Tom Cotton disgusting hypocrite as well as disloyal

[BoyNextDoor]

The same fucking puke that authored the letter sent by the disloyal 47, is also a graduate from Harvard Law.

How could he afford Harvard Law? Family money ... lottery ... hard work and the sweat of his brow like a good little GOP soldier? Nope. Federal government backed loans is what he needed.

And so what does any upstanding Senator who needed government assistance to advance his station in life do when he becomes a part of the Congress? That is right he decides that he "doesn't want the government in the student loan business" and votes against funding the program he used to get a law degree. He got his and fuck everyone else. TEA-bagger.

He is a disgusting puke.

 

[Wrong Element]

Get used to him. The South doesn't believe in two-party politics. He'll have that job as long as he wants it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

He is a misogynist as well.

This guy is the superfecta of TEA-bagger, whacko, corporate-shill and disloyal. You are right, he will be senator for life.

 

[Adre]

He is good for Democrats.

 

[sr71plt]

And now he has 46 skittish friends to be nervous and wary of him.

 

[Busybody]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OVxpCYvt3yg/VQL-P6gK0TI/AAAAAAAAQYo/ijaQJE5PXfI/s1600/Cartoon%2B-%2BObama%2BNegotiating.jpg

 

[JackLuis]

Cotton Received More Than $1 Million From Israel Lobby

The best Money can buy!

 

[JackLuis]

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/images1.jpg

240,000 Signatures On Petition Accusing Republicans Of Being Traitors​

Treason and High Crimes!

 

[JackLuis]

Iran Leader Says Congressional Letter Proves U.S. Is Disintegrating

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that a letter from Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by the next U.S. president is a sign of “disintegration” in Washington, the New York Times reports.

Said Khamenei: “Isn’t this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system’s internal disintegration?”

The view from afar. Perhaps he is correct?

 

[Wrong Element]

Cotton alarmed that the Iranians "already control Tehran"

 

[artemesia_g]

Cotton alarmed that the Iranians "already control Tehran"

Oh noes!!!1!11 Not Tehran!!!!

Wait....

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Cotton alarmed that the Iranians "already control Tehran"

*facepalm*

But can he see Tehran from his house? That's the real question.

 

[Busybody]

Democrats Side With Tom Cotton On Iran Nuclear Deal, While Trash Talking His Letter


Screen Shot 2015-03-15 at 5.30.24 PM

Thankfully.

Via Breitbart:


Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.

 

[Busybody]

Cotton alarmed that the Iranians "already control Tehran"

he clearly mean Iraq.....if you will hold mis-speak against someone, no one from your side would remain standing

 

[Busybody]

he clearly mean Iraq.....if you will hold mis-speak against someone, no one from your side would remain standing

opps, I was wrong, he didn't mean Iraq, he meant Washington

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-ne...d-iran-from-its-list-of-terror-threats-2015-3

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

While "Tehran Tom" Cotton is being credited with the letter sent to Iran it's hard to believe that he's the the actual author. A solid guess would be that it came from the desk of one Bill Kristol. Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel bankrolled the Cotton campaign with $1 million as he went down to the wire against Mark Pryor last fall.

How did Cotton, a freshman senator and the youngest in the Senate, come to persuade 46 of his colleagues into the politically risky effort of signing "his" letter to Iran? Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has pointed out that the letter was sent quickly without even the vetting of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN), who was one of seven Senate Republicans not to sign the letter. And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who did sign the letter, said senators rushed to sign it without considering the blowback because of an impending snowstorm.

Cotton has been groomed and funded by Neoconservatives and Pro-Israel lobby groups who have spent millions fighting any and all attempts to negotiate with Iran with regards to their nuclear program. The "right" needed someone without a reputation to tarnish to be the source of this letter.

Bought and paid for Patsy.

The bottom line: The GOP has shot itself in the foot with these stunts. While they may play well with the radical base, they have all but ensured that the GOP won't be able to pass any legislation with which the President disagrees. After Netanyahu's speech the likelihood of Democratic support in overriding a Presidential veto dropped from 40% to 4% according to Haaretz reporter Chemi Shalev. It's a good bet that the Letter to Iran eroded away what little support they did have from Democrats.

Not only that, but the speech actually seems to have hurt Netanyahu's support at home. After a small bump the public realized that his speech actually did nothing to slow or stop the Iran negotiations but it did highlight how bad U.S. / Israeli relations actually are.

 

[Busybody]

The same fucking puke that authored the letter sent by the disloyal 47, i

He is a disgusting puke.

no letter was sent

it was posted on a web site

I thought you were the BASTION OF FACTS?

 

[Busybody]

Bought and paid for Patsy.

.

and CUNT CLINTON is as well?


“Clinton Foundation Takes $2 Million From Chinese Company Suspected of Helping North Korea” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...any-suspected-helping-north-korea_888742.html …


and from MUSLIM COUNTRIES?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The GOPs latest spin of the "Cotton Club's" open letter to Iran?

No stamp, no foul.

The Cotton/GOP letter regarding Tehran’s atom-bomb talks with Obama was not sent to the ayatollahs in Tehran (which is controlled by Iranians, can you IMAGINE!?).

They JUST posted the open letter to Iran on Senator Cotton’s website and social-media accounts. So that's completely different. Somehow.. Really. No, I'm not kidding. I mean how could they have possibly known that those Iranians have access to the internets? Aren't they busy making a bomb and taking over Tehran or something?

Meanwhile Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) defended the letter and warned that the administration is negotiating a “very bad” nuclear deal. Despite not knowing the particulars of the deal being negotiated. I mean, it HAS to be bad right. It's OBAMA!

You just can't make this shit up.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Interesting analysis of why this happened.

Constitutions matter, but every political system depends as well on informal norms, a more or less tacit consensus on how things will be done and what kind of behavior is and isn’t acceptable. This is especially true in America, where our constitutional separation of executive and legislature, and extra-constitutional devices like the filibuster, require compromise and cooperation if the government is to function effectively. Political actors must accept the constraints laid down by the rules (formal and informal) that define legitimate behavior, and must trust that others will do so in turn. When this trust lapses, confrontation replaces compromise and the political system lurches into crisis.

There have been three moments in our history when something like this happened. The first arose very early, when anxieties about revolutionary France led the Federalist administration of John Adams to propose a number of measures, including the infamous “Alien and Sedition Acts,” intended to enhance executive authority and to repress domestic dissent. This led the Anti-federalists Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to draft a series of resolutions defending the right of states to nullify federal statutes they deemed unconstitutional. Adopted by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures, these ignited a confrontation between proponents of Federal power and advocates of “states’ rights” that roiled our politics until the Civil War, and beyond.

The second moment, of course, was the Civil War itself. The third is much more recent, extending over at least the Obama presidency but with roots as far back, perhaps, as the Clinton impeachment. It involves the readiness of Republicans to violate long-standing norms of institutional conduct in order to advance a highly divisive, intensely partisan agenda. Impeachment and the threat of impeachment; the use of primaries to defeat Republican incumbents judged to be insufficiently “conservative”; a willingness to default on the debt or shutdown the government; the indiscriminate use of the filibuster to require super-majorities in the Senate on virtually every issue— this pattern of increasingly radical behavior may certainly be associated, in any given case, with the anger or pique of particular politicians. But its deepest source is in the political attitudes of an increasingly radical party.

<snip>

But these two factors [the GOP resigned to being a "Congressional party," and the entrepreneurial career-paths of Pub pols nowadays], important as they are, are not the deepest source of the GOP’s behavior. That is surely the mutation in its idea of government, a mutation that spread through the party as a whole when white Southerners flocked to it after the passage of Civil Rights laws in the mid-1960s. Until that time, the Republican Party, while “conservative” in the spectrum of American politics, largely accepted the modern state constructed by politicians — Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt — of both parties. This state tried to keep private markets free and fair, and imposed minimum standards for the safety and welfare of workers; it sought a stable currency; and it insisted on the equal citizenship of racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. More recently, it worked to extend this status to groups defined variously by gender and/or sexuality.

Republicans might be suspicious of some of these aspirations, and more inclined than Democrats to urge caution and restraint, but in general they regarded the modern state as a necessary compromise with modern life. This began to change in response to the racial and cultural politics of the 1960s. The white Southerners who bolted the Democratic Party for the GOP didn’t view the modern state as a necessity; they saw it as apostasy. It wasn’t a pragmatic compromise with the changed landscape of modernity, but a monstrous conspiracy to replace true American values with a spurious and corrupt humanism. In doing so, it sought to blot out God-given distinctions between the races and the sexes — and between the productive and the unproductive — in the name of an artificial equality that would both require and justify constant Federal intrusion.

<snip>

This is the party of Georgia boy Newt Gingrich, who dismissed Kansas Sen. Robert Dole, an old-school Robert Taft Republican, as “a tax collector for the welfare state.” It’s the party of Tennessee’s Martha Blackburn, a House member who hailed the 2013 government shutdown because it would show Americans “they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed.” It’s the party of Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who shouted “You lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 speech, and of former Texas governor Rick Perry, who peppers his speeches with references to secession and “states’ rights.” This Republican Party shows little interest in the norms that have defined American politics because it has only contempt for the state those norms are designed to sustain.

Full of scorn for their own government, the ideologues who control today’s GOP feel free to disregard any limitation on their pursuit of conservative purity. The letter to Iran, and the invitation to Netanyahu, merely enact this principle in the realm of foreign affairs. The real concern of the Tea Party isn’t the modern American state, which it despises, but its own hermetic vision of the conservative “cause”– a cause that transcends national boundaries. Its adherents find it easier to cooperate with the leader of Israel’s Likud Party than with their Democratic colleagues in the American Congress. Tom Cotton’s dispatch to Tehran — or something like it — was the inevitable outcome of the process set in motion by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. We should expect more of the same in the future.

 

[Busybody]

France Alarmed by Obama’s Middle East Policy


The election of Obama has given even France the right to regard American foreign policy with loathing and horror:


French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously naïve on Iran’s ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an “objective ally” in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin’s Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and “amateurish.”

When Claude Angéli says that both France’s Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, and its President, François Hollande, have told friends that they rely on “the support of the US Congress” to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is the kind of quote you can take to the bank.

French diplomats worry that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club.

French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe that the Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as “like us,” but others potentially as madmen.

Under Obama, America is on the side of the madmen. Not only the USA but the entire world will never have the future it would have had if not for the grotesque obscenity of Obama’s rise to power.

 

[JackLuis]

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/diagnosis-butthurt-6.jpg​

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Newsflash: "conservatives" suddenly care what France thinks.

Freedom Fries anyone?

 

[Busybody]

Newsflash: "conservatives" suddenly care what France thinks.

Freedom Fries anyone?

I knew you read my shit

NOW TELL US WHAT WAS WRONG WITH WHAT COTTON SAID!

 

[Busybody]

I knew you read my shit

NOW TELL US WHAT WAS WRONG WITH WHAT COTTON SAID!

Nothing

NOTHING is wrong with what he said