Each of these circumstances you mentioned you all had to do with negotiations

You lost the argument in the first sentence since everyone is upset because only the President and those he appoints can negotiate.

a letter essentially telling another state that a group of people in our government will not negotiate or come to terms with the issue no matter what other agreements are made.

They are just being honest, even SOS Kerry admitted that this agreement is completely arbitrary and non-binding.

In no circumstance listed above did any of those representatives in the legislative branch invite a leader to speak without approval from the President...on our soil and in our chambers.

Why would they need his approval? The speaker can invite Ronald McDonald if he wants, members aren't required to attend. Moot point. Plus Netanyahu did not accept the invite until BO was made aware of it, that was classy.

What the republicans are doing is the opposite of negotiations but I don't expect any self-ascribed Republican backer to understand the nuances.

I never described myself as a Republican backer, learn to read. I just think you are all shitting the bed for nothing.

I did fully expect a response like yours which is smoke and mirrors trying to establish a connection between items you listed and the one currently on the table in an effort to muddy the waters.

Turning our back on our closest ally in the region to negotiate a non-binding agreement that would never get passed through congress is what muddied the waters. Your perception is patently false and a fantasy at best.

Just saying things like "Oh, Iran is a threat...they're the real deal danger and we need to take care of them" is a pretty tired and worn out platform. Can you give us some specifics regarding why you know that Iran poses such a gigantic threat to the US and the West?

Hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/25/irans-supreme-leader-jihad-will-continue-until-america-is-no-more/ (From last year...) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/world/middleeast/anniversary-of-islamic-revolution-in-iran.html?_r=0
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/25/iran-hangs-obama-in-effigy-on-revolution-day-2015-as-it-negotiates-nuclear-deal/

Do you not know how to use google, look this up yourself. Tired old platform my ass, they still say it to this day, they also say it for Israel you twit.

Besides, perhaps, that they are seriously displeased with the US's persistent military aid to Israel?

That is none of their business, especially since Israel doesn't openly saber rattle at Iran. They just take care of business as needed quietly. Like we used to do before we voted in an aloof loser who thinks he can get the Ayatollah to since Kumbaya with the Prime Minister of Iran like a fool.

If we were in hostile waters, hypothetically, with Mexico, I'm sure people...but more importantly...our government would not take it lightly if another country like Russia was providing billions in military equipment. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be the Republican party banging the drum of displeasure the loudest in that event.

You analogy fails due to them not being neighbors, go look at a map. In fact there are three countries separating them. Even if your analogy didn't suck, yes we would be mad and say words. But what more would we do beyond yell at Russia and try to hit them with sanctions? Not jack shit, that's what.

And when I wrote reps, it wasn't a distinction between the house and the senate, it was calling those people reps of our government, which they are no matter what part of congress they fill.

Fair enough. Try to be more specific when talking about them to make sense next time.

Regarding your comment about my inclining to call the talks nuclear proliferation talks and indicating that that meant I was stating I want an armed Iran is a solid example of how a lot of people in the conservative party like to operate in discussions. You take something someone says and twist it around to suit your argument, even though it's completely baseless.

Do you know what proliferation means? I'm not twisitng your words, just using your words as defined to respond to what you were saying.

Proliferation: rapid increase in numbers.

So when you discuss nuclear proliferation you are literally saying yo support negotiations that will rapidly increase the number of nuclear arms in the world, in this case in reference to Iran getting them. Again, I'm not a conservative and again, don't use big words if you don't understand what they mean. You can't misuse a word and then turn around and complain when someone interprets what you said literally and say I twisted your words just because you don't grasp the meaning. That's just petulant and immature.

Thanks for continuing in a long line of the myopic echo chamber we like to call the Grand Old Party.

You wouldn't know shortsighted decisions if they took a shit on your head. I'd be surprised if you even understood that word as well considering you can't even use proliferation correctly. Again, not a Republican, just not a complete idiot.

Thank you for continuing in a long line of the obsequious echo chamber we like to call the Democratic Party. That was way too easy, you should really try harder.