Civil War right around the corner better get armed up
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
If he had lived, he probably would have Killed some of the neighborhood scum, he left us way before his time.
JMHO
Rudy is the only one with the balls to say what over half the country already thinks. I am sure he will pay for it one way or another.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xobY1Wx6Kls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
:mj07:
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Criticism of 47 Republican senators' letter to Iranian leaders escalated Friday, and one of the lawmakers expressed misgivings about writing directly to an adversary to raise doubts about President Barack Obama's nuclear negotiations.
Several newspapers that had endorsed the senators' elections were harshly critical. A handful of conservative commentators and former GOP aides joined legions of liberals in calling the letter ill-advised.
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who may face a tough re-election next year, defended the letter, but added, "If there was any regret, tactically, it probably would have been better just to have it be an open letter addressed to no one."
Another signer, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, expressed similar thoughts. The letter "could have been addressed to other folks and gotten the message out," Roberts said. "But I think the message is more important than who we send it to."
All but seven of the Senate's Republicans signed the letter, but no Democrats did. The letter warns Iran's leaders that any negotiated agreement on their nuclear program could expire when Obama leaves office.
Democrats and some academics say the letter undermines Obama's ? and future presidents' ? ability to set foreign policy.
Republicans defended the letter, saying they must take dramatic steps to demand a voice in negotiations, because they fear Obama will be too soft on Iran. Some of the 47 senators, however, are taking heat back home from editorial pages that have supported them.
In Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Sen. Rob Portman's 2010 campaign, but they berated him this week for signing the Iran letter.
"The magnitude of this disgraceful decision," a Plain Dealer editorial said, "shows the degree to which partisanship has gobbled up rationality on foreign policy."
The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial said the letter "diminishes the dignity of the Senate by disparaging the president and presenting an amateur lesson on U.S. governance." It praised Portman in general, but said he erred because "now, facing re-election, he's nervous."
Portman, appearing in Columbus Friday, said the letter will strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations with Iran. But former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat hoping to unseat Portman next year, called the letter "disgraceful" in a fundraising letter.
In New Hampshire, The Telegraph of Nashua ? which endorsed Sen. Kelly Ayotte in 2010 ? chastised her for signing the letter.
"One wonders how loud and angry the Republican response would have been if a petty clan of Democratic senators had written an open letter to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev" during nuclear arms talks with Washington, the Telegraph editorial said.
In Illinois, the editorial page of the Peoria Journal Star, which endorsed Sen. Mark Kirk in 2010, said, "Our expectations were higher of Kirk."
The Salt Lake Tribune similarly criticized Utah's two senators ? Republicans Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee ? for signing the letter. The paper has endorsed Hatch's elections.
Some of the seven GOP senators who didn't sign the letter have gently questioned their colleagues' actions.
"I just didn't feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point," said Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said it's "more appropriate" to direct advice to the president than to leaders of adversarial nations.
Some former advisers to Republican presidents expressed similar views.
Michael Gerson ? a Washington Post columnist who was chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush ? said the letter's "true scandal" is the seemingly rushed way it was handled.
"It was signed by some members rushing off the Senate floor to catch airplanes," Gerson wrote. There was "no consultation with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has studiously followed the nuclear talks (and who refused to sign)."
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an aide in both Bush administrations, said partisan overtures such as the GOP letter make the world more uncertain, dangerous and disorderly.
George Pataki, a former Republican governor of New York, said in an interview with ABC News' "Top Line": "Just imagine if, come 2017, there's a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. ... Would Republican senators want a Democratic Senate sending a letter to a country when the president is engaged in negotiations? I don't think so."
...................................................................................................................
neo cons
you should be proud and hateful
oh you are
Several newspapers that had endorsed the senators' elections were harshly critical. A handful of conservative commentators and former GOP aides joined legions of liberals in calling the letter ill-advised.
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who may face a tough re-election next year, defended the letter, but added, "If there was any regret, tactically, it probably would have been better just to have it be an open letter addressed to no one."
Another signer, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, expressed similar thoughts. The letter "could have been addressed to other folks and gotten the message out," Roberts said. "But I think the message is more important than who we send it to."
All but seven of the Senate's Republicans signed the letter, but no Democrats did. The letter warns Iran's leaders that any negotiated agreement on their nuclear program could expire when Obama leaves office.
Democrats and some academics say the letter undermines Obama's ? and future presidents' ? ability to set foreign policy.
Republicans defended the letter, saying they must take dramatic steps to demand a voice in negotiations, because they fear Obama will be too soft on Iran. Some of the 47 senators, however, are taking heat back home from editorial pages that have supported them.
In Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Sen. Rob Portman's 2010 campaign, but they berated him this week for signing the Iran letter.
"The magnitude of this disgraceful decision," a Plain Dealer editorial said, "shows the degree to which partisanship has gobbled up rationality on foreign policy."
The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial said the letter "diminishes the dignity of the Senate by disparaging the president and presenting an amateur lesson on U.S. governance." It praised Portman in general, but said he erred because "now, facing re-election, he's nervous."
Portman, appearing in Columbus Friday, said the letter will strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations with Iran. But former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat hoping to unseat Portman next year, called the letter "disgraceful" in a fundraising letter.
In New Hampshire, The Telegraph of Nashua ? which endorsed Sen. Kelly Ayotte in 2010 ? chastised her for signing the letter.
"One wonders how loud and angry the Republican response would have been if a petty clan of Democratic senators had written an open letter to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev" during nuclear arms talks with Washington, the Telegraph editorial said.
In Illinois, the editorial page of the Peoria Journal Star, which endorsed Sen. Mark Kirk in 2010, said, "Our expectations were higher of Kirk."
The Salt Lake Tribune similarly criticized Utah's two senators ? Republicans Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee ? for signing the letter. The paper has endorsed Hatch's elections.
Some of the seven GOP senators who didn't sign the letter have gently questioned their colleagues' actions.
"I just didn't feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point," said Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said it's "more appropriate" to direct advice to the president than to leaders of adversarial nations.
Some former advisers to Republican presidents expressed similar views.
Michael Gerson ? a Washington Post columnist who was chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush ? said the letter's "true scandal" is the seemingly rushed way it was handled.
"It was signed by some members rushing off the Senate floor to catch airplanes," Gerson wrote. There was "no consultation with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has studiously followed the nuclear talks (and who refused to sign)."
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an aide in both Bush administrations, said partisan overtures such as the GOP letter make the world more uncertain, dangerous and disorderly.
George Pataki, a former Republican governor of New York, said in an interview with ABC News' "Top Line": "Just imagine if, come 2017, there's a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. ... Would Republican senators want a Democratic Senate sending a letter to a country when the president is engaged in negotiations? I don't think so."
...................................................................................................................
neo cons
you should be proud and hateful
oh you are
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cw70FV0wdT0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
this is the neo con way
Obama is negotiating nukes like a statesman.
Israel and neo cons want to bomb and would love for it to be on Obama's watch
instead of Hillary's
this is the neo con way
Obama is negotiating nukes like a statesman.
Israel and neo cons want to bomb and would love for it to be on Obama's watch
instead of Hillary's
Scott, PussFace John Kerry ONLY wants a Nobel Peace Prize, he doesn't care about the COST of his actions, he's the TYPICAL Liberal Democrat FRAUD.
Just so you KNOW.
:0008
Just so you KNOW.
:0008
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding [Updated]
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding [Updated]
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding [Updated]
By Jennifer Rubin March 11
Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that ?we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.? Oh, really?
From left, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier during talks in Vienna last November (Roland Schlager/European Pressphoto Agency)
For starters, a colleague reminds me that this was done with the North Korea Agreed Framework, negotiated by the very same U.S. diplomat, Wendy Sherman, who is handling the P5+1 deal.
What then do the Iranians think they are getting? No wonder the White House threw a fit. Cotton, as he did in an op-ed today, is reminding everyone of a simple fact: The deal goes away when Obama leaves office.
Cotton writes:
The critical role of Congress in the adoption of international agreements was clearly laid out by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. And it?s a principle upon which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed. In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden once reflected on this very topic, writing that ?the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations.? It?s not often I agree with former senator and now Vice President Biden, but his words here are clear. The Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates with Iran by a two-thirds majority vote. Anything less will not be considered a binding agreement when President Obama?s term expires in two years. This is true of any agreement, but in particular with the nuclear deal President Obama intends to strike with Iran.
This has several ramifications. First, it becomes the main issue for the 2016 campaign. Every candidate will have to signal whether he or she will walk away from any deal. George W. Bush walked away from the nonbinding deal with North Korea, and the next president can do the same with regard to a faulty Iran deal. Do Democrats want to run defending an Iran deal with a 10- year sunset? Good grief. Not even Bill Clinton could do that. Over 80 percent of Americans oppose just such a deal. And to boot, prominent Democrats are on record criticizing aspects of the deal.
Second, the Iranians cannot be sure they are getting more than a couple of years of sanctions relief; that may be all they want and enough to break the back of sanctions in Europe and elsewhere. But without Congress ? just like Cotton said ? they don?t get rid of sanctions permanently. By going it alone Obama may have undermine his only chance for a ?legacy? on this issue.
Third, Congress should rethink its strategy. If it wants to leave the bulk of sanctions in place, it need do nothing more. If it wants to increase sanctions, as the Menendez-Kirk legislation envisions, lawmakers need to make certain they have enough votes to override a veto. And as for an up-or-down vote, Congress can certainly deliver a sense-of-Congress resolution ? which is not subject to a veto ? but it alternatively can simply hang tight, see what happens in 2016 and refuse to abandon sanctions.
This is a pretty huge deal and should cause some serious rethinking about what the administration is doing. If all it can promise is, in effect, disruption of the sanctions regime during the lame-duck president?s remaining time in office, his conduct may undercut future presidents? leverage, which will be badly needed to prevent Iran from getting to a nuclear weapons capability. Is this just about getting a piece of paper to wave around and leaving others to deal with the mess? It sure looks that way.
UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Back in December, John Yoo and John Bolton addressed this issue: ?Sole-executive agreements can only relay a promise by the current occupant of the Oval Office about the exercise of his own powers. The Constitution vests the president with authority as commander-in-chief to make decisions beginning and ending the use of military force. So, for example, an agreement that halted Tehran?s nuclear-weapons program but imposed no similar obligation on the United States likely would not be a treaty. ? But agreements that extend beyond a president?s time in office or make long-term commitments of U.S. sovereignty must undergo the Article II treaty process.?
From a political standpoint, Hillary Clinton should hope a deal falls through so she need not defend it and can run on the promise she would be a tougher negotiator. Otherwise she?ll be stuck defending the indefensible.
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding [Updated]
Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding [Updated]
By Jennifer Rubin March 11
Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that ?we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.? Oh, really?
From left, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier during talks in Vienna last November (Roland Schlager/European Pressphoto Agency)
For starters, a colleague reminds me that this was done with the North Korea Agreed Framework, negotiated by the very same U.S. diplomat, Wendy Sherman, who is handling the P5+1 deal.
What then do the Iranians think they are getting? No wonder the White House threw a fit. Cotton, as he did in an op-ed today, is reminding everyone of a simple fact: The deal goes away when Obama leaves office.
Cotton writes:
The critical role of Congress in the adoption of international agreements was clearly laid out by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. And it?s a principle upon which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed. In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden once reflected on this very topic, writing that ?the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations.? It?s not often I agree with former senator and now Vice President Biden, but his words here are clear. The Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates with Iran by a two-thirds majority vote. Anything less will not be considered a binding agreement when President Obama?s term expires in two years. This is true of any agreement, but in particular with the nuclear deal President Obama intends to strike with Iran.
This has several ramifications. First, it becomes the main issue for the 2016 campaign. Every candidate will have to signal whether he or she will walk away from any deal. George W. Bush walked away from the nonbinding deal with North Korea, and the next president can do the same with regard to a faulty Iran deal. Do Democrats want to run defending an Iran deal with a 10- year sunset? Good grief. Not even Bill Clinton could do that. Over 80 percent of Americans oppose just such a deal. And to boot, prominent Democrats are on record criticizing aspects of the deal.
Second, the Iranians cannot be sure they are getting more than a couple of years of sanctions relief; that may be all they want and enough to break the back of sanctions in Europe and elsewhere. But without Congress ? just like Cotton said ? they don?t get rid of sanctions permanently. By going it alone Obama may have undermine his only chance for a ?legacy? on this issue.
Third, Congress should rethink its strategy. If it wants to leave the bulk of sanctions in place, it need do nothing more. If it wants to increase sanctions, as the Menendez-Kirk legislation envisions, lawmakers need to make certain they have enough votes to override a veto. And as for an up-or-down vote, Congress can certainly deliver a sense-of-Congress resolution ? which is not subject to a veto ? but it alternatively can simply hang tight, see what happens in 2016 and refuse to abandon sanctions.
This is a pretty huge deal and should cause some serious rethinking about what the administration is doing. If all it can promise is, in effect, disruption of the sanctions regime during the lame-duck president?s remaining time in office, his conduct may undercut future presidents? leverage, which will be badly needed to prevent Iran from getting to a nuclear weapons capability. Is this just about getting a piece of paper to wave around and leaving others to deal with the mess? It sure looks that way.
UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Back in December, John Yoo and John Bolton addressed this issue: ?Sole-executive agreements can only relay a promise by the current occupant of the Oval Office about the exercise of his own powers. The Constitution vests the president with authority as commander-in-chief to make decisions beginning and ending the use of military force. So, for example, an agreement that halted Tehran?s nuclear-weapons program but imposed no similar obligation on the United States likely would not be a treaty. ? But agreements that extend beyond a president?s time in office or make long-term commitments of U.S. sovereignty must undergo the Article II treaty process.?
From a political standpoint, Hillary Clinton should hope a deal falls through so she need not defend it and can run on the promise she would be a tougher negotiator. Otherwise she?ll be stuck defending the indefensible.
Yes, toxicology reports were already in and known when Wilson lied about why he approached Brown in the first place. The difference between myself, an intelligent reasonable liberal, and the conservative Republican is that liberals like to consider facts and reality. Conservatives would rather just call names and make catchy memes. I will say it once again, nowhere, never ever ever ever ever ever did anyone report a robbery involving brown. Wilson didn't know if he was high and he blatantly lied and tampered with evidence. The fact that you people are willing to look past all that just to celebrate the death of a colored guy is despicable
Also jaxx, over half the country? Where did you get that idea? You just pull this shit out of your ass don't you?
"A colored guy died? "I just saw him as a criminal trying to take a policeman's gun.
Black or white or brown he caused his own death.
" Liberal like to consider facts and reality"? Really? Is that why everyone from NBA players, NFL players, liberal Hollywood and liberal Senators/Congressman propetuated the lie "Hands up,Don't shoot?
In case you didn't know the facts were his hands were not up and be was not shot in the back.
Please take the flag from the Great State of Texas from your avatar. Posting this type of nonsense proves you have no idea what it means to be from Texas, disgusting. Shit like this give real Texans a bad name.
you are pretty cynical about the future
the cost of Kerrys actions are no war hopefully
how can you be against that
oh thats right I forgot
neo con Ronnie Cheney
There's a civil war coming? Who are the two sides, racial bigots vs everyone else?
It's going to be a short war. Just imagine a platoon of jerkoffs like Jaxx-O, lowell, Raymond, Hedge, REFLOG and Skulnutz up against any National Guard unit.
It'll be a one second war.
It's going to be a short war. Just imagine a platoon of jerkoffs like Jaxx-O, lowell, Raymond, Hedge, REFLOG and Skulnutz up against any National Guard unit.
It'll be a one second war.
He caused his own death huh? You don't know that any more than you know if he went for Wilson's gun or he was simply trying to avoid being shot by a racist such as hedge. Republicans hear what they want to and only believe what bolsters their bigoted narrow minded views. He was shot in the top of his head after being shot in the eye. Bigots believe that the bullet to the top of the head is consistent with him charging that poor defenseless white fellow that had already shot the thug several times. Rational people consider that a bullet to the top of the head from more than 21 feet away after a shot to eye and six in the torso is more consistent with the victim falling forward dead before he hits the ground and an overzealous cop. You view the shooter being allowed to leave the scene on his own, go to a police fraternity where he washed up and his weapon, then proceeding to book all that into evidence in his own case as acceptable because the black thug had it coming. I call that evidence tampering.
You believe that Wilson stopped Brown because he heard about a robbery and Brown fit the description. I know that wasn't even remotely true as the alleged robbery was never reported and certainly not prior to the incident.
You believe Brown dove towards and into the squad car when he went for Wilson's gun and thus ensued a life and death struggle. I believe the scratch marks on the back of the victims neck and the pressure bruising accompanying those are more consistent with all (that's correct, every single witness except Wilson) testimony that Wilson backed the squad up and opened his door into Brown, Brown swung at Wilson through the open door. Wilson grabbed him around the back of the neck and pulled him into him and thus the vehicle. You think Brown went for Wilson's gun because that's what the white dude said happened, "I felt his hand and finger moving over mine towards the guard trying to get to the trigger". He went on to testify that Brown grabbed his hand and the gun and tried to twist it backwards it of Wilson's grasp. Oddly enough not a single fingerprint on the weapon, not a mark or speck of dna on Wilson's hand or the weapon. The only evidence of a struggle. .....trace, remember that word, trace dna on Wilson's pant leg at the knee. I believe Wilson perjured himself and there was no such reach for the weapon other than brown trying to protect himself. So yeah, when you're ready to quit dealing in bullshit and want to face facts and speak about what really happened other than what you need to believe to be a good conformist Republican, let me know. Until then, remain ignorant and clueless. That is how Republican leaders prefer their constituents to be anyway.
Hope this helps,
FDC
the whole thing could have been easily avoided if when Wilson asked them to get out of the middle of the road they had said...
yes sir we are almost home.
they were toked up and he was carrying a box of cigars he had stolen.
instead you make a ass and die over it. .................Thug Life
I can't blame Wilson for saving his own pussy life. I am sure Wilson had shit his pants already.
yes sir we are almost home.
they were toked up and he was carrying a box of cigars he had stolen.
instead you make a ass and die over it. .................Thug Life
I can't blame Wilson for saving his own pussy life. I am sure Wilson had shit his pants already.
