oil and Russia, Rainmaker think you underestimate Obama admin role in this..... WW3 has already begun in the financial markets (all trade and currency wars eventually end in hot wars) so, They can't come out and take credit for driving the price down because, that would be admitting that the price is manipulated. And they've been fleecing us sheep for well over a decade now (including during the first 6 years of the Obama regime).

Also, the drug deal they made with Saudi Arabia, driving the price down will also crush US Shale Bidness. Muhfuggas on Wall Street be screamin They need time to get their shorts in! That's why they backed off and raised it some in the last month, call it a "Jubilee" of sorts if you will TJ..... But, it's heading back down soon.... so, By giving Russia some economic pain, we are also running the risk of further depressing the world's economy..... But, the real elephant in the room , is that Someone in the Middle East needs the US to be permanently dependent on Middle Eastern oil, so we'll always fight wars there to destabilize their enemies. Which, is why we "Arab Springed" some folks.....NomSayin?

Rollyn01
03-11-2015, 05:22 PM
The attacks never cease when the polls close. I have heard that now since 2008 but those saying it have very selective memory. Even here on the MTF it became a running joke to "blame Bush". Whatever the disaster, whatever the crisis, Blame Bush. Now we see a mirror of that behavior and there is a huge cry of 'Foul'. Stupid knows no party, no political belief system.

Were you referencing the "white privilege debate"? I will admit the Jon Stewart (as a comedian) is funnier than Bill O'Reilly. That much is beyond question.

Much of the "Blame Bush" stuff tends to be the things that he has started during his term but has never ceased since he left office. I mean, think about how, as much as Obama is being blamed for not reducing the federal deficit since he has been in office to a significant degree, many seem to forget that the deficit got that way from most of the "unwise" spending during Bush's term. As such, to think that it's Obama's fault that budget is failing is a bit of selective memory on many Republicans part (oddly it's usually the ones who aren't in any office being the most vocal about it). I usually just blame his (Bush) administration for anything that happened during his term that still affects everything that occurs during Obama's term. Through, I have no problem understanding that there are times when Obama's administration has their fair share of fuck ups. As you said, stupid knows no party.

My reference was actually to a video with O'reily and Stewart having a mock debate. Both of them was actually funny. It was very odd to see them playing well while going after each others' neck. If you have time, have a look. It's very long though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmr3XvaoVW4

Rollyn01
03-11-2015, 05:26 PM
With regard to Oil and Russia, Rainmaker think you underestimate Obama admin role in this..... WW3 has already begun in the financial markets (all trade and currency wars eventually end in hot wars) so, They can't come out and take credit for driving the price down because, that would be admitting that the price is manipulated. And they've been fleecing us sheep for well over a decade now (including during the first 6 years of the Obama regime).

Also, the drug deal they made with Saudi Arabia, driving the price down will also crush US Shale Bidness. Muhfuggas on Wall Street be screamin They need time to get their shorts in! That's why they backed off and raised it some in the last month, call it a "Jubilee" of sorts if you will TJ..... But, it's heading back down soon.... so, By giving Russia some economic pain, we are also running the risk of further depressing the world's economy..... But, the real elephant in the room , is that Someone in the Middle East needs the US to be permanently dependent on Middle Eastern oil, so we'll always fight wars there to destabilize their enemies. Which, is why we "Arab Springed" some folks.....NomSayin?

I'd ask you to put down the bong, but I just feel that I might have to put it up myself anyways just to understand you.

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 05:26 PM
My reference was actually to a video with O'reily and Stewart having a mock debate. Both of them was actually funny. It was very odd to see them playing well while going after each others' neck. If you have time, have a look. It's very long though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmr3XvaoVW4

I don't why you find it odd Rollyn. Since, Both of them are being paid by the same masters.....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/To+hedge+a+bet

Rainmaker
03-11-2015, 05:42 PM
I'd ask you to put down the bong, but I just feel that I might have to put it up myself anyways just to understand you.

Reminds me of a song....Rainmaker don't hit the bong.... But, that Purple Drank is so strong.....
notice you said in another thread you were a Cav Scout? RM served supporting 1st Cav Div at FT. Hood. Once, took a nice Sunday drive with those guys from Assy Area War horse, to KKMC up a wadi...to God's country and back. Good times and RM love the crazy cowboy hats..so, Cheers your beers bro....

Rollyn01
03-11-2015, 06:23 PM
Reminds me of a song....Rainmaker don't hit the bong.... But, that Purple Drank is so strong.....
notice you said in another thread you were a Cav Scout? RM served supporting 1st Cav Div at FT. Hood. Once, took a nice Sunday drive with those guys from Assy Area War horse, to KKMC up a wadi...to God's country and back. Good times and RM have Much Respect for those folk..so, Cheers your beers bro....

If you're up for crazy, hanging out with scouts is a lot of fun. Hell, one of the "unwritten" requirements for being a scout is being crazy. I mean, who else would willing go into an unknown area, with barely any support, sneak around in the dark of night, find every speck of intel, report that back, then ask what's for chow like the heavy firefight that went on during the recon mission didn't even phase them? You can say SoCom operators and SF, but don't like going in until scouts have already been there because that's who they get most of their human intel from.

I'm all too proud to have served the 2nd "All Criminal/Clown/Crazy Regiment". I would do it all over again, but they moved to FT. "It's all rain and no sunshine" Carson. The sordid stories I could tell of our deployment would make you wonder how we even got anything done over in Baggy-Dad.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 11:33 PM
We sure have come a long way.

Remember when Republicans where aghast that a country music singer would dare say something negative about a sitting U.S. President while doing an entertainment show overseas? (see: Dixie Chicks)

Now, we have Republican Party leaders actively undermining the POTUS prior to high-level international negotiaions.

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2015, 02:35 AM
We sure have come a long way.

Remember when Republicans where aghast that a country music singer would dare say something negative about a sitting U.S. President while doing an entertainment show overseas? (see: Dixie Chicks)

Now, we have Republican Party leaders actively undermining the POTUS prior to high-level international negotiaions.

Well, I can't really remember if it was the GOP (although that wouldn't surprise me) but I DO remember country music fans raising hell and not buying their records.

We haven't really 'come' anywhere. See posts earlier in this thread about Bush bashing. Same ice cream, different flavor.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 04:03 AM
Well, I can't really remember if it was the GOP (although that wouldn't surprise me) ...it was. As I recall the GOP party itself led a backlash campaign


but I DO remember country music fans raising hell and not buying their records.

We haven't really 'come' anywhere. See posts earlier in this thread about Bush bashing. Same ice cream, different flavor.

right...