Cynthia McKinney, one of my favorite shit-for-brains politicos (ex-politicos, thankfully, in her case) produced another cool one. Just in case she might come to her senses (a slim chance, but still) and erase it, here is a snapshot of her tweet:
The public response was non-equivocal. Below is a small part of the comments to that tweet (click on the image to read):
Yeah... here is a small selection of Ms McKinney at her level best, to make sure you understand the material better - in case the name is new to you.
And something for you think about for a while, from that Wiki entry about the lady:
As a member of the Democratic Party, she served six terms in the United States House of Representatives.Yes, emphasis totally mine.
33 comments:
And from Texas.
Hm... it say Georgia in that Wiki entry.
The article by Michael Doran is very well done. It portrays a paradigm that fits events.
Something that I thought of in addition, was how Obama deferred to Congress on Syria, but says he will not accept a Congressional vote on Iran. Deferral is clearly based on projected outcome, not any principle. Given a 99 to 0 original vote for sanctions on Iran by the Senate, and a need for 66 votes to override a Presidential veto (given that an override would be automatic in the House), President Obama's deal with Iran is on thin ice.
I think the Republican strategy of maximizing the politics is destructive. The Republicans need 12 Democratic senators on their side. It seems like a sure bet, but stunts like the letter to Iran, can cause the Democrats to circle the wagons making it more difficult to accomplish the important task at hand.
Stan
I agree with you on the Doran's article. One word of caution, though: it is partly built on conjectures, and while they fit the events, as you say, there is a sizable room for mistakes.
I am readily defer to your opinion on the GOP overexcitable behavior. Sometimes quiet diplomacy wins in politics.
But there is other, less discussed point in the negotiations with Iran. There is a good chance that the grand Ayatollah, where it will be the current one or his replacement, will not sign up to the agreement. Do not forget that it is being negotiated by the elected (oh well...) government officials, who are no more than puppets of the Ayatollahs.
We shall see, I guess.
Of course it is impossible to know, but I think the Ayatollah is posturing. He is being offered a great deal where he can get both sanctions removed and a nuclear bomb. If he threatens not to sign, he is probably right to think that Obama would be willing to give more. However, Obama can only give as much as the Congress will accept (he might have already crossed that line). If indeed the Congress scuttles Obama's nuclear deal, we will have a new louder chorus of Israel (the Jews) control America.
Stan
Actually, I can hardly see any possible outcome that will not involve people claiming that Jews control America. Short of Israel deciding to give a few nukes as a gift to Tehran.
Ms McKinney is from Georgia, or Neverneverland,as the case may be.
Thought so.
I must be thinking of someone else, we have plenty of nuts in Texas to chose from. Now where is that Chaldean who told me that.
She's as stupid looking as she is stupid.
Houston has had several nitwit black women politicians. I thought she was one of them, too, at first. Thankfully not.
Parts of Georgia are very nice, actually. Just not where she was elected six times, apparently.
It works because it sounds like her, just like some of the ones on Hussein Obama, our lying, irresponsible president.
I adored the GOP letter to Iran. It's the first time they've reached out to Obozo as a group and whacked him on the behind and boxed his big ears. And it's all the more important since he has proven beyond a doubt that he can't be trusted on any matter.
I doubt it could get any louder, but the polls consistently show that it doesn't matter. A clear majority of the country supports Israel.
Indeed, but as I say, those are just loud voices amplified by the snooze media, and neither of them are held in much repute by the majority of Americans.
Nuts in Texas? And I thought you shoot them on sight...
Absolutely.
And you call yourself Texan patriots... shame on you ;-)
One of the state I missed so far.
It also works, I would suggest, because it is so close to the current WH policy on Iran.
Aside of one problem: it might backfire if a Senate majority will be needed to repel the deal with Iran.
That's good but polls don't sign international treaties.
Which is a silver lining indeed.
Yes, it took six terms for the electorate to fully notice how crazy she was and lost the Democratic nomination. She tried to run under some third party ticket, but got nowhere.
You are identifying the problem. You seem to prefer feeling good about Whacking Obama on the behind to doing what is best to stop Iran from getting nukes. I think your preference was shared by many of the people who signed that letter.
Stan
It was Greens, if I am not mistaken.
No one, repeat no one, can stop Iran from getting nukes. W knew it. Obozo does, too. And pretending that he can with his billions in quiet payments to the mullahs and secret discussions with their puppet officials is just Democrat mendacity.
Texas patriots are conservatives who favor small government. She is a "progressive" with a big mouth and no brains who wants more government not less.
Lack of brains is not a problem for a pol, as she and many others consistently prove to all of us dupes.
"no one, can stop Iran from getting nukes"
I disagree. I can't say definitively, but I think that increasing sanctions with a threat of military intervention has the best shot, especially with the low price of oil. At the very least, increasing sanctions will give Iran less money to work with. The Republican letter lessens the chance of getting the Democratic support necessary to hit Iran with strong sanctions.
Stan
Most of the sanctions have been off for some time, courtesy of the Democrats. The oil price is meaningless when the Worm is giving them billions of dollars, gratis, supposedly as aid to help them fight ISIS. I'm sure he'll be just sooo upset to find they spent it on their nukes, instead.
Threatening military intervention in Iran isn't credible. What, a few desultory bombings? Boots on that mountainous terrain? Talk about a quagmire.
I'm with Tom Cotton, the Army veteran who led the letter: "As Prime Minister Netanyahu said in his speech, the proposed terms of the deal doesn’t block the path to the bomb for Iran—it paves the path. Iran could get a nuclear weapon by breaking the deal, or by keeping the deal."
http://tinyurl.com/ndgqhbc
So are you saying that you do not want to see Congress impose sanctions in spite of the President's wishes, and scuttle the deal. Wasn't that what Bibi Netanyahu was trying to do by speaking to Congress? I don't understand the outcome that you want.
Stan
Post a Comment