# Iran's take on GOP Treason Letter



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Well... Thanks so much you 47 traitors..   Thanks for knocking the USA down in the sight of an adversary.  If that's not treason what is.  These 47 nutjobs need to compose another letter... One of apology to the President, and also to the American people for doing this to our image.  HOW do they expect to be seen as strong now?  Oh... yeah.. that's right... bomb bomb bomb.......bomb bomb Iran.   Fools..

http://abcnews.go.com/International...-gop-letter-points-us-disintegration-29576197







 Iran's supreme leader said Thursday that a letter from Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by the next U.S. president is a sign of "disintegration" in Washington.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the letter a sign of "the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration," according to the official IRNA news agency. It was the first reaction to the letter by Khamenei, who has the final say over all major policies.
Khamenei said states typically remain loyal to their commitments even if governments change, " but American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn't this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration?"


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 12, 2015)

Yup, Iran sees what's going on clearer than many of us do...


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

I'm not sure if the Republicans don't see this letter as a rounding success now.  Why should Iran reach a peaceful settlement on Nuclear control with us?  Isn't that what the GOP really wants... NO nuclear agreement?   Therefore, Iran will build a bomb... and WE will be able to start a war with them.   That IMO was the real intended consequence of this letter.   They all need to hang their heads in SHAME.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

I'm surprised we are not seeing more peevish irritation from the five other countries working with us to negotiate an enforceable nuclear understanding with Iran. They too have stakes in seeing that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power and I don't think they want to see a war with Iran.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I'm surprised we are not seeing more peevish irritation from the five other countries working with us to negotiate an enforceable nuclear understanding with Iran. They too have stakes in seeing that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power and I don't think they want to see a war with Iran.



Our Arab allies are not in agreement with Obama's Iran talks

MIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns
ENLARGE
Saudi Arabia's King SalmanMIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns



By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
March 4, 2015 4:32 p.m. ET
198 COMMENTS
DUBAI—It isn’t just about Bibi.


The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with President Barack Obama over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that Benjamin Netanyahu was offered in Congress


These nations’ ties with Washington have already frayed in recent years, dented by what many officials in the region describe as a nagging sense that America doesn’t care about this part of the world anymore.


Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> Our Arab allies are not in agreement with Obama's Iran talks
> 
> MIDDLE EAST CROSSROADS
> Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal
> ...



I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.



Yes...I agree...  Looks like Israel does too.. because since his ill conceived speech in Washington, his poll number in Israel have dropped drastically.. Looks like he has a very good chance of losing the election.


----------



## Debby (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> ............
> Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773



Have Iranian armies become a thing and I didn't notice?  Where are they marching to in their 'offensive'? I can't help but wonder if the author isn't stretching things about Iran in an effort to support aggression towards Russia.  After all,Yaroslav Trofimov, the guy who made that statement is born in Kiev, Ukraine and has worked in the US for Wall Street Journal for years and Russia and Iran have ties.  Not unlikely at all as far as I can see.



Let's see, his article is decidedly negative and yet when I look at a page out of Newsweek, I find this, which having read it, I would call more positive (and declarative) than anything:

*What is Iran doing in Iraq? How important is Iran in the ground war against ISIS?*
The Iranian government, particularly the Revolutionary Guards, is playing a huge role in helping the Iraqi security forces fight the Islamic State, especially in Diyala. The Guards are working with the Iraqi central government, but they are reportedly heavily reliant on Shiite militias with close ties to Iran. Iran is now arguably the most influential foreign actor in Iraq........Secretary of State John Kerry has acknowledged that the net effect of Iranian strikes on ISIS “is positive.”  http://www.newsweek.com/what-are-iranians-doing-iraq-303107


Two different American msm organizations, two different attitudes.  Is this one more example of how much trust we should be giving to pronouncements by anyone in the mainstream media?  A further support for the idea that we should look for multiple sources before accepting inflammatory rhetoric?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Debby said:


> Have Iranian armies become a thing and I didn't notice?  Where are they marching to in their 'offensive'?



  Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq...  This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday..  Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS..  NO...  Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of  major cities.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubios-confusion-about-isis-and-iran-continues/



> “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so that they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said to Secretary of State John F. Kerry. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”
> “Because the facts completely contradict that,” Kerry replied. “But I’m not at liberty to discuss all of them here for a lot of different reasons.”
> *Rubio was suggesting that the Obama administration is stinting in its airstrikes against the Islamic State in order to allay Iranian anxiety about a new American military incursion into the region* [bold mine-DL]. In preamble questions for Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Rubio suggested that any American military presence would threaten Iran’s desire to be a regional “hegemon.” And by holding back, Rubio suggests, Obama is paving the way for a diplomatic deal on the Iranian nuclear program — a deal that Republicans on and off Capitol Hill are deeply skeptical about.





> When Rubio and Jindal floated this idea last month at CPAC, I thought it might have just been a ridiculous crowd-pleasing line. The fact that Rubio is bringing it up again in a committee hearing means that he must really think this is a clever line of attack. The trouble is that it makes no more sense today than it did then. Iran is actively fighting against ISIS in Iraq, the Iraqi government it supports is threatened by ISIS, and ISIS itself is antithetical to Iran’s own prevailing religious tradition. If the U.S. were attacking ISIS _more_ aggressively, it is hard to see how Iran would be alarmed or concerned by this.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

What the Iranian armies have been doing is assisting us in combating ISIS.


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq...  This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday..  Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS..  NO...  Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of  major cities.



Good point, QS, you are correct, just another example of Republicans acting without facts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> What the Iranian armies have been doing is assisting us in combating ISIS.



Yes... I was posting that above.   Seems like some folks just don't seem to have a grasp on what is going on..  Rubio.. being one of them.. and that's scary because HE thinks he can be President....


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> I'm sorry this doesn't make much sense to me. In what way would the US be ditching its long-standing friends? Nor are we seeking to win the love of Iran. We're just trying to limits Iran's ability to become a nuclear power. If this indeed is the feeling of the Arab countries, the US can well do without such friends IMHO.



I think one of their worries, Josiah,  is about the 10 year agreement in the talks for Iran to be able to rebuild their nuclear capabilities after 10 years. Iran is already discussing that they will not follow that agreement.  Iran often states they will not go along with the U.S. peace talk negotiations, and then Pres. Obama backs down.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

So our Arab friends would prefer to swap a 10 year hiatus in Iran's march to Nuclear armaments for no hiatus?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> I think one of their worries, Josiah,  is about the 10 year agreement in the talks for Iran to be able to rebuild their nuclear capabilities after 10 years. Iran is already discussing that they will not follow that agreement.  Iran often states they will not go along with the U.S. peace talk negotiations, and then Pres. Obama backs down.



 What's the alternative... Sabotage the talks so that instead of 10 years they start to build the bomb NOW?  So you want to go to war?  Because without any alternative plan that's what is going to happen..  Is that what you want?  That's what many in the Congress want.. including those 47 signing that letter.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What's the alternative... Sabotage the talks so that instead of 10 years they start to build the bomb NOW?  So you want to go to war?  Because without any alternative plan that's what is going to happen..  Is that what you want?  That's what many in the Congress want.. including those 47 signing that letter.



The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.



Please explain how more sanctions are going to prevent them from continuing to develop a nuclear bomb?   When they haven't so far.   Do you think that with no concessions at all, Iran is just going to stop nuclear enrichment... because we tell them to?  That's not how negotiations work.  No..they will continue to enrich.. and we will eventually have to go to war..   Problem is.. Russia is Iran's ally..  AND last time I checked.   Russia has the bomb.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> The alternative could be Strong Sanctions with no agreement to Iran on 10 years, that there would be no nuclear enrichment for them at all. I think that is what the Arab countries would recommend. War was not mentioned by me.



I'm sorry Misty I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that in exchange for continuing the sanctions, Iran will stop its program of nuclear enrichment? Sounds like a classic lose lose arrangement for the Iranians.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

This IMO is a real problem for the GOP... the fact that all this "hard line" talk makes negotiations impossible.  They simply cannot negotiate with anyone and maintain a "my way or the highway" attitude.  That's only going to lead to war.  It's already almost destroyed the ability of Washington to govern. Compromise is not even a word that John Boehner can SAY let alone do.  Negotiations work when both sides give and take.. that's what it means..  This hardline GOP rational has got to go.. Hopefully in 2016 it will.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Please explain how more sanctions are going to prevent them from continuing to develop a nuclear bomb?   When they haven't so far.   Do you think that with no concessions at all, Iran is just going to stop nuclear enrichment... because we tell them to?  That's not how negotiations work.  No..they will continue to enrich.. and we will eventually have to go to war..   Problem is.. Russia is Iran's ally..  AND last time I checked.   Russia has the bomb.



Here are the New York times suggestions on strong sanctions 

The first, and  easiest, would be to end public subsidies of economic development in  Iran through loan guarantees. All developed countries (Japan, the E.U.,  etc.) should stop using taxpayer money to guarantee investments in Iran.  Many governments have cut back on such guarantees — they should now end  them. 

Foreign governments  should also prohibit their companies from undertaking large  infrastructure projects in Iran, especially in the energy sector. If  foreign companies do pursue such projects, they should be prohibited  from doing business in the United States — either selling their products  or accessing U.S. capital markets. 

 Second, all exports of  refined petroleum products to Iran should be banned. Congress is now  considering legislation that would penalize companies that defy such a  ban, including shipping companies and insurance companies that cover  these shipments. The legislation should be adopted, and U.S. trading  partners should pass similar laws. A shortage of fuel could have a quick  and negative effect on the ruling regime.

Finally, Iran’s  banking sector should be further squeezed. Euro-zone countries could  follow the example of the United States and prevent Iranian entities  from using the euro. Without the dollar or the euro, it would be costly  and difficult for Iran to move hard currency around the world, and would  further raise the cost of doing business for the Iranian government and  Iranian companies.


Sanctions are a blunt  instrument and will undoubtedly hurt Iranian business and individuals.  But given the dreadfulness of the other options now available, sanctions  are our best bet.




http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes....tions-work-against-iran/comment-page-11/?_r=0

President Obama stated that he would veto any new Iran sanctions by congress. I don't understand why the President never works with Congress, he just does whatever he wants to do on his own, without any input on those we put in Congress to address our concerns. Not everyone voted for Obama, and our congressmen should be allowed to have input too on decisions made by Obama.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty, strong sanctions which have been in place for years have worked. They have brought the Iranians to the table to negotiate limitations on their Nuclear enrichment. That's what we wanted the sanctions to accomplish. So now we're trying to hammer out an understanding whereby the Iranians won't continue nuclear enrichment and you want to scuttle the negotiations? I don't understand.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 12, 2015)

Sanctions haven't worked.  We need to persevere with negotiations, short of armed conflict it's our only option.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Misty, strong sanctions which have been in place for years have worked. They have brought the Iranians to the table to negotiate limitations on their Nuclear enrichment. That's what we wanted the sanctions to accomplish. So now we're trying to hammer out an understanding whereby the Iranians won't continue nuclear enrichment and you want to scuttle the negotiations? I don't understand.



I would be very happy about an agreement with Iran not to continue nuclear enrichment, Josiah, but the agreement to last 10 years and then have ability to enrich is the deal breaker for me. It should not have a 10 year limit in my opinion. Iran is already stating that they will not go along with the 10 year hiatus on nuclear enrichment.

                         [h=3]Iran rejects Obama's 10-year nuclear-freeze demand[/h]                         Iran has rejected  as "unacceptable" US President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze  sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years as part of a landmark  nuclear deal,...
Al Jazeera                         2015-03-04                     
                                               [h=3]Iran calls Obama's demand for freezing nuclear activities for 10 years 'unacceptable'[/h]                         Iran rejected on  Tuesday as "unacceptable" U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it  freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years but said it  would continue...
DNA India                         2015-03-04                     
                                               [h=3]UPDATE 4-Iran calls Obama's 10-year nuclear demand 'unacceptable'[/h]                         (Adds Tuesday's  talks end, Obama comments on Netanyahu speech) By Arshad Mohammed  MONTREUX, Switzerland, March 3 (Reuters) - Iran rejected on Tuesday as  "unacceptable" U.S....
Philadelphia Daily News                         2015-03-03


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty, Maybe the Iranian hardliners are saying 10 years is unacceptable, but the understanding that the US Iran and five other nations is negotiation is for 10 years and the prospects seemed good that these negotiations would have led to such an understanding agreed to by Iran, accept for the efforts of the Iranian hardliners and their allies in the US Senate to scuttle the negotiation. I'm sure you're aware Misty, that the only way we can ever feel confident that Iran in not secretly doing nuclear enrichment is if independent observers are allowed by Iran to monitor compliance within the country of Iran. The only way to get those monitors into Iran is with a negotiated understanding such as we are trying to negotiate.


----------



## Debby (Mar 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh yes.. Iran IS on the offensive... Iran is fighting ISIS in Iraq...  This is something that I don't think our Republican friends understand.. Marco Rubio had a hard time with it in a hearing yesterday..  Saying that Iran is afraid of the US coming in to defeat ISIS..  NO...  Iran is HAPPY that we are bombing ISIS.. because folks.. On this point.. WE and IRAN happen to be on the same side.. The Iraqi army as well as the Iranian army have teamed up to run ISIS out of  major cities.
> 
> http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubios-confusion-about-isis-and-iran-continues/
> ​





S0 I have learned something here too and thanks for that folks.  I really wasn't aware that Iran was a big player in the fight against ISIS so I'm glad that this came up here.​


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This IMO is a real problem for the GOP... the fact that all this "hard line" talk makes negotiations impossible.  They simply cannot negotiate with anyone and maintain a "my way or the highway" attitude.  That's only going to lead to war.  It's already almost destroyed the ability of Washington to govern. Compromise is not even a word that John Boehner can SAY let alone do.  Negotiations work when both sides give and take.. that's what it means..  This hardline GOP rational has got to go.. Hopefully in 2016 it will.



I think Iran has the attitude of my way or the highway, Quicksilver.

*Iran advancing its nuclear program despite pact with West*




 Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 2:46 p.m. EST February 28, 2014


In recent weeks Iranian officials have said they will not dismantle  elements of their nuclear program of concern to the West, including  centrifuges, enrichment facilities and a heavy water reactor under  construction that, once operational, would produce plutonium that could  fuel a bomb with further processing. Among the concerns identified by  Institute for Science and International Security and other sources:

•  Iran continues research and development work at its Natanz Pilot Fuel  Enrichment Plant, and has installed casing for a new eighth-generation  centrifuge. Aliakbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization,  has said the new design is 15 times more powerful than the IR-1  centrifuge, according to Iran's state broadcaster IRIB.

• The  U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, reported no new progress on  addressing its questions related to past military dimensions of Iran's  nuclear program. It has yet to gain access to Parchin, a military site  where the IAEA seeks to investigate concentric explosive devices that  could be used to demolish bridges or detonate a nuclear warhead.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/28/iran-nuclear-economic-advance/5835935/


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 12, 2015)

Let's get back to the subject.  The letter, surely you don't support that action do you Misty?

Maybe Misty didn't see my question, I'll try again later.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Misty, Maybe the Iranian hardliners are saying 10 years is unacceptable, but the understanding that the US Iran and five other nations is negotiation is for 10 years and the prospects seemed good that these negotiations would have led to such an understanding agreed to by Iran, accept for the efforts of the Iranian hardliners and their allies in the US Senate to scuttle the negotiation. I'm sure you're aware Misty, that the only way we can ever feel confident that Iran in not secretly doing nuclear enrichment is if independent observers are allowed by Iran to monitor compliance within the country of Iran. The only way to get those monitors into Iran is with a negotiated understanding such as we are trying to negotiate.



I totally agree, Joshiah, that independent observers should be allowed by Iran to monitor compliance, but Iran just keeps doing what it wants to do, and is still not allowing compliance. If Pres. Obama gets Iran to allow independent observers to monitor their activities, and Iran stops all nuclear enrichment, I will give the President alot of credit.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

Debby said:


> Have Iranian armies become a thing and I didn't notice?  Where are they marching to in their 'offensive'? I can't help but wonder if the author isn't stretching things about Iran in an effort to support aggression towards Russia.  After all,Yaroslav Trofimov, the guy who made that statement is born in Kiev, Ukraine and has worked in the US for Wall Street Journal for years and Russia and Iran have ties.  Not unlikely at all as far as I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I missed seeing your post earlier, Debby. I always try to look at mulitiple sources and at one time would read CNN, Fox News, ABC, USA, Yahoo News, MSNBC, Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times and decided I would rather have a life than keep spending all that time, trying to keep up with the news, so now I have cut down on my newsreading.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 12, 2015)

Misty, I think you missed my question also.  I asked if you support the action of the 47 who signed that treasonous letter?


----------



## Josiah (Mar 12, 2015)

Hi Misty,

Here's where we disagree. You say "Iran just keeps doing what it wants to do, and is still not allowing compliance" and I say that on the contrary the sanctions have hurt Iran so badly that they (THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN) are willing to sign a document saying that independent observers can come into their country and confirm that Iran is not doing nuclear enrichment. Do you see where that's different from what you are saying. The reason that I feel I'm right and your statement is wrong is that Secretary Kerry and the negotiators from five other countries have been sitting at a table with the negotiators of the Iranian government and they all confirm that they are close to such an understanding. So before you say that the Iranians aren't cooperating again please address the consensus opinion of all these negotiators.


----------



## Misty (Mar 12, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Let's get back to the subject.  The letter, surely you don't support that action do you Misty?
> 
> Maybe Misty didn't see my question, I'll try again later.



Sorry, no I didn't see your question, Jim. I don't think the letter should have been written, but I do understand the frustration of not being listened to by the President, as he ignores input from congress on the issue. Sending the letter was unprofessional and inappropriate in my opinion.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 12, 2015)

Good for you Misty.  Thanks for your candor.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 12, 2015)

This has been an informative thread. Thank you all.


----------



## charlotta (Mar 12, 2015)

Of all of the presidents that I remember, I do not recall one ever has been shown so little respect as our U. S House and Senate has 
exhibited to President Obama.  I am so embarrassed for them.


----------



## Glinda (Mar 12, 2015)

charlotta said:


> Of all of the presidents that I remember, I do not recall one ever has been shown so little respect as our U. S House and Senate has
> exhibited to President Obama.  I am so embarrassed for them.



I agree.  And it's not a matter of intellectual disagreement based on different perspectives regarding a particular issue. That would be an acceptable and healthy function of the democratic process.  But no, it's a matter of frenzied, neurotic hatred of President Obama on the part of republicans.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 12, 2015)

Obama Derangement Syndrome


----------



## BobF (Mar 13, 2015)

And why should not the Congress be upset with Obama after 6 years of his not using the Congress as his legislative and legal body as he should.   Obama has snubbed what should have been our legal and rightful way of doing things.   That is not right at all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 13, 2015)

BobF said:


> And why should not the Congress be upset with Obama after 6 years of his not using the Congress as his legislative and legal body as he should.   Obama has snubbed what should have been our legal and rightful way of doing things.   That is not right at all.



No he hasn't...  The Republicans have blocked every piece of legislation or refused to bring it to a vote in the house.. Just WHAT news channel do you listen to?  and where have you been for 6 years?


----------



## BobF (Mar 13, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No he hasn't...  The Republicans have blocked every piece of legislation or refused to bring it to a vote in the house.. Just WHAT news channel do you listen to?  and where have you been for 6 years?



I have been right here in the US but apparently you may have been traveling.   I don't know how you can say the House blocked every piece of legislation as it is the House where most items get started and then they were blocked by the Democrat leader of the Senate, Reid, as he refused to allow any House legislature to get discussed in the Senate.    I sure don't know where you dig up such incorrect nonsense.

For the channels and such i use for news it is mostly NBC, can also say sometimes ABC or CBS.   Each day I also take a couple hours of FOX NEWS to add some balance to the other news casts.   I suppose I should be listening to one of those way far left ones where seldom is truth spoken.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 13, 2015)

This morning I woke to an interview on National Radio of a spokesman from the Brookings Institution on the subject of the Middle East, the various antagonists and America's foreign policy options. It was a very intelligent discussion (not yet available online but I will keep watching). In that light I googled Brookings and Iran and came up with this equally thoughtful appraisal of the Republican letter to Iranian leaders and what the effect of it is likely to be in Iran.

Worth a read. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/03/10-congress-letter-iran-nuclear-deal


----------



## charlotta (Mar 13, 2015)

Bob F, Obama has been told from day one that they (the Republicans)  that they were going to do everything in their power to oppose everything that our President proposed.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 13, 2015)

You guys haven't given up on BobF yet?  I have he is so woefully  uninformed it's torture to try and communicate with him.


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

charlotta said:


> Bob F, Obama has been told from day one that they (the Republicans)  that they were going to do everything in their power to oppose everything that our President proposed.



If that is so true, why haven't anybody actually posted the proof of that comment.   

The big problem has been when anything was being done Obama did them behind closed doors, like the Obama care meetings where they were done without the Republicans allowed in.   Their last time when it was voting time was done in the open chambers and for some hours the Democrats were losing the vote, so the vote was held open till the Democrat hold outs were convinced to vote for Obama care.   I wonder what was the convincing comment.   Maybe some sort of financial improvement.  Anyway, it was later in the evening before Obama care did have its winning votes.   It surely was not a marvelous victory for the Obama care.

And today we still do not know how the Supreme court may handle the Obama care.   I think we may know that in another couple months when the Supreme courts makes their decisions public.


----------



## Glinda (Mar 14, 2015)

Hey, Bob!  Yesterday my yoga instructor said this:  "Say good-bye to that which does not promote peace, wisdom, and tranquility in your life."  This made me think of you, Bob.  I'm afraid we have to break up . . . Bye, Bob . . . :wave:


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Hey, Bob!  Yesterday my yoga instructor said this:  "Say good-bye to that which does not promote peace, wisdom, and tranquility in your life."  This made me think of you, Bob.  I'm afraid we have to break up . . . Bye, Bob . . . :wave:



Poor judgement of me.   But your own decision, not mine.   I would not know just looking at you, but you must be one of the lefties on this forum with this comment.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 14, 2015)

charlotta said:


> Obama has been told from day one that they (the Republicans)  that they were going to do everything in their power to oppose everything that our President proposed.





BobF said:


> If that is so true, why haven't anybody actually posted the proof of that comment.



That's been true and obvious since the first day Obama took the Presidency for the first term.  http://egbertowillies.com/2012/09/0...ama-to-fail-and-would-obstruct-at-every-turn/


*"Republicans want Obama to fail more than they want America to succeed.*

Obama does better when America does better, so Republican politicians have been sabotaging our recovery since day one. That’s like setting fire to the house, keeping your foot on the water hose, and telling everyone the firefighters did it. It’s the worst kind of politicians who keep voting against their own constituents’ interests — so their constituents will vote against the President.

*THE EVIDENCE*

On President Obama’s inauguration day in 2009, Republican leaders — including Romney’s VP pick Congressman Ryan — met to plot how they could sabotage and undermine the economy in order to make the President fail.

Republican leaders said they want the President to fail:



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Rush Limbaugh: "I hope he fails."
Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann: "we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed."


Last year alone, Washington Republicans tried to kill over 7 million jobs.
When asked about the potential for more job losses, Speaker John Boehner said, "so be it."

They threatened to shut down our government, which would have cost our economy billions.
They brought our nation to the brink of default by threatening not to pay America’s bills, and say they’ll do it again — even though the default crisis by itself almost derailed the recovery.

Their political brinkmanship brought us the Tea Party Downgrade, the first-ever downgrade of America’s perfect credit rating.
They didn’t even want the Federal Reserve to consider intervening to help our struggling economy.

Let’s remember — a month into his presidency, they refused to help our economy recover.
They unified in voting against the President’s American Jobs Act, which would create 2 million jobs, even though it’s based on proposals they have supported in the past.

If Republican politicians hadn’t pushed so hard to lay off our teachers, cops, and firefighters and block efforts to put Americans back to work fixing our roads and bridges, the unemployment rate could be down to 6% already.

And now, Republicans have nominated Mitt Romney for president, even though economic experts say that implementing all of his economic ideas would "push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower."
Even Romney admits that massive spending cuts will “throw us into recession or depression" — but he supports them anyway."


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

Well that is all at least two years old and nothing has change since then either.   The Democrats still hate and attempt to keep the Republicans from doing any government issues at all.   Even now with both Congress houses now under Republican control we hear nothing but more nonsense about how evil they are.   I don't consider those so called proofs posted as being anything more than conversations.   Same old nonsense as gets posted on here with lefties loving to challenge the more conservatives.

How did the Republicans get control over both houses of Congress?    The *people* made that happen because the *people* are not happy with the way the Democrats have really messed up our finances and the way our government has been run.  Over 10 trillion more debt for the US in the last 8 years where the Democrats have had the House and  Senate in their hands.   Four years now the Republicans have had control of the House but could not do anything as the Senate was controlled by the Democrats and Reid refused to give the Republican efforts any time on the floor.

In less than two years we will have another election.   If it is a Democrat named Hillary, it will be better than Obama.   If it is a Republican it will be better than Obama.    We need to get this government back under control of the people, like the Congress running things once again and not just some self proclaimed leader in spite of the Constitutions ways.   Obama is smart and a good speaker, but he seems to have forgotten we do have a Constitution that has carried this country for over 200 years.   It is still a very good document and we should all be following its guidelines.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 14, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well that is all at least two years old and nothing has change since then either.



That information was from 2012, and I agree nothing has changed since then.  The GOP is still doing everything in their power to obstruct the President and attempt to discredit everything he's done for this country.  Some people are happy with the progress the democrats have made since President Obama took office, and some are not happy that is not news.  Many people don't get out to vote unless it is a Presidential election year, that may be reasons why the votes sway certain ways in midterms. 

 I'm not thrilled with everything Obama has done, but he's certainly an improvement over the last president in many ways.  He's done well to pick up the pieces left to him when he took office, and for that I have to give him credit.  The economy has improved from the state it was in before Obama, he's had a rough road to travel, but he's strong and has done well, IMO.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 17, 2015)

The real story behind the letter (perspective).  http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/17/real-story-behind-republicans-iran-letter/



> *AIPAC Marching Orders
> 
> *The more serious problem with focusing on the Logan Act, however, is that what Cotton and his Republican colleagues were doing was not negotiating with a foreign government but trying to influence the outcome of negotiations _in the interest_ _of a foreign government_.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jackie22 (Mar 18, 2015)

Thank you, SeaBreeze, a very enlightening article....here is another about Mr. Cotton and the college thesis he wrote...

[h=1]Tom Cotton, sociopath, believes we should be led by male elites like him[/h]Daily Kos 
*Tom Cotton, sociopath, believes we should be led by male elites like him* 
by EyesBright 

The dead eyes, the lack of personality, his lack of judgement when it comes to how others will view his actions, an utter lack of empathy for other human beings and an overweening ambition that developed early - all point to Tom Cotton as a man to be watched very carefully. 
Even though, at age 37, he's the youngest senator in Washington, Red State calls him "the most powerful man in Washington." 

An in depth, well researched article in the September, 2014 edition of The Atlantic traces Cotton from a childhood where he didn't speak until he was three years old and had a long lasting, severe speech impediment, through his college years and his thesis that sought to prove that only extremely ambitious males should rule, all the way to his nascent political career and important votes that reveal a troubling mind set. 

Cotton's college thesis reveals his scorn for average Americans. 

Cotton insists that the Founders were wise not to put too much faith in democracy, because people are inherently selfish, narrow-minded, and impulsive. He defends the idea that the country must be led by a class of intellectually superior officeholders whose ambition sets them above other men... he derides the Federalists’ modern critics as mushy-headed and naive. 

“Ambition characterizes and distinguishes national officeholders from other kinds of human beings,” Cotton wrote. “Inflammatory passion and selfish interest characterizes most men, whereas ambition characterizes men who pursue and hold national office. Such men rise from the people through a process of self-selection since politics is a dirty business that discourages all but the most ambitious.” 
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/ ​And, yet, his ambition to be part of that "dirty business" was clearly evident from early on to local king makers. 

From the time he was a teenager, Cotton has been nurtured and groomed by conservative institutions—scholars, think tanks, media, and advocacy groups—to be the face of their political crusade. 
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/​It's not surprising that they seized on a young Tom Cotton.  His is a brand of conservativism that is more heartless than most, a fanatical elitism that sees his views as uber superior in a way that few do (or would admit to). 


More 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...we-should-be-lead-by-male-elites?detail=email


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 18, 2015)

All sorts of scary people being promoted by those wishing to destroy our democracy.  One has to wonder how these people settle on their views.  I know many of them use Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as their bible.  It's required reading for Paul Ryan's staff.  Ayn Rand was a sociopath and her books reflect that mindset.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 18, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> All sorts of scary people being promoted by those wishing to destroy our democracy.  One has to wonder how these people settle on their views.  I know many of them use Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as their bible.  It's required reading for Paul Ryan's staff.  Ayn Rand was a sociopath and her books reflect that mindset.



Good statement.  Ayn Rand and her narcissism and that of her followers.  Then, too, the republicans and their corporate sponsors are extremely adept at the "divide and conquer" amongst the masses that I learned about in my first sociology and psychology courses.  That has been true throughout history and it's being used "in spades" these days.    And, unfortunately, people who have been divided and conquered do not see that they have been manipulated.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 18, 2015)

Rocky said:


> Good statement.  Ayn Rand and her narcissism and that of her followers.  Then, too, the republicans and their corporate sponsors are extremely adept at the "divide and conquer" amongst the masses that I learned about in my first sociology and psychology courses.  That has been true throughout history and it's being used "in spades" these days.    And, unfortunately, people who have been divided and conquered do not see that they have been manipulated.



Absolutely.. that has been part of the strategy.   This is why the Religious Right was courted and brought into politics.  Republicans use social issues that people feel strongly about to act as a bait and switch.   Things like Guns, abortion, gay rights are wedge issues that deflect from the true agenda of Corporate supremacy and wealth redistribution to the top.   There are so many people that vote based on their religious beliefs when in reality these issues are of little concern to the Plutocracy. All they need is the election of willing puppets to pass their agenda.  To secure this, social issues are the bait...  and wealth redistribution is the switch.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 18, 2015)

You know Germany in the 30's was sleeping when Adolf Hitler began turning his radical ideas into cultivating followers and look how that turned out.


----------



## BobF (Mar 18, 2015)

And today we have the far left ignoring our Constitution and insisting we should all follow their way and rhen blame the Republicans for all the problems we have with 18 trillion dollars of debt, which were mostly created by our far left folks who added 11 Trillion of debt in the last 8 years.   Oh yes, we do have problems these days but they were not created by the right or far right folks at all.


----------

