More Liberal Propganda To Generate Division? GOP Letter To Iran

[habsheaven]

I don't think that something posted on a junior senators blog would have been very high on their espionage list. Perhaps they would have seen it, but not minutes after it was posted and most likely they would have laughed it off had not our president and Democratic leaders made such a big deal of it.

That JR Senator had 46 other signers accompanying him. They had no expectation (when they signed) that it would be seen by Iran, either?

[Rockin Robbie]

habs asked who the letter is addressed to. I haven't read it, so I don't know if it is a general addressing to the nation of Iran or if it specifically is addressed to certain people. My guess is neither do you.

Serious question, are you just trolling? First of all, I have read the one page letter digital image, that's how I know it's one page long. Secondly, I'll take your non-answer as confirmation that you didn't even read the article you linked to because it literally says in the second sentence:

Say what you will about the Republicans’ open letter “to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

There's even a link to the actual letter digital image right there in the same paragraph. The word "letter" is blue, click on it and it takes you right to the Cotton Club's letter digital image.

What's even better about the letter digital image is that while being condescending to the Iranians about how the US Constitution works, the Republicans even screwed that up.

And here is where you fail. I never said the press should shut up. The press should A) be honest, B) stop propagandizing everything, and C) be unbiased. It is none of those.

<<<<< It's jealous.

You still haven't explained what the purpose of the publicity stunt was if the media had pretended the letter digital image didn't exist.

I don't think that something posted on a junior senators blog would have been very high on their espionage list. Perhaps they would have seen it, but not minutes after it was posted and most likely they would have laughed it off had not our president and Democratic leaders made such a big deal of it.

Disregard my question about whether or not you are trolling, that post answers my question.

[duane1969]

Actually you seem to be the one trolling. You, like your fellow Canadians on this board, like to try and dig in with backhanded insults. Sorry, I have grown immune to the immature Canadian tactics.

Simple reality, the media has lambasted the GOP for sending a letter to Iran, which never happened. The pure and simple intent has been to sensationalize a minor event into something much, much bigger than it was. Sadly, the sheeple jump on the bandwagon as usual.

As for your claim that the Republicans "screwed that up" in regards to the letter, I find it ironic. The Republicans used the term "ratify" when expressing that a Senate 2/3rds vote is needed to approve or consent to a treaty. You link an article that takes issue with the word ratify and claims that Senate has no such power, then links to the Senate website which clearly articulates that while they do not ratify, they hold the power of a 2/3rds vote approval.

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.

So it seems that the word "ratify" was improperly used, but the point remains the same. Any treaty entered into by Obama needs a 2/3rds vote by the House and Senate to be accepted.

Leave it to libs to take issue with the use of the word "ratify" after spending weeks saying a letter was "sent" when nothing was ever actually sent anywhere.

[habsheaven]

Actually you seem to be the one trolling. You, like your fellow Canadians on this board, like to try and dig in with backhanded insults. Sorry, I have grown immune to the immature Canadian tactics.

Simple reality, the media has lambasted the GOP for sending a letter to Iran, which never happened. The pure and simple intent has been to sensationalize a minor event into something much, much bigger than it was. Sadly, the sheeple jump on the bandwagon as usual.

As for your claim that the Republicans "screwed that up" in regards to the letter, I find it ironic. The Republicans used the term "ratify" when expressing that a Senate 2/3rds vote is needed to approve or consent to a treaty. You link an article that takes issue with the word ratify and claims that Senate has no such power, then links to the Senate website which clearly articulates that while they do not ratify, they hold the power of a 2/3rds vote approval.



So it seems that the word "ratify" was improperly used, but the point remains the same. Any treaty entered into by Obama needs a 2/3rds vote by the House and Senate to be accepted.

Leave it to libs to take issue with the use of the word "ratify" after spending weeks saying a letter was "sent" when nothing was ever actually sent anywhere.

Leave it to die hard Conservatives to defend a "letter" most are running from now over the use of a word in the media. Just have to blame the media somehow. Have to distract from the issue somehow.

Here's another immature Canadian tactic. I am "sending" you a message by "posting" on this message board. Did I "send" it, or "post" it? That's such an important factor, I have to know the answer. It's critical to the discussion. SMH

[Rockin Robbie]

Actually you seem to be the one trolling. You, like your fellow Canadians on this board, like to try and dig in with backhanded insults. Sorry, I have grown immune to the immature Canadian tactics.

OK, I apologize for asking if you were trolling. I just assumed that a seemingly intelligent grown man wouldn't start a thread based on something he found on Instagram and argue that there's a practical difference between posting an open letter -signed by 47 politicians and addressed directly to the leaders of a foreign country- on a Government website on the internet and putting the letter in an envelope, slapping a stamp on it and mailing it to Iran, use that ridiculous notion to beat the liberal media dead horse; and then expect to be taken seriously.

BTW, the second example of the "liberal media" in your OP, Michael Reagan and Newsmax.com, are about as far from liberal as you can get.

Simple reality, the media has lambasted the GOP for sending a letter to Iran, which never happened. The pure and simple intent has been to sensationalize a minor event into something much, much bigger than it was. Sadly, the sheeple jump on the bandwagon as usual.

You still haven't explained what the purpose of the GOP publicity stunt was if the media was supposed to ignore the letter or pretend it didn't exist.

As for your claim that the Republicans "screwed that up" in regards to the letter, I find it ironic. The Republicans used the term "ratify" when expressing that a Senate 2/3rds vote is needed to approve or consent to a treaty. You link an article that takes issue with the word ratify and claims that Senate has no such power, then links to the Senate website which clearly articulates that while they do not ratify, they hold the power of a 2/3rds vote approval.

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.
So it seems that the word "ratify" was improperly used, but the point remains the same. Any treaty entered into by Obama needs a 2/3rds vote by the House and Senate to be accepted.

Leave it to libs to take issue with the use of the word "ratify" after spending weeks saying a letter was "sent" when nothing was ever actually sent anywhere.

When I said in the other thread that it would be nice if you'd scrape together a little self-awareness, the quote above is *exactly* what I was talking about.