Their latest stunt is unprecedented in the annals of American history. I mean a letter directly to a foreign nation (and an unfriendly one to boot) telling them not to cut a deal with our president?
Uncle Joe Biden is not the most lucid guy in Washington, but his response to those 47 GOP Senators who wrote a letter directly to Iran was right on the money.
"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.
This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.
"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine..."
Scary times.
I honestly don't know who is scarier. The Mullahs in Iran, or the ones here at home who are undermining our Constitution.
Certainly is very scary. Unprecedented, and shameful.
ReplyDeleteThey should be tried for treason and executed by public hanging.
ReplyDeleteImpeach every single one of those mother fuckers.
ReplyDeleteWell, their letter is technically correct in that any sanctions relief given by Obama alone is likely to be limited and temporary. Sanctions can only be repealed with the cooperation of the Congress.
ReplyDeleteBut here's the thing: Iran already knows this. They may have an appalling theocratic form of government, but the people heading up Iran's government aren't complete and total idiots. They don't need an American government civics lesson from a bunch of Tea Party loons. If the Iranians accept this deal, it will be because they are willing to take what they can get now, and are hoping for more to come later. (In particular, they are probably hoping the American public will come to its senses in the near future and boot the Republicans out of Congress.)
So if they know this letter isn't going to have any effect on negotiations with the Iranians, what this really proves is that the Republicans are pointlessly grandstanding for their base.
Again.
This is just another dumb stunt meant to impress the knuckledraggers by giving Obama the finger. It's just one dumb stunt after another. Shut down the government. Default on the debt. Disable Homeland Security.
It's frightening that these delusional bozos have convinced themselves that the government doesn't really do anything useful, so it should be some harmless fun to turn Washington into a three-ring circus just to spite Obama, and there won't be any blowback. But one of these days, their childish, destructive antics are bound to go too far and produce some genuinely serious consequences.
FN Negroes, you should know by now that the President in black skin has no power. He has been nothing but a figure head and the rest of the world knows it.
ReplyDeleteThings will be different once we get a white President. The world will respond positively. Israel will certainly respond positively. Netanyahu won't have to deal with a black President anymore.
Putin will change his attitude and progress will be made. Even Africa will be elated....You'll see.
Oh, I forgot the most important value of having a White President: The Republicans can work and compromise with a white President.
ReplyDeleteEverybody will be happy once more.
Brother Field, the title of your post,
ReplyDelete"MR ARNOLD WOULD BE PROUD OF THESE 47 SENATORS"
leave me perplexed. Who is Arnold and why would he be proud? Are you talking about Schwartzenegger the actor?
"Things will be different once we get a white President. The world will respond positively. Israel will certainly respond positively. Netanyahu won't have to deal with a black President anymore."
ReplyDeleteWho wants Israel to respond better? Unless they decide to get serious about the peace process, we'd be better off breaking up with them. Our relationship with Israel is a completely one-sided one: We give them $3 billion worth of weapons every year for free, and in return ... everyone in the Middle East hates us for giving Israel that $3 billion worth of weapons.
I'm not seeing any upside for us.
In any event, it's possible that before long, our black president will not have to deal with Netanyahu. Bibi's got an election coming up, and his little love-in with Congressional Republicans has done nothing to boost his terrible polling numbers. He may soon be out on his tuches, as they say in Yiddish.
Where is Lilac? Cause I'm wondering if PR has any Black and White racist problems like we do here in the states?
ReplyDeleteAnd PC has gone into hiding since Congress has weaken Obama to the extent that he is nothing more than a paper tiger.
Obama is the first President rendered powerless by Congress in American history. Wow! I wonder what he did to piss off Congress?
Netanyahu will win the election in Israel, esp after Congress's letter to Iran. Israel want the Repubs in power cause they feel safer.
ReplyDelete"leave me perplexed. Who is Arnold and why would he be proud? Are you talking about Schwartzenegger the actor?"
ReplyDeleteNo, that's Ahhhhnold.
I'm guessing this was a reference to Benedict Arnold, America's most famous traitor.
White supremacy is pure evil, there is a Devil right here on earth,in the United States. We are supposed to hate Iran and their religious hateful mullahs, but we have the evil, hateful religious goons here in good old AmeriKKKa. Wake up Black people the heart of America is like that of Ferguson,MO, full of evil, despair and deceit. Animals claiming to be civilized by attacking humans because their skin tone is different. A supreme court that want us to become some backwater fascist,christian cesspool. Sigh!ignorance is Bless.
ReplyDeleteWho's your favorite Ayatollah?
ReplyDeleteAnon@2:55, you have got to step up your history game.
ReplyDeletePeople are going to talk about us field hands if you don't do a better job with your comments.
We do have American Mullahs. I concur. But I don't find them on the right.
ReplyDeleteFor everything that anyone wants to put on the right-wing of American politics or even its citizenry, one thing it doesn't have: Much power.
Oh, no. They wrote a letter. For fuck's sake -- somebody call Ben Franklin and John Adams and tell them that the French aristocrats just wrote that they will not support Washington's presidency under the pretense that "America" is somehow an independent nation. Can we send a guy on horseback to make this quicker?
The left calls the shots in America. In government. In media. In Hollywood. In music. In academia. Everyone trips the hell out over the righties. Oh, lawd, here they come! But when it comes down to decisions on practically every level of life, it's the left that makes them, and the left that's been making them for years now.
Eroding free speech and creating "zones" in academia and literally expelling a student because he looked like a rapist -- these are the actions of Mullahs. Not letter-writing to bad-mouth the big O.
He's a big boy. He can take it. We all know he can certainly dish it out. Chillax; if anyone's going Mullah-style in America, it's the people who actually have the power to ban and legislate. And that isn't the Republicans.
Y'all give the righties far too much credit. It's like you're seeing the boogeyman or something.
Giuliani, Tom Cotton, Boehner and MacConnell ignoring the Selma Anniversary, all these will be forgiveable if it helps a Democratic landslide in the next presidential election.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the Republican opposition to the Dream Act.
Voter suppression and gerrymandering can only do so much...
telling them not to cut a deal with our president?
ReplyDeleteWell, you at least got one thing right .... he's YOUR president.
The majority of what was once the "United States of America" have not had a president or any form of meaningful representative government in decades.
This regime has openly defied the People and has openly mocked the Constitution and has acted unilaterally with arrogance and hubris. It is nice to see even a small sliver of reality check being hurled their way.
The "Open Letter" was bold and portends more of the same. Bravo.
And you continue to question whether or not we are truly in "Post Negro Amerika".
*snicker*
They should be tried for treason and executed by public hanging.
ReplyDelete12:18 AM
-------------------------------
Your anger is delicious.
for once the Daily News' simple-mindedness works for me:
ReplyDeletehttp://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/ouch-senator-tom-cotton-spanked-obama
"I'm guessing this was a reference to Benedict Arnold, America's most famous traitor.
ReplyDelete3:16 AM"
-----------------
Thank you. I had no idea because the title of the post was quite vague. Even historians would have a hard time at 'guessing' what Field meant. Sometimes Field is off the charts.
I read where PR residents for the first time in history are considering statehood with the US. Hmmmmm. I wonder what this means to Lilac?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe Field Negro said...
Their latest stunt is unprecedented in the annals of American history.
Unprecedented only to double standard loving dumbocrats.
Pelosi shrugs off Bush's criticism, meets Assad
...
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pelosi-shrugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.VP8GnOHCbSu
There must be a good reason Field Negro holds the rethugs to a higher standard than his dumbocrat party.
What has been unprecedented and shameful are the lawless actions of our treasonous President. Kudos to these Senators for standing up against a President bent on shredding the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI just wish they would do this across the board for the American people rather than just for Israel.
anotherbozo said...
ReplyDeleteVoter suppression and gerrymandering can only do so much...
--
Yeah, like keeping Selma a safe, prosperous, and civilized place to live.
I'm afraid BC has a point. Alabama ain't what it used to be....
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteJosh said...
Eroding free speech and creating "zones" in academia and literally expelling a student because he looked like a rapist
How about this...
Obama loving dumbocrats in charge of education write "zero tolerance" policies for schools.
Black kids get expelled in record numbers.
Obama loving dumbocrats see racism in the policies.
Black students more likely to be suspended - even in preschool
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/education-department-black-preschoolers-more-likely-to-be-suspended/
There must be a good reason Field Negro never calls out the Obama loving dumbocrats for creating these "zero tolerance" policies.
Would FieldNegro mention names if rethugs were behind the zero tolerance policies that disproportionally expelled black kids? Of course he would.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama said about learning about Hillary's emails...
"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHLbKlnY_mY#t=44
He got caught lying again.
White House: Obama Traded Emails With Clinton, But Didn't Know Account Was Private
...
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday. "Yes, the president was aware of her email address; he traded emails with her. That shouldn't be a surprise, that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/09/391910522/white-house-obama-traded-emails-with-clinton-but-didnt-know-account-was-private
4 years of email and Obama couldn't figure out clintonemail.com was private.
Incompetent or a liar?
"4 years of email and Obama couldn't figure out clintonemail.com was private."
ReplyDeleteThe story keeps changing.
Just a few days ago, the White House claimed that it only became aware of this issue in August 2014, when Hillary inveighed upon them to keep it quiet.
Now Josh Earnest "clarifies" -- "clarifies" is a White House euphemism for "completely reverses a previously-told falsehood" -- that in fact Obama did notice that Hillary was using private email since like forever ago, but didn't know the exact extent of her usage of it, nor that she had completely refused to even set up a government email.
"I would not describe the numbers of emails as large.... He was not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," Earnest said.
That's a shift from Saturday, March 7, when Obama told CBS that he learned about Clinton’s private email system at "the same time everybody else learned it through news reports."
This constant dissembling from the White House, in which broad and emphatic untruths are later replaced, less prominently, but selective disclosures, is a calculated technique of deception. The White House knows that people firm their strongest, most enduring perceptions of an issue just as they form perceptions of a person -- first impressions dominate all subsequent information learned.
So the White House always -- always -- chooses to lie very big in the beginning, to establish that First Impression in the minds of the public, which will never completely dislodge, that they "didn't know" this or that.
It's really pretty easy when you have the media on your side.
The President CANNOT MAKE TREATIES ON HIS OWN.
ReplyDeleteIt is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It is ILLEGAL
It is typical of the FUCKING FASCIST DICTATOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO MET WITH IRAQ'S PRESIDENT AND TOLD HIM TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION BEFORE AGREEING TO A TROOP WITHDRAWL.
THAT LED TO NO STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT BEING SIGNED - AND THAT LED TO ISIS AND THE GENOCIDE OF CHRISTIANS.
ASSHOLES!!!!!!
Impeach Obama now.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteScary!
Hillary explaining away why she used a private email because she only wanted to carry 1 device.
Even I have 5 different emails on my iPhone.
Hillary and her staff couldn't figure out how to use multiple emails on one device?
Scary how she knows her voters won;t question why not 2 emails on 1 device.
Benghazi, Delete Delete.
Anonymous Bill said...
ReplyDeleteThe Field Negro said...
Their latest stunt is unprecedented in the annals of American history.
Unprecedented only to double standard loving dumbocrats.
Pelosi shrugs off Bush's criticism, meets Assad
...
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pelosi-shrugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.VP8GnOHCbSu
============
OUCH!! Bill gets Field again for the nth time.
"The President CANNOT MAKE TREATIES ON HIS OWN.
ReplyDeleteIt is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It is ILLEGAL"
Okay, but Obama isn't creating any treaties on his own.
Within the existing Iran sanctions regime, there is freedom for the president to issue limited temporary waivers on some of the sanctions, which is one thing Obama is contemplating. He also has legal latitude in where he devotes limited Treasury Department. Fewer allocated resources mean that the Iranians will effectively have an easier time evading some sanctions -- which is the same as granting them a limited amount of sanctions relief.
All of this stuff is legal. None of it involves repealing sanctions.
You won't hear any of these facts in right-wing media because right-wing media aren't about facts, just fomenting panic about "tyranny."
* "limited Treasury Department resources"
ReplyDeleteFor some strange reason, Hillary Clinto private emails story reminded me of Richard Nixon and Watergate: "The American people need to know that I am not a crook."
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to honest Hillary becoming the next President of USA.
BTW, don't expect anything to change for Blacks. We might even fall further behind.
"Hillary explaining away why she used a private email because she only wanted to carry 1 device.
ReplyDeleteEven I have 5 different emails on my iPhone.
Hillary and her staff couldn't figure out how to use multiple emails on one device?"
Hey, it wouldn't be that surprising. Some of these old-timer politicians aren't that technically literate (remember when Republican Sen. Ted Stevens described the Internet as a "series of tubes"?).
Not to mention that they all have a team of staffers to do literally everything for them, guaranteeing they don't learn how to do it themselves. Lindsey Graham admitted this week that he has never sent an email. Never. Not one.
That reminds me of when the "Simpson's" Montgomery Burns was unable to figure out how to use a telephone (damn new-fangled gadgets!)
"Obama loving dumbocrats see racism in the policies."
ReplyDeleteWell, they're sort of in quicksand with their policies.
They start under the assumption that all American schools are culturally biased against black students, so they propose measures that they hope will affect all students the same; e.g. a "zero tolerance" hopefully getting a white kid expelled for something that, according to their armchair postulates, would otherwise only get a black student expelled.
But when you create a truly even playing field, the people more inclined to act out are going to get in more trouble.
And less to do with "race," the fact of the matter is that the majority of black kids in schools in America are bastard sons and daughters of single mothers -- and these mothers are failing to raise their children with respect for education. They do a great job of raising them with contempt for white people and the nation in general, but not with respect for authority or education.
We see the results. "Diversity" is not our strength in this regard. Bastards ruin it for everyone else.
Again, it's not about race. So anyone wanting to act viscerally butthurt can lick asshole. It's about the majority--the overwhelming majority in poor districts--of black children being raised by a co-op of an ill-equipped single mother and state funding.
Of course they're acting out.
"They start under the assumption that all American schools are culturally biased against black students, so they propose measures that they hope will affect all students the same; e.g. a 'zero tolerance' hopefully getting a white kid expelled for something that, according to their armchair postulates, would otherwise only get a black student expelled."
ReplyDeleteMan, this is such a fantasy.
Zero tolerance has nothing to do with liberals and nothing to do with race. It's the product of paranoia about kids bringing guns to school and carrying out Columbine-style mass shootings. All parents would prefer their kids not die in a hail of bullets, but school administrators don't necessarily have good ideas about how to prevent this.
And again with the single black moms obsession, Josh? Are you positive you're not Bill O'Reilly? Because it seems like you and he might be the same guy.
"Man, this is such a fantasy."
ReplyDeleteSad to say, this is real. My kids' school district instituted their #2 goal back about 6 years ago of eliminating the "Discipline Gap". (The #1 goal has been for over a decade eliminating the "Achievement Gap" between the races).
Black kids get detentions and suspensions at a much higher rate than white kids. The school district decided that this had nothing to do with the fact that the black kids fight more, get caught stealing stuff more, or skip class more. Instead, they decided that this was due to their own inherent secret institutional racism.
That's right: They accused themselves of being racist rather than admit maybe the black kids behaved differently than the white kids.
So the upshot was they had to let more black kids off without punishment for various transactions while increasing the punishments dished out to white kids.
Any sane person would realize this would encourage more bad behavior from black kids, to their own long-term detriment. It would also make white kids with any sense become increasingly cynical about the whole forced equality project.
This is the evil of radical equalitarianism. You get there not only by raising up the bottom, but squeezing down the top.
Instead of holding all kids equally accountable for their actions, discipline quotas will be adhered to.
Instead of trying to do the best by every kid you are trying to educate, you will instead dedicate resources towards norming achievement between arbitrary groups.
Assuming that race has anything to do with achievement or behavior in the first place is racist.
Categorizing kids as either "black" or "white" and then treating them differently is racist.
Leftism denies the reality of the individual and promotes the false identity of the group.
"Zero tolerance has nothing to do with liberals and nothing to do with race. It's the product of paranoia about kids bringing guns to school and carrying out Columbine-style mass shootings."
ReplyDeleteYou might be somewhat correct about the racial aspect as it pertains to the initial passing of the policy. However, "zero tolerance" is masturbatory fodder in terms of regulation for progressives who do believe that the whole of America is culturally biased and disproportionately too hard on black students in form of discipline. So, by having such a sweeping platform for equal punishment, I'm sure the hope was that the disciplinary numbers would even out and provide credence for the progressive hypothesis that it was always just racism at play.
As far as it not having anything to do with liberals -- well, it's not the Republican conservatives who are looking to transform every place in America into a gun-free target zone for maniacal shooters. If it were just conservatives and not liberals, teachers would probably be armed.
"And again with the single black moms obsession, Josh?"
Just because you refuse to accept the brutal fucking truth doesn't make someone else an obsessive personality for pointing it out.
All these children who get in trouble in school. All the kids shooting kids in the streets and dealing drugs and brutalizing communities. All these ignorant ass kids who end up dead or in prison. WHO THE FUCK IS RAISING THEM!?
It's not a two-parent household. It's not white moms. It's single black mothers assisted by the state.
I know it's the biggest taboo to speak ill of the strong black queens, but black single mothers are raising these fucking criminal bastards. They're not lashing out at "white supremacy." They're not showing out because whitey be holdin' 'em down, yo. They're raised by mothers who themselves aren't very educated and who are ill equipped to raise well adjusted people.
The facts are over-fucking-whelming. Play ostrich and smear me as a bunny-boiler if you must, but that doesn't change the fact that where you'll find these unruly kids, you can be positive that they have one thing in common: No father in the home but a single mother, who better than 2:1 has another kid by another man and receives state assistance.
I don't mind being compared to O'Reilly on this issue. He's right on the money. Want shit to get better in these black communities? Stop spitting out bastards like it's a fucking baby factory! Holy fucking shit, people; women have dozens of varieties of birth control available, not to mention abortion and adoption as an option. But these babies are their meal tickets thanks to the nanny state.
Want your own crib, free food, free medical, monthly payments, rental assistance, and more? Put a baby on a man, and you'll probably also get child support -- or at the least state-sponsored revenge and another black man in prison.
Wanting the bastardization of the black community to stop is about as pro-black as you can get! It's black MEN who are suffering because of it!
Marco Rubio said Obama is taking it easy on ISIS so he won't offend Iran. Iran has two brigades fighting ISIS in Iraq. Now the idiot is fund raising on his having signed the letter. I wonder if he signed it in crayon?
ReplyDeleteWhen Iran had American hostages, 98% of the Iranian voters voted for presidential candidates who wanted the hostages released. But Reagan and Khomeini had a deal to not release them while Carter was still president. The guy who won that election, Bani Sadr, talked about it an interview with The Christian Science Monitor. But the rest of our media wouldn't even cover it as something the ex president of Iran said. The chairman of the Iran/Contra investigation, Lee Hamilton called off the investigation as soon as incriminating evidence started to come in. He was later pulled out of retirement to co-chair the 9/11 Commission. And speaking of 9/11, a million people went out with candles in Tehran to protest the 9/11 attack.
ReplyDeleteRe: Yīshēng said: "They should be tried for treason and executed by public hanging." fieldnegro said "you have got to step up your history game." lilacpr2000 said: "Certainly is very scary. Unprecedented, and shameful." PilotX said: "Impeach every single one of those mother fuckers."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be funny of Democrats did way worse stuff than these Republican senators? Wait for it...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president -
1.) Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975.
2.) Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy.
3.) House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter. In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers.
4.) Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him.
5.) Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime.
6.) Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.
7.) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him.
Notice that all these Democrats actually met with our enemies, whereas the 47 Repub. senators merely sent a piece of paper through the mail.
Related: http://nypost.com/2013/10/03/no-way-de-blasio-missed-sandinistas-anti-semitism - Bill de Blasio visited Nicaraguan Communist terrorist regime called the Sandinistas in 1988.
I'll sit here and wait for the liberal outrage regarding any of these 8 examples...
ReplyDeleteThank You! It's about time we all spent more time focusing on this!