Dear Senators,

We are writing in response to your recent letter.

Dudes - that shit was Too funny! The Ayatollah laughed so hard he pissed his baggy MC Hammer pants and snot came out of his nose. The Revolutionary Guard was all ROTFLMFAO. Our foreign minister was beside himself with glee over the rift you created with all the P5+1 countries. Thanks - you guys are awesome!

You really cheered us up and answered our prayers to Allah with this gift. We haven't been this happy since Ronald Reagan secretly sold us high tech weapons systems to raise money to fund his secret, illegal, and specifically banned by Congress Contra war back in the 1980's. Well, except for maybe that time we secretly worked with George W. Bush to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan after you invaded about 10 years ago, and then called us part of the Axis of Evil.

Regardless, there are some basic factual errors in your letter. Strongly suggest your A Team goes back and read your Constitution. We're not scientists but we're pretty sure there is something in there about the President having control of your foreign policy. We teach that stuff to our elementary school kids when we indoctrinate them about the Government of the Great Satan America. Hard to believe the chief author went to Harvard and doesn't understand the Separation of Powers. We have a copy of the U.S. Constitution if you need to borrow one.

OBTW: we are not negotiating a treaty with Obama that requires advice and consent from the U.S. Congress.

We do greatly appreciate the uncertainty you've created about whether Republicans can be trusted to honor the Executive Agreement we are negotiating with your President. We are going to leverage the uncertainty you've created in our ongoing negotiations. It should help our bargaining position that economic sanctions need to be lifted sooner, as in now, rather than later - since America can't be trusted if a Republican is elected President or the Republican controlled congress decides to vote in tougher economic sanctions right after we reach an agreement with the P5+1. Thanks for the leg up.

P.S. Thanks for inviting that Zionist Isreali Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to your Congress. You really pumped up our position that America is a puppet of Israel. It played well with our Islamic Fundamentalists throughout the region. Our recruiting numbers have seen a tremendous surge.

On the flip side - have you seen the Israeli election polls? Bibi is tanking and the more moderate Israeli parties - the ones who want a Palestinian state - are surging. It looks like Netanyahu is going to be defeated. Way to Go! That is exactly what we wanted!

We encourage the Republicans to keep writing us open letters. We love you guys. You really know how to get us the results that we desperately need. The timing couldn't have been more perfect. And man, oh man, when we calmly and rationally schooled you guys in front of the world media, it proved we were rational actors. That was choice.

Allah's Blessings Upon You All!

Lmao. That epic. Summed up all their stupidity so well. Bravo. This thread should be a reference for Republicans so they can see and read the disaster they are.

libturds hate free speech more than the mullahs do. especially pro-Constitution free speech.

in obummer's Amerika, the truth is considered a hate-crime. libturds rejoice!

Obama is a great commie. He said he will rig the Israeli election by throwing the weight of his hammer and sickle to undermind what should be a fair election. Saul Alinski would be proud of this guy.

KnM3U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libturds hate free speech more than the mullahs
> do. especially pro-Constitution free speech.
>
> in obummer's Amerika, the truth is considered a
> hate-crime. libturds rejoice!


Funny thing is no one complained about free speech. No one said they cannot do this. The treason talk is kookoo. However, if 47 Senators feel the need to contact other countries we are negotiating with why not the other Senators? Why not groups and individuals within Congress? Our states have free speech, would it be best for the country if groups of Governors wrote to Iran about negotiations stating the fact that they influenced who was elected to both the White House, House and Senate?

Where do foreign heads of state turn to negotiate. Should diplomats start with talks with the House and Senate or should they meet with each major branch of government to cover all bases? The miss step in the letter was that when you break the chain of command you invite disorder and confusion, ultimately reducing the full power and effect of the US government in the international venue.

Is this the action the Senators would advise would be appropriate with a Republican President in office? In the end this probably damaged the Senators the most because even the industrial war complex they serve need order to maintain our ongoing wars. I do believe there are many that sincerely want a new war and more war but this was a ham-handed way to realize that goal.

KnM3U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> libturds hate free speech more than the mullahs
> do. especially pro-Constitution free speech.
>
> in obummer's Amerika, the truth is considered a
> hate-crime. libturds rejoice!


Liberals don't despise free speech, they can't tolerate stupidity.

Warm Beer, Cold Women Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Liberals don't despise free speech, they can't
> tolerate stupidity.


Right, like the freedom to say there are 57 states!

Territories are not member states but are technically states classified as territories of the United States.

If Obama cared about getting the best deal possible, he'd take the good cop-bad cop opportunity this presents to strengthen his negotiating position vs Iran. That is, if he isn't so desperate to get a deal.

I'm tired of Obama selling short the strength of the US negotiating position by saying it's either a deal or war. That's a false dichotomy since it's not a sure thing we'll go to war if there's no deal and Iran does eventually develop a nuke. We may choose to try to Cold War them instead.

BannedFromGoldsGym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Obama cared about getting the best deal
> possible, he'd take the good cop-bad cop
> opportunity this presents to strengthen his
> negotiating position vs Iran. That is, if he isn't
> so desperate to get a deal.
>
> I'm tired of Obama selling short the strength of
> the US negotiating position by saying it's either
> a deal or war. That's a false dichotomy since
> it's not a sure thing we'll go to war if there's
> no deal and Iran does eventually develop a nuke.
> We may choose to try to Cold War them instead.

And what makes you think that's not the case? Guiliani tell you that? You Republicans weakened our negotiating strength. Please don't lecture us.

If the United states is fearing war without a deal more than Iran is fearing war without a deal, you can't negotiate successfully with that as the backdrop.

If Iran gets a nuke or is just about to get a nuke, it doesn't mean you have to go to war. The "experts" are notorious for blowing the probabilities of something apocalyptic happening out of proportion. You just have to deal with the new reality of a nuclear Iran. Life goes on. Iran will still have a lot of tricky waters to navigate.

It's best to keep both options on the table if there's no deal, attack them or cold war them. Show the Iranians you're comfortable with either one, and they become the desperate ones. Their people are starving, civil unrest is always a threat to topple their power structure. They are facing risks too. That's why they are negotiating with us despite them fearing war less than Obama fears war.

Iran's getting nukes. End of story. Let their neighbors deal with them. I'm sure that will work out well.

BannedFromGoldsGym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the United states is fearing war without a deal
> more than Iran is fearing war without a deal, you
> can't negotiate successfully with that as the
> backdrop.
>
> If Iran gets a nuke or is just about to get a
> nuke, it doesn't mean you have to go to war. The
> "experts" are notorious for blowing the
> probabilities of something apocalyptic happening
> out of proportion. You just have to deal with the
> new reality of a nuclear Iran. Life goes on.
> Iran will still have a lot of tricky waters to
> navigate.
>
> It's best to keep both options on the table if
> there's no deal, attack them or cold war them.
> Show the Iranians you're comfortable with either
> one, and they become the desperate ones. Their
> people are starving, civil unrest is always a
> threat to topple their power structure. They are
> facing risks too. That's why they are negotiating
> with us despite them fearing war less than Obama
> fears war.


We'll remember that when they nuke DC.

They still have to test dont they? Do you actually think any country in the world would take pre-emptive nuclear action without a single nucleae test? I dont even think ISIS would be that stupid.

Why dont you launch military strikes if they test?


Why the rush to war? Our army is not Israels army.

Only reason we're convinced they want nukes is because we allow Israel to create this middle eastern nuclear arms race with their own nukes.

God Bless Republicans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Ayatollah laughed so hard he pissed his baggy MC Hammer
> pants and snot came out of his nose. The
> Revolutionary Guard was all ROTFLMFAO.

^ + 1

Has to be one of the funniest posts on FFXU in a long long time.

They're all LOL because the know Valorie Jarret is one of theirs. I wonder if we built the mock up aircraft carrier they attacked?

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama is a great commie. He said he will rig the Israeli
> election by throwing the weight of his hammer and sickle
> to undermind what should be a fair election. Saul Alinski
> would be proud of this guy.

The stupidest fucking poster on the internets pushes the envelope of stupid even further!

Oh really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Liberals don't despise free speech, they can't
> > tolerate stupidity.
>
> Right, like the freedom to say there are 57 states!

LOL! Wanna guess who that post made an asshole of? What a clueless right-wing piddle-brain!

BannedFromGoldsGym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Iran gets a nuke or is just about to get a
> nuke, it doesn't mean you have to go to war.

Did we go to war with India or Pakistan? How about Israel? Why is it okay for all of them to develop nuclear weapons, but not Iran? What did we do when Bush drove the DPRK to produce weapons? What plans do we have re South Africa?

Thanks! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We'll remember that when they nuke DC.

Crawl back into the sewer, dumbass. This conversation is way above your level of competence.

here a revelation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why the rush to war?

It's the only sort of response that most of these thick-skulled neanderthals can wrap their little pinhead brains around. The intricacies and nuances of any other strategy or approach would be well beyond their highly limited levels of understanding,

Those heathens understand the dumb bomb, not your silly chicken libshitspeak.

only reason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only reason we're convinced they want nukes is
> because we allow Israel to create this middle
> eastern nuclear arms race with their own nukes.

Under international law, they have a right to develop a nuclear capability. Oil is their principal export and having to use oil to produce domestic energy limits their ability to advance via export-driven growth. At least three other states in the region have weapons and the respect that weapons bring. Why should Iran not also have a seat at that table? Do we know how far Syria has gotten? Will we go to war with the Saudis when their turn comes?

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those heathens understand the dumb bomb, not your
> silly chicken libshitspeak.

You're a completely useless shit-for-brains goober asshole and by far the stupidest fucking poster anywhere on the internets. You do nothing more than embarrass your pathetically ignorant ass here post after post after post.

Gerry is spitting out his curry cheerios as he posts.

Troo The Voat ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True The Vote ! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Those heathens understand the dumb bomb, not
> your
> > silly chicken libshitspeak.
>
> You're a completely useless shit-for-brains goober
> asshole and by far the stupidest fucking poster
> anywhere on the internets. You do nothing more
> than embarrass your pathetically ignorant ass here
> post after post after post.

"Goober"? libs intelligence doesn't go beyond Bob the builder, " Yes we can!" and Sponge Bob, "goober". I bet that sounds funny as shit with that Indian accent.

G2 is an Indian cow fucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Goober"? libs intelligence doesn't go beyond Bob
> the builder, " Yes we can!" and Sponge Bob,
> "goober". I bet that sounds funny as shit with
> that Indian accent.

Aw! The worthless little assfuck-troll has had his tender feelings hurt! Poor stupid piece of brain-dead squid-shit got his goober butthole greased and now he's crying over it. What a colossally ignorant fucktard and sorry-ass world-class LOSER! Stupidest fucking dumbshit anywhere on the internets.

Maybe that sitar player curry slayer dude will sing a Goober song for Gerry. Troo The Goat will swoon over that kind of attention, again.

Don't flatter yourself you subhuman scum. I don't waste mtmy time on useless beings such as yourself. Stop your obsession with me you disgusting piece of shit. Stop mentioning my name. The mere mention of my name by the lowest form of scum on this planet is reprehensible.

I dont talk to you or engage you under any alias. This is the last time I will tell you this. Now have some self respect and be a man you coward. Be a man and have some pride in yourself you miserable piece of shit.

That is the last time you receive a response from me.

Is that a promise or an Obama kind of promise?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't flatter yourself you subhuman scum. I don't
> waste mtmy time on useless beings such as
> yourself. Stop your obsession with me you
> disgusting piece of shit. Stop mentioning my name.
> The mere mention of my name by the lowest form of
> scum on this planet is reprehensible.
>
> I dont talk to you or engage you under any alias.
> This is the last time I will tell you this. Now
> have some self respect and be a man you coward. Be
> a man and have some pride in yourself you
> miserable piece of shit.
>
> That is the last time you receive a response from
> me.

Looks like jail time wasn't used by Gerry to improve his grammar skills. He was too busy sucking Aryan Brotherhood cocks to think improving himself.

He sounds like Rev Al or some inmate who read two books in ten years.

Republican DNA - trailer parks, logic, and genius genes wrapped in bacon.

And they wonder why they are the laughing stock of intellectual thought in cartoons around the world.

Go Figure.

:=)
Attachments:

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't flatter yourself you subhuman scum. I don't
> waste mtmy time on useless beings such as
> yourself. Stop your obsession with me you
> disgusting piece of shit. Stop mentioning my name.
> The mere mention of my name by the lowest form of
> scum on this planet is reprehensible.
>
> I dont talk to you or engage you under any alias.
> This is the last time I will tell you this. Now
> have some self respect and be a man you coward. Be
> a man and have some pride in yourself you
> miserable piece of shit.
>
> That is the last time you receive a response from
> me.

You literally contradicted yourself in your second sentence. I think you consult this:

Barack Obama 'tried to undermine George W Bush's Iraq negotiations'

Barack Obama told the Iraqi government that George W Bush should not be allowed to strike a deal on the future of American troops in the country without the approval of the US Congress, it has emerged.

By Jon Swaine 8:26AM BST 10 Oct 2008

Mr Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, also said that the deal should be delayed until President Bush was out of office, according to Iraq's ambassador to the US - though this is denied by Mr Obama's campaign.

The disclosure is likely to raise questions over the propriety of a Mr Obama's contact with the government of a country in which the current president is still conducting a war.

It has been confirmed that Mr Obama spoke to Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, during Mr Zebari's visit to Washington in June. The talk, which was at Mr Zebari's request, was carried out over the phone because Mr Obama was on the campaign trail.

Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the US, told the Washington Times: "In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [deal] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place."

He added that Mr Obama had said "The new administration will have a free hand to opt out" of the deal.

Traitor B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack Obama 'tried to undermine George W Bush's
> Iraq negotiations'
>
> Barack Obama told the Iraqi government that George
> W Bush should not be allowed to strike a deal on
> the future of American troops in the country
> without the approval of the US Congress, it has
> emerged.
>
> By Jon Swaine 8:26AM BST 10 Oct 2008
>
> Mr Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate,
> also said that the deal should be delayed until
> President Bush was out of office, according to
> Iraq's ambassador to the US - though this is
> denied by Mr Obama's campaign.
>
> The disclosure is likely to raise questions over
> the propriety of a Mr Obama's contact with the
> government of a country in which the current
> president is still conducting a war.
>
> It has been confirmed that Mr Obama spoke to
> Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, during
> Mr Zebari's visit to Washington in June. The talk,
> which was at Mr Zebari's request, was carried out
> over the phone because Mr Obama was on the
> campaign trail.
>
> Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the US,
> told the Washington Times: "In the conversation,
> the senator urged Iraq to delay the [deal] between
> Iraq and the United States until the new
> administration was in place."
>
> He added that Mr Obama had said "The new
> administration will have a free hand to opt out"
> of the deal.

I guess the Republican mentality is that if a Democrat did it first, then no harm and no foul if a Republican follows suit.

Let's apply that.

If a Black, Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist commits treason, it is therefore okay for Republicans to commit treason.

If a gay, lesbian, or transgender couple does something - like adopting a child or getting married - so too then it is okay for a Republican to also do it.

Got it.

OK by me. Your rules and logic applied might actually work for a functional and non-devisive and non-discriminatory society.

Euclid's theorems and common notions so oft quoted by famous Republican Abraham Lincoln being what they are states that if two things are equal to the same thing means they are equal to each other.

That Means - Ronald Reagan using the Presidential Office to fund a war expressly forbidden by Congress - to sell US tax payer bought arms to Iran, using the proceeds to fund a secret war with the Contras off the books outside the purview of Congress and the Judiciary, then repeatedly lying about it to Congress - while also arming Saddam Hussein with WMD to fight a proxy war with Iran, while using the CIA to fund Narco terrorists who were importing illegal drugs into the United States with US tax dollars - the profits from which were also used to fund his War on Drugs = Go Fuck Yourself Because You are Full Of Shit if you think Obama is doing or has done untying illegal.

Snort ObamaCare and call me in the morning because you're drunk.

OBTW: You Owe Me $1,000,000 because sucking the logic out of my dick has a price and I'm giving you the maximum $0 discount for being so feeble minded.

No, normal people just recognize the contrived libtard 'outrage' for what it is - hypocritical bullshit.

Bill yourself sucker.

Oh My - The Logic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican DNA - trailer parks, logic, and genius
> genes wrapped in bacon.


LOL. Why do people on welfare vote for..... drum roll..... asshole DEMOCRATS?

U=democrat with criminal history.....

Republicans feel real stupid on this one. Some piece of shit House member Cotton tried to start a war and 47 rightards sign anything that gets their dick hard.

Traitor B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack Obama 'tried to undermine George W Bush's
> Iraq negotiations'
>
> Barack Obama told the Iraqi government that George
> W Bush should not be allowed to strike a deal on
> the future of American troops in the country
> without the approval of the US Congress, it has
> emerged.
>
> By Jon Swaine 8:26AM BST 10 Oct 2008
>
> Mr Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate,
> also said that the deal should be delayed until
> President Bush was out of office, according to
> Iraq's ambassador to the US - though this is
> denied by Mr Obama's campaign.
>
> The disclosure is likely to raise questions over
> the propriety of a Mr Obama's contact with the
> government of a country in which the current
> president is still conducting a war.
>
> It has been confirmed that Mr Obama spoke to
> Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, during
> Mr Zebari's visit to Washington in June. The talk,
> which was at Mr Zebari's request, was carried out
> over the phone because Mr Obama was on the
> campaign trail.
>
> Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the US,
> told the Washington Times: "In the conversation,
> the senator urged Iraq to delay the [deal] between
> Iraq and the United States until the new
> administration was in place."
>
> He added that Mr Obama had said "The new
> administration will have a free hand to opt out"
> of the deal.

You must have accidentally left out the rest of the article here it is:

"
"It's obvious that others are trying to mischaracterise Obama's position, [but] on numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear that the United States only has one president at a time and that the administration speaks with one voice," Miss Morigi told the Washington Times."

Must have been a mistake on your part so I thought you would appreciate the help. You probably also forgot to include the original article that, as time passed, went absolutely no where. Here is the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3170365/Barack-Obama-tried-to-undermine-George-W-Bushs-Iraq-negotiations.html

I would say it is certain Obama did nothing whatsoever that resembled what Sen. Cotton seemed to be trying to do. Even still, it would appear that such an action by any party is not a good idea. Thanks for supporting the US and condemning the actions of the 47 Republican Senators...

one president at a time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You must have accidentally left out the rest of
> the article here it is:
>
> "
> "It's obvious that others are trying to
> mischaracterise Obama's position, [but] on
> numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear
> that the United States only has one president
> at a time and that the administration speaks with
> one voice," Miss Morigi told the Washington
> Times."
>
> Must have been a mistake on your part so I thought
> you would appreciate the help. You probably also
> forgot to include the original article that, as
> time passed, went absolutely no where. Here is
> the link
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackob
> ama/3170365/Barack-Obama-tried-to-undermine-George
> -W-Bushs-Iraq-negotiations.html
>
> I would say it is certain Obama did nothing
> whatsoever that resembled what Sen. Cotton seemed
> to be trying to do. Even still, it would appear
> that such an action by any party is not a good
> idea. Thanks for supporting the US and condemning
> the actions of the 47 Republican Senators...


Because Obama's campaign spokesperson came up with some rationalization doesn't change the facts of his actions. The 47 have equivalent reasoning and statements. Nor did they question the executive function. Same applies to past actions by Pelosi, Kerry, and many others. The fact of the matter is that things like this are not at all "unprecedented;" rather, they are relatively typical at various times for the opposition party.

This is a contrived bullshit "controversy" fed to weak little hypocritical minds like yours.

Traitor B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one president at a time Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You must have accidentally left out the rest of
> > the article here it is:
> >
> > "
> > "It's obvious that others are trying to
> > mischaracterise Obama's position, [but] on
> > numerous occasions he has made it perfectly
> clear
> > that the United States only has one
> president
> > at a time and that the administration speaks
> with
> > one voice," Miss Morigi told the Washington
> > Times."
> >
> > Must have been a mistake on your part so I
> thought
> > you would appreciate the help. You probably
> also
> > forgot to include the original article that, as
> > time passed, went absolutely no where. Here is
> > the link
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackob
>
> >
> ama/3170365/Barack-Obama-tried-to-undermine-George
>
> > -W-Bushs-Iraq-negotiations.html
> >
> > I would say it is certain Obama did nothing
> > whatsoever that resembled what Sen. Cotton
> seemed
> > to be trying to do. Even still, it would
> appear
> > that such an action by any party is not a good
> > idea. Thanks for supporting the US and
> condemning
> > the actions of the 47 Republican Senators...
>
>
> Because Obama's campaign spokesperson came up with
> some rationalization doesn't change the facts of
> his actions. The 47 have equivalent reasoning and
> statements. Nor did they question the executive
> function. Same applies to past actions by Pelosi,
> Kerry, and many others. The fact of the matter is
> that things like this are not at all
> "unprecedented;" rather, they are relatively
> typical at various times for the opposition
> party.
>
> This is a contrived bullshit "controversy" fed to
> weak little hypocritical minds like yours.

'facts of his actions' - what precisely are those? Obama denys the bogus claim by Samir Sumaidaie. So you are right this is similar to the 47 senators. Like they you are eager to side with a middle east politician against Obama. Nice.

Look there is simply no way to make this gaffe by the GOP look good. Oh here is your source by the way


footnote: "In July 2005 Sumaidaie demanded an inquiry into the fatal shooting (which he has described as "cold-blooded") of his cousin during a routine house to house search by US Marines in Iraq."

side with a middle east politici Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traitor B Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > one president at a time Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > You must have accidentally left out the rest
> of
> > > the article here it is:
> > >
> > > "
> > > "It's obvious that others are trying to
> > > mischaracterise Obama's position, [but] on
> > > numerous occasions he has made it perfectly
> > clear
> > > that the United States only has one
> > president
> > > at a time and that the administration speaks
> > with
> > > one voice," Miss Morigi told the
> Washington
> > > Times."
> > >
> > > Must have been a mistake on your part so I
> > thought
> > > you would appreciate the help. You probably
> > also
> > > forgot to include the original article that,
> as
> > > time passed, went absolutely no where. Here
> is
> > > the link
> > >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackob
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ama/3170365/Barack-Obama-tried-to-undermine-George
>
> >
> > > -W-Bushs-Iraq-negotiations.html
> > >
> > > I would say it is certain Obama did nothing
> > > whatsoever that resembled what Sen. Cotton
> > seemed
> > > to be trying to do. Even still, it would
> > appear
> > > that such an action by any party is not a
> good
> > > idea. Thanks for supporting the US and
> > condemning
> > > the actions of the 47 Republican Senators...
> >
> >
> > Because Obama's campaign spokesperson came up
> with
> > some rationalization doesn't change the facts
> of
> > his actions. The 47 have equivalent reasoning
> and
> > statements. Nor did they question the
> executive
> > function. Same applies to past actions by
> Pelosi,
> > Kerry, and many others. The fact of the matter
> is
> > that things like this are not at all
> > "unprecedented;" rather, they are relatively
> > typical at various times for the opposition
> > party.
> >
> > This is a contrived bullshit "controversy" fed
> to
> > weak little hypocritical minds like yours.
>
> 'facts of his actions' - what precisely are those?
> Obama denys the bogus claim by Samir Sumaidaie.
> So you are right this is similar to the 47
> senators. Like they you are eager to side with a
> middle east politician against Obama. Nice.

His backtracking on the specifics of the call don't change the nature of the action with respect to violating the "Logan Act." That he did it is not even in dispute.

>
> Look there is simply no way to make this gaffe by
> the GOP look good. Oh here is your source by the
> way
>
>
>

Actually, the only people who buy into the stupidity are idiots on the left like you. This is a contrived talking point intended to influence the base leftards. It's shit spooned up for your consumption only, not anyone else's.

At a more substantive level beyond that the biggest effect that it's had is to focus more attention on the deal. Which really was the intent so in that sense it's been successful.

Oh, and here's a better pic of Nancy being a "traitor."



Want some of Kerry too?

> footnote: "In July 2005 Sumaidaie demanded an
> inquiry into the fatal shooting (which he has
> described as "cold-blooded") of his cousin during
> a routine house to house search by US Marines in
> Iraq."

Which is relevant to nothing.

So an ambassador calling the Democratic Presidential nominee ahead in the polls a month before election is the same as 47 Senators writing Iran to tell them deals with our President are not binding is the same - got it. Brilliant. And no, Obama never discussed delaying anything with Iraq prior to the election he simply took the call on the road. And yes Obama did assert in no uncertain terms we only have one president at time and 'we' speak as one through him.

Youre pwnd. Go back to FOX please.

LAUSANNE, Switzerland, March 16 (Reuters) - The United States and Iran inched closer to a political deal that would set the stage for a landmark nuclear agreement, but a U.S. official warned on Monday that Iran must make tough choices to allay fears about its atomic ambitions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif held nearly five hours of talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne before the Iranian delegation headed to Brussels for meetings with European ministers.

After the Lausanne talks, a senior U.S. official said it was not clear if an end-March deadline for a framework agreement between Iran and six major powers could be met.

"We are trying to get there but quite frankly we still do not know if we will be able to," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "Iran still has to make some very tough and necessary choices to address the significant concerns that remain about its nuclear program."

The official did not elaborate but added that the Iranian delegation also raised in the meeting with Kerry an "ill-timed and ill-advised" letter from 47 Republican senators to Iran's leadership warning that they could undo any deal President Barack Obama made with them.

"These kinds of distractions are not helpful when we're talking about something so serious," the official added.

The U.S. official said the sides would work through the end of the month if needed to secure a deal. Talks are expected to resume on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters in Brussels, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said progress had been made in the talks but "important points" were unresolved. A statement from German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said a deal could not be struck "at any price."

Go back to FOX please. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So an ambassador calling the Democratic
> Presidential nominee ahead in the polls a month
> before election is the same as 47 Senators writing
> Iran to tell them deals with our President are not
> binding is the same - got it. Brilliant. And no,
> Obama never discussed delaying anything with Iraq
> prior to the election he simply took the call on
> the road. And yes Obama did assert in no
> uncertain terms we only have one president at time
> and 'we' speak as one through him.
>
> Youre pwnd. Go back to FOX please.


Yes, speaking directly with a representative of a foreign government is worse. And Obama made the exact same point.

Go back to eating the shit they feed you. I'm sure that they have another "outrage" (which also will have been done by other Democrats) queued up for you to feign being upset about soon enough.




War on Women brah!

lulz

The Senators want war that is it. Period.

As to the troll pimping the bogus Obama 08 story - face it, if FOX hasnt put this front and center there is less than nothing there (unless you think Newscorp is in on the whole 'liberal media/climate control hoax thingy).