Desuetude and the Logan Act

[Bob Juch]

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

I have to wonder who wrote it. Certainly not Cotten; probably Bill Kristol.

[flockofseagulls104]

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

I have to wonder who wrote it. Certainly not Cotten; probably Bill Kristol.

Last week it was smear Scott Walker week. This week it's smear Tom Cotton week. Who will it be next week?

[Bob Juch]

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.

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

I have to wonder who wrote it. Certainly not Cotten; probably Bill Kristol.

Last week it was smear Scott Walker week. This week it's smear Tom Cotton week. Who will it be next week?

Oh? Really? I thought it was smear Hillery week.

[silvercamaro]

.Oh? Really? I thought it was smear Hillery week.

Who is Hillery?

I'm not sure whether anything should count as a smear against Hillary, now that we've been cautioned to give her the benefit of the doubt. Again. And again. Etc.

[flockofseagulls104]

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
I have to wonder who wrote it. Certainly not Cotten; probably Bill Kristol.

Last week it was smear Scott Walker week. This week it's smear Tom Cotton week. Who will it be next week?
Oh? Really? I thought it was smear Hillery week.

Ask the New York Times about that. All the news that's shit they'll print. It was their story about Hillary. Now, of course it would never even have been brought up if she wasn't a woman. Dennis Miller has it dead right. She's the Queen of Full Of It.

BTW, I thank you for posting what DICK POLMAN thinks about Tom Cotton. I would have never come across that if it hadn't been for you posting it here. DICK POLMAN is the uber genius of our time, and knows everything about everything, as we all know. What he posts on his blog should immediately be required reading in every school and office in the US. I don't know why it isn't. Perhaps Obama can sign an executive order to make that happen. I will, of course, immediately start hating Tom Cotton and push for his treason conviction and post obnoxious posts about him on all the social media I can think of.

[flockofseagulls104]

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
I have to wonder who wrote it. Certainly not Cotten; probably Bill Kristol.

Last week it was smear Scott Walker week. This week it's smear Tom Cotton week. Who will it be next week?
Oh? Really? I thought it was smear Hillery week.

Ask the New York Times about that. All the news that's shit they'll print. It was their story about Hillary. Now, of course it would never even have been brought up if she wasn't a woman. Dennis Miller has it dead right. She's the Queen of Full Of It.

BTW, I thank you for posting what DICK POLMAN thinks about Tom Cotton. I would have never come across that if it hadn't been for you posting it here. DICK POLMAN is the uber genius of our time, and knows everything about everything, as we all know. What he posts on his blog should immediately be required reading in every school and office in the US. I don't know why it isn't. Perhaps Obama can sign an executive order to make that happen. I will, of course, immediately start hating Tom Cotton and push for his treason conviction and post obnoxious posts about him on all the social media I can think of.

Here's some more quality links you might be interested in:

http://www.reallyreal.org/index.php/stu ... ERMONT.htm

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/12/sarah_p ... ightening/

[url]httpd://www.idiotnews.bs/index.php/hahaha978/sl ... _story.pdf[/url]

[url]help://disseminatethis.mro/smearthem/good/fast+??/most_DANGEROUS_person_this_week/COTTON/scumbag[/url]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-ben ... 55826.html

http://www.profanitylacednewsformorons. ... on/p1.html

http://www.libgarbage.com/rs/2015/madeu ... -binladen/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/tom- ... l-casting/

[url]httpd://www.dickpolman.bs/trash.php/I_HATE_TOM_ ... LD_TOO.htm[/url]

[Jeemie]

The problem is Tom Cotton smears himself, Flock.

He did all the stuff that's being linked.

[Jeemie]

By the way...2/3 of your links don't work, flock.

[flockofseagulls104]

That's cause I made 2/3 of them up. But they look real don't they? Probably because the other 1/3 were made up by someone else. But you can believe it if it makes you feel better.

[flockofseagulls104]

The people who write these hit pieces seem to have credibility in your eyes, based on your response above. Keep in mind these hit pieces are mostly written by people who sincerely believe anyone who disagrees with Obama does so because of his skin color. You don't believe there are modern day James Callenders?It is just so obvious what they do. They are painting Cotton with the same brush they used for Gingrich and it will be his color for them the rest of his political life no matter what he does.
I disagree with what he did and how he did it. But he at least is doing something to stand up to Obama's usurping the authority of the congress. Perhaps in the future he will be more subtle.

[Jeemie]

The people who write these hit pieces seem to have credibility in your eyes, based on your response above. Keep in mind these hit pieces are mostly written by people who sincerely believe anyone who disagrees with Obama does so because of his skin color. You don't believe there are modern day James Callenders?It is just so obvious what they do. They are painting Cotton with the same brush they used for Gingrich and it will be his color for them the rest of his political life no matter what he does.
I disagree with what he did and how he did it. But he at least is doing something to stand up to Obama's usurping the authority of the congress. Perhaps in the future he will be more subtle.

Not one of those stories claimed Cotton opposes Obama because of the color of his skin.

Most of these articles call him an extremely hawkish man who enjoys fear-mongering us into believing the solution to most of our foreign policy issues- and some domestic ones as well.

1) He believes we should expand drone attacks when most analysts believe drone attacks are doing nothing to enhance our security- they have created a ton of collateral damage, and it's predicted that less than 2% of these attacks have actually eliminated high value targets.

2) He believes the only problem with Guantanamo is that too many cells are empty when even the guy in charge of the facility- appointed by GWB- believes it is nothing but a recruiting tool for terrorists (ever wonder why ISIS puts its victims in orange jump suits?)

3) He tried to scare Arkansas voters by claiming ISIS was allied with Mexican drug cartels and were going to attack across our wide open border- even attack targets in Arkansas. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that ISIS has any activity in North America or is working with any Mexican drug cartel. He made this up out of whole cloth in a nice double-pander- scaring the base about terrorism and border control in one go.

4) He wants to provide B52s and bunker busters to Israel so they can attack targets in Iran...his solution to the Iran crisis is military.

These things are all true.

[flockofseagulls104]

The people who write these hit pieces seem to have credibility in your eyes, based on your response above. Keep in mind these hit pieces are mostly written by people who sincerely believe anyone who disagrees with Obama does so because of his skin color. You don't believe there are modern day James Callenders?It is just so obvious what they do. They are painting Cotton with the same brush they used for Gingrich and it will be his color for them the rest of his political life no matter what he does.
I disagree with what he did and how he did it. But he at least is doing something to stand up to Obama's usurping the authority of the congress. Perhaps in the future he will be more subtle.

Not one of those stories claimed Cotton opposes Obama because of the color of his skin.

Most of these articles call him an extremely hawkish man who enjoys fear-mongering us into believing the solution to most of our foreign policy issues- and some domestic ones as well.

1) He believes we should expand drone attacks when most analysts believe drone attacks are doing nothing to enhance our security- they have created a ton of collateral damage, and it's predicted that less than 2% of these attacks have actually eliminated high value targets.

2) He believes the only problem with Guantanamo is that too many cells are empty when even the guy in charge of the facility- appointed by GWB- believes it is nothing but a recruiting tool for terrorists (ever wonder why ISIS puts its victims in orange jump suits?)

3) He tried to scare Arkansas voters by claiming ISIS was allied with Mexican drug cartels and were going to attack across our wide open border- even attack targets in Arkansas. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that ISIS has any activity in North America or is working with any Mexican drug cartel. He made this up out of whole cloth in a nice double-pander- scaring the base about terrorism and border control in one go.

4) He wants to provide B52s and bunker busters to Israel so they can attack targets in Iran...his solution to the Iran crisis is military.

These things are all true.

Sure they are, Jeemie. He's a baaaaad man. They're right in Tom Cotton's case. We know they're all wrong about they way they portray the Tea Party, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Scott Walker. etc. Pretty much anyone who's to the right of Nancy Pelosi is portrayed as having some kind of serious character flaw or baggage. But in this case, they are completely right.

[Jeemie]

Give us some examples were he's being smeared as a man who hates Obama because he's black, Flock?

I cited examples of what is actually being said about the man- most were from your (working) links.

Where are your actual cites?

[flockofseagulls104]

Give us some examples were he's being smeared as a man who hates Obama because he's black, Flock?

I cited examples of what is actually being said about the man- most were from your (working) links.

Where are your actual cites?

You know what? Read my post. I mean read it. Don't just glance at it and assume you know what I am saying. And then think about it. When you understand what my point was, then get back to me.

[Bob Juch]

Give us some examples were he's being smeared as a man who hates Obama because he's black, Flock?

I cited examples of what is actually being said about the man- most were from your (working) links.

Where are your actual cites?

You know what? Read my post. I mean read it. Don't just glance at it and assume you know what I am saying. And then think about it. When you understand what my point was, then get back to me.

Oh you poor misunderstood baby! Why don't you write a post that's impossible to misunderstand?

[littlebeast13]

This is one of the more entertaining political threads in a while.... seriously.

Keep up the good work everyone!

lb13

[flockofseagulls104]

Let me help you out, Jeemie:

The key phrase you used is:

what is actually being said about the man

Apparently, because it is being said about him, you automatically believe it to be true.

He did all the stuff that's being linked.

Really? Did he plan 9-11 with Bin Laden?

My point is that most of the people who are filling the internet with nasty things about the Tom Cotton probably are the of the same ilk that believe anyone who disagrees with Obama does it because of the color of his skin. If you believe that most people who oppose what Obama does do it because of the shade of his skin, then there's no point going any further. If you understand that is completely untrue, then maybe you will start to question some of the other things these internet and social media trolls say. And maybe you could extrapolate that doubt to what they say about many other people.

Or perhaps you take everything the Dick Polmans of the world say as the gospel truth.

[Jeemie]

Let me help you out, Jeemie:

The key phrase you used is:

what is actually being said about the man

Apparently, because it is being said about him, you automatically believe it to be true.

He did all the stuff that's being linked.

Really? Did he plan 9-11 with Bin Laden?

My point is that most of the people who are filling the internet with nasty things about the Tom Cotton probably are the of the same ilk that believe anyone who disagrees with Obama does it because of the color of his skin. If you believe that most people who oppose what Obama does do it because of the shade of his skin, then there's no point going any further. If you understand that is completely untrue, then maybe you will start to question some of the other things these internet and social media trolls say. And maybe you could extrapolate that doubt to what they say about many other people.

Or perhaps you take everything the Dick Polmans of the world say as the gospel truth.

Why bring race into it, when the criticisms being levelled at Cotton have nothing to do with race?

And yes- he did and said the things I've listed.

He did tell Arkansas voters ISIS was allying with Mexican cartels and coming to get them...it's on record.

He is on record as wanting to expand drone strikes.

He is on record as wanting to sell weapons to Israel so they can attack Iran.

He is on record as saying "the only thing wrong with Guantanamo is there are too many empty cells".

He is a hawk- it's on record. he is closely allied with David Kristol, who has also made it clear he is extremely hawkish and favors military means to solve.

I wouldn't even say there's anything particularly nasty about any of this- just that there are a lot of experts- almost none of them partisans- who think his hawkish stance on all these issues is counterproductive to US interests.

So what dispute do you have with any of these statements?

And there's nothing in this about Obama's race, so why are you bringing that into it?

You had to make up a half dozen web links to even begin to paint a picture that people were being mean spirited towards him.

As a matter of fact, some of the web links you posted that were actually real were showing a grudging respect for him- saying he was a force to be reckoned with.

How about some real cites? That's all I ask.

[flockofseagulls104]

It's painting a caricature, Jeemie. He's now and forever a 'hawk' to you and to many others who listen to this stuff. I used the Obama opposition meme only as an example of how it works. I could use many other conventional wisdom memes. Another example is the meme that the house of reps is obstructionist and do nothing. That is absolutely not true. The house, in the past couple of years passed lots of bills. They never got anywhere because Harry Reid buried them. Reid was the obstructionist but the Dick Polmans of the world don't see it that way and their views get adopted by the social media into the conventional wisdom. Did you see the Internet go wild about Harry Reid the obstructionist?

[Jeemie]

It's painting a caricature, Jeemie. He's now and forever a 'hawk' to you and to many others who listen to this stuff. I used the Obama opposition meme only as an example of how it works. I could use many other conventional wisdom memes. Another example is the meme that the house of reps is obstructionist and do nothing. That is absolutely not true. The house, in the past couple of years passed lots of bills. They never got anywhere because Harry Reid buried them. Reid was the obstructionist but the Dick Polmans of the world don't see it that way and their views get adopted by the social media into the conventional wisdom. Did you see the Internet go wild about Harry Reid the obstructionist?

He IS a hawk.

Even his supporters agree with that.

Jesus man...go read what he says.

He's actually sided WITH Obama a couple of times because he is such a hawk.

For example, when Obama wanted to use military force in Syria- Tom Cotton sided with him.

PS I have seen a lot of stories about how Harry Reid buries GOP bills he doesn't like.

But both sides do that.

Where the GOP is seen as obstructionist is because they are usually unwilling to COMPROMISE- and compromise is the art of getting things done in Washington.

I'm not even an Obama fan- if you twisted my arm, I would say I actually agree that this deal with Iran is too important not to have Congressional input.

The problem is the way the GOP set out to make that statement was childish and bush league...and the majority of them don't want a deal with Iran because Iran is a convenient red meat topic for their base.

So even though I would wager that most of them know a war with Iran would actually probably would be a ridiculously bad idea, they have to do everything they can to torpedo a deal now.

And then downplay it when their guy gets into office and quietly tries to do a deal with Iran anyway.

[Bob Juch]

If Tom Cotton was an English M.P. his head would soon be on a spike on Tower Bridge.

[flockofseagulls104]

Where the GOP is seen as obstructionist is because they are usually unwilling to COMPROMISE- and compromise is the art of getting things done in Washington.

Are you serious? To compromise, you have to be willing to make concessions. When have the democrats made any since Obama took over? All the republicans have done is concede. They eventually just give Obama everything he wants, after putting on a show that they are going to fight. So much so that even their base does not trust them, and that they have lost a good percentage of their registered party members (like me). And those who are willing to fight are branded, like what is underway with Cotton and Walker. Like Ted Cruz. Like Mike Lee. Like Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party. Once again, the 'conventional wisdom' is 180 degrees from the truth.

I agree with you that sending the letter to Iran was a stupid thing to do. But, again, what Obama is doing is stupider on many levels. He is trying to create a treaty but not call it that, specifically so he can bypass Congress. He is negotiating an end to sanctions that Congress imposed, without their approval, once again unilaterally. And there are rumors that if he can't do it any other way, he will use the UN. Does that sound like compromise to you?

[Jeemie]

Where the GOP is seen as obstructionist is because they are usually unwilling to COMPROMISE- and compromise is the art of getting things done in Washington.

Are you serious? To compromise, you have to be willing to make concessions. When have the democrats made any since Obama took over? All the republicans have done is concede. They eventually just give Obama everything he wants, after putting on a show that they are going to fight. So much so that even their base does not trust them, and that they have lost a good percentage of their registered party members (like me). And those who are willing to fight are branded, like what is underway with Cotton and Walker. Like Ted Cruz. Like Mike Lee. Like Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party. Once again, the 'conventional wisdom' is 180 degrees from the truth.

I agree with you that sending the letter to Iran was a stupid thing to do. But, again, what Obama is doing is stupider on many levels. He is trying to create a treaty but not call it that, specifically so he can bypass Congress. He is negotiating an end to sanctions that Congress imposed, without their approval, once again unilaterally. And there are rumors that if he can't do it any other way, he will use the UN. Does that sound like compromise to you?

You realize Obamacare as it exists is because of a litany of concessions to Republicans?

As was the stimulus in its final form?

To name two hot button issues where Obama tried to compromise.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisana Purchase were compromises with Democrats

[flockofseagulls104]

Where the GOP is seen as obstructionist is because they are usually unwilling to COMPROMISE- and compromise is the art of getting things done in Washington.

Are you serious? To compromise, you have to be willing to make concessions. When have the democrats made any since Obama took over? All the republicans have done is concede. They eventually just give Obama everything he wants, after putting on a show that they are going to fight. So much so that even their base does not trust them, and that they have lost a good percentage of their registered party members (like me). And those who are willing to fight are branded, like what is underway with Cotton and Walker. Like Ted Cruz. Like Mike Lee. Like Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party. Once again, the 'conventional wisdom' is 180 degrees from the truth.

I agree with you that sending the letter to Iran was a stupid thing to do. But, again, what Obama is doing is stupider on many levels. He is trying to create a treaty but not call it that, specifically so he can bypass Congress. He is negotiating an end to sanctions that Congress imposed, without their approval, once again unilaterally. And there are rumors that if he can't do it any other way, he will use the UN. Does that sound like compromise to you?

You realize Obamacare as it exists is because of a litany of concessions to Republicans?

As was the stimulus in its final form?

To name two hot button issues where Obama tried to compromise.

Obamacare was passed using bribes and parliamentary chicanery without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN vote. So I am a bit skeptical of your claim that any concessions were made. But you keep believing that, because that is what Dick Polman says.