WWTBAM Bored

Desuetude is one of the words you learn studying for the SAT but never have occasion to use. As of yesterday, I've seen it a couple times.

There are calls for the prosecution of the 47 Senators who signed the Iran letter for violation of the Logan Act. The link below describes three reasons why Logan Act prosecutions are unlikely, and bullet point number three is "desuetude."

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/

They could add a fourth bullet for Congressional immunity.

jarnon wrote:They could add a fourth bullet for Congressional immunity.

There's no such thing. You're probably thinking of the Speech and Debate Clause, but that doesn't apply here because the statements weren't made during speech or debate on the floor of the Senate.

The signatories of this letter were way out of line. Their purpose couldn't be clearer:

Will Dunham wrote:Jindal said on Twitter that anyone thinking of running for president from either party should sign the letter to make clear Iran is negotiating with a "lame duck" president.

That's not how it works. As a recent President-elect once said, we have one President at a time. Right now, like it or not, that's President Obama. Writing or signing that letter may not be treason, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's contrary to the best interests of this country. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Writing or signing that letter may not be treason, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's contrary to the best interests of this country. --Bob

No doubt in my mind almost everything (and I question the almost) this President has done and will do is contrary to the best interests of this country.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Writing or signing that letter may not be treason, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's contrary to the best interests of this country. --Bob

No doubt in my mind almost everything (and I question the almost) this President has done and will do is contrary to the best interests of this country.

Even if you believe that, it doesn't warrant breaking from decades of tradition in this country that politics be left at the water's edge to make a blatant (and clumsy) partisan play.

And yes I know about Wright in Nicaragua and Pelosi in Syria before you bring those up- they were wrong to do what they did in those situations as well.

This, in my mind, is doing what they did x 1,000...it is far worse.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Writing or signing that letter may not be treason, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's contrary to the best interests of this country. --Bob

No doubt in my mind almost everything (and I question the almost) this President has done and will do is contrary to the best interests of this country.

Doesn't matter. He's still the President and this country should have only one foreign policy. If they don't like that foreign policy, they need to elect a President with a foreign policy they prefer. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Doesn't matter. He's still the President and this country should have only one foreign policy. If they don't like that foreign policy, they need to elect a President with a foreign policy they prefer. --Bob

I think what they did was stupid and destructive. But I think it is also extremely hypocritical of the left to be so outraged about it. Some of my liberal friends on facebook have become unhinged over this, even more than they usually are. But the democrats have a history of unilaterally acting in defiance of foreign policy of sitting Presidents. Many, many times. That being said, I don't condone this letter, but I understand the frustration that prompted it. If Obama would work with his domestic opposition as willingly as he works with our foreign enemies, this wouldn't have happened.

The GOP is starting to walk back now- admitting the letter was a dumb idea.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -idea.html

However, just when you thought the GOP couldn't look any dumber, there was this gem in the link I just posted:

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Holy Mother of God...The GOP has managed to do two things at once I never thought possible.

1) Make Obama look competent at foreign policy
2) Make the Iranians look reasonable

This is so far beneath bush league it's almost hard to fathom.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Doesn't matter. He's still the President and this country should have only one foreign policy. If they don't like that foreign policy, they need to elect a President with a foreign policy they prefer. --Bob

I think what they did was stupid and destructive. But I think it is also extremely hypocritical of the left to be so outraged about it. Some of my liberal friends on facebook have become unhinged over this, even more than they usually are. But the democrats have a history of unilaterally acting in defiance of foreign policy of sitting Presidents. Many, many times. That being said, I don't condone this letter, but I understand the frustration that prompted it. If Obama would work with his domestic opposition as willingly as he works with our foreign enemies, this wouldn't have happened.

No- if the GOP wasn't stupid, this wouldn't have happened.

Come on Flock- don't blame someone else.

Isn't it called "The Party of Personal Responsibility"?

If Obama would work with his domestic opposition...

WHAT????

I cannot think of any other recent President who from the day he took office the other party made it their top priority to refuse to cooperate with him and to try to make him fail regardless of the effect on the country.

Jeemie wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Doesn't matter. He's still the President and this country should have only one foreign policy. If they don't like that foreign policy, they need to elect a President with a foreign policy they prefer. --Bob

I think what they did was stupid and destructive. But I think it is also extremely hypocritical of the left to be so outraged about it. Some of my liberal friends on facebook have become unhinged over this, even more than they usually are. But the democrats have a history of unilaterally acting in defiance of foreign policy of sitting Presidents. Many, many times. That being said, I don't condone this letter, but I understand the frustration that prompted it. If Obama would work with his domestic opposition as willingly as he works with our foreign enemies, this wouldn't have happened.

No- if the GOP wasn't stupid, this wouldn't have happened.

Come on Flock- don't blame someone else.

Isn't it called "The Party of Personal Responsibility"?

Coming unhinged is apparently not limited to facebook. Blame someone else? What are you talking about?

If I was a liberal, I would say that it's ok they did what they did because they're right and you're wrong because you are a racist pig, and besides, Pelosi went directly to Assad against Bush, Kennedy prostrated himself to Andropov apologizing for Reagan, etc etc etc so we're going to do it too.
I think they are wrong in what they did, they should not have emulated what the left does, but Obama is even wronger.

And I agree with you. the GOP is stupid. but the dems are even stupider.

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

The Iranians had no way of knowing the letter was a joke. The Senators should have ended it with "JK" or a .

Flock- when you craft a sentence that says "The GOP was wrong, but..." you are already trying to mitigate their responsibility.

Now you're moving on to the "But...but...the other side did it too!"

And Elwood is right. The GOP actively opposes Obama at every turn- so much so that they actually end up abandoning and then re-adopting positions in order to do so.

The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

it's quite breathtaking, actually. The opposition used to oppose based on true differences in beliefs.

Today, the opposition opposes Obama just to oppose him...abandoning what are supposed to be "conservative principles" in order to oppose him.

Jeemie wrote:The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

Your comment reminded me of a cartoon that I saw recently. A man is sitting in front of a computer screen that displays the question, "What color is the dress?" and gives the two choices - black and blue or white and gold. The caption read - "Whichever Obama didn't choose."

jarnon wrote:

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

The Iranians had no way of knowing the letter was a joke. The Senators should have ended it with "JK" or a .

Or maybe they could have used Sarcafont (TM)

Jeemie wrote:Flock- when you craft a sentence that says "The GOP was wrong, but..." you are already trying to mitigate their responsibility.

Now you're moving on to the "But...but...the other side did it too!"

And Elwood is right. The GOP actively opposes Obama at every turn- so much so that they actually end up abandoning and then re-adopting positions in order to do so.

The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

it's quite breathtaking, actually. The opposition used to oppose based on true differences in beliefs.

Today, the opposition opposes Obama just to oppose him...abandoning what are supposed to be "conservative principles" in order to oppose him.

Yes. unhinged.
I SPECIFICALLY SAID they were wrong in what they did. I SPECIFICALLY SAID that IF I WERE A LIBERAL I would point out dems did it so that makes it alright. Just so that you know, I am not a liberal. So they don't have that excuse. They were wrong. Point to me one instance here on this bored where one of our liberal brothers has ever said any of the leaders of their democrat party was wrong about something.

Now on to you and Elwood. I don't know about the GOP, but I as a conservative have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING that Obama has said or done that I agree with or that didn't prove to be false. What is quite breathtaking is the hard and fast belief of many people that anyone who opposes Obama is NOT opposing him on true differences in beliefs. It is breathtaking how otherwise seemingly reasonable people throw around the word 'racist' with no regard. And who insult, denigrate and so easily stereotype people who state their disagreement to anything Obama says or does.

I don't believe it is wise to negotiate or give any concessions to a regime like Iran until they give even a little indication that they have changed, as Bebe put it: 'their behavior'. Neville Chamberlain said he had negotiated 'Peace in our time' with Hitler. How did that work out? To many, including me, Obama seems to be doing the exact same thing with Iran.

And just in case, (I'm not accusing you of doing this, but it is rampant among people who feel Obama is being picked on) I couldn't care less if he is black, brown, green, red, orange, blue. I don't care if his ancestry is from Africa, Asia, Antarctica, the moon or Alpha Centari. I don't care whether he likes women, men, both or neither. I disagree with his policies. Period. End of story. OK ALREADY?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Flock- when you craft a sentence that says "The GOP was wrong, but..." you are already trying to mitigate their responsibility.

Now you're moving on to the "But...but...the other side did it too!"

And Elwood is right. The GOP actively opposes Obama at every turn- so much so that they actually end up abandoning and then re-adopting positions in order to do so.

The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

it's quite breathtaking, actually. The opposition used to oppose based on true differences in beliefs.

Today, the opposition opposes Obama just to oppose him...abandoning what are supposed to be "conservative principles" in order to oppose him.

Yes. unhinged.
I SPECIFICALLY SAID they were wrong in what they did. I SPECIFICALLY SAID that IF I WERE A LIBERAL I would point out dems did it so that makes it alright. Just so that you know, I am not a liberal. So they don't have that excuse. They were wrong. Point to me one instance here on this bored where one of our liberal brothers has ever said any of the leaders of their democrat party was wrong about something.

Now on to you and Elwood. I don't know about the GOP, but I as a conservative have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING that Obama has said or done that I agree with or that didn't prove to be false. What is quite breathtaking is the hard and fast belief of many people that anyone who opposes Obama is NOT opposing him on true differences in beliefs. It is breathtaking how otherwise seemingly reasonable people throw around the word 'racist' with no regard. And who insult, denigrate and so easily stereotype people who state their disagreement to anything Obama says or does.

I don't believe it is wise to negotiate or give any concessions to a regime like Iran until they give even a little indication that they have changed, as Bebe put it: 'their behavior'. Neville Chamberlain said he had negotiated 'Peace in our time' with Hitler. How did that work out? To many, including me, Obama seems to be doing the exact same thing with Iran.

And just in case, (I'm not accusing you of doing this, but it is rampant among people who feel Obama is being picked on) I couldn't care less if he is black, brown, green, red, orange, blue. I don't care if his ancestry is from Africa, Asia, Antarctica, the moon or Alpha Centari. I don't care whether he likes women, men, both or neither. I disagree with his policies. Period. End of story. OK ALREADY?

Chill out and have a cigar, dude!

earendel wrote:

Jeemie wrote:The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

Your comment reminded me of a cartoon that I saw recently. A man is sitting in front of a computer screen that displays the question, "What color is the dress?" and gives the two choices - black and blue or white and gold. The caption read - "Whichever Obama didn't choose."

The dress is definitely blue.... and, oh, I'd say that's cream colored.

earendel wrote:

Jeemie wrote:The only principle they seem to abide by is "If Obama says it, it's wrong".

Your comment reminded me of a cartoon that I saw recently. A man is sitting in front of a computer screen that displays the question, "What color is the dress?" and gives the two choices - black and blue or white and gold. The caption read - "Whichever Obama didn't choose."

I hope Obama comes out in favor of breathing.

Dick Cheney condemned congressional interference with the president's policy toward Iran.

Spoiler

When Ronald Reagan was President.

Flock...can you type the text of the agreement that has been hammered out, and then point to the specific parts of the agreement that you don't like? That feel "Chamberlain-like".

I am asking for the agreement itself mind you...please don't link to what people are saying the agreement is going to be.

Take your time. I'll wait.

Jeemie wrote:Flock...can you type the text of the wagreement that has been hammered out, and then point to the specific parts of the agreement that you don't like? That feel "Chamberlain-like".

I am asking for the agreement itself mind you...please don't link to what people are saying the agreement is going to be.

Take your time. I'll wait.

It will have to be signed by Obama without congressional approval before we know what's in it. That's the point. That is why these senators did what they did. As Rand Paul pointed out, it should have been sent to the President. But I guess they assumed he'd just ignore it and mock it, like he does everything else they send to him.

Bob Juch wrote:Dick Cheney condemned congressional interference with the president's policy toward Iran.

Spoiler

When Ronald Reagan was President.

This talking point was dutifully disseminated from crooksandliars.com. et al. Not that it has anything to do with the current situation. Just good to say Dick Cheney every now and then to rile up the left.

All those objecting to the agreement with Iran (which they haven't seen since it doesn't exist yet) may serve as "useful idiots" if they strengthen Kerry's hand in negotiations. He can use the opposition to justify not making concessions to the Iranians. But that's only if the opponents don't succeed in derailing the deal altogether.

Wow- it gets even more bush league.

Here's how Tom "Don't Register on the Obamacare website or Russian mobsters will steal your identity" Cotton became the poster child for this pathetic GOP stunt.

But the immediate question is why 46 Senate Republicans signed Cotton's letter last week, why they allowed this right-wing newbie to become the face of the party at this delicate diplomatic moment. John McCain has perhaps the most pathetic explanation: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm."

With decision-making prowess like that, our country is in good hands.

Nice little writeup on Mr. Cotton there too. He makes Dick Cheney look like a liberal dove.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/loca ... tom-cotton