RE: How is this not Treason?

RE: How is this not Treason? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 9:12:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Apparently, without Senate approval, any treaty negotiated by President Obama isn't worth a whole lot. Damn those checks and balances, eh?!? That's not the issue, DS. Yes, it is. quote: First, the Republicans are calling the Iranians 'total idiots'. Do you think the Iranians never set anyone to the United States to learn about our laws and political structure? Reality is, many have come here, learned the whole thing. To be 'instructed' by these Republicans is an insult. That you can not understand it, is sad. The wording may have left much to be desired, but, they're right. Just because the Iranians might come to some sort of agreement with the President, that doesn't make it a done deal. It still has to have 2/3 support of the Senate. quote: Second, the Senate confirms treaties; they dont make them. Its true, that past Senate's have helped the Executive branch in the final crafting process, but they do not interact with the foreign governments. This one wants to say "Ignore the President and only deal with us". THAT, is a violation of the Constitution. Good Lord. They didn't say the Iranians had to deal with them. That's ludicrous bullshit, which I guess I expect out of you, so, congrats on being consistent! quote: Third, these Republicans have been hounding the administration since it started on....ANYTHING. Taking any action they could to undermine him, his abilities, and his office. Or are you like Kirata, and totally oblivious to reality and history? Riiiiight, anything. [8\|] It couldn't have anything to do with them representing their constituents in opposing the Democrats and the President, could it? I mean, it's not like they ran on tickets based on opposing the... oh, wait... strike that... quote: Fourth, these Republicans were elected to represent their states....NOT....the United States of America towards a foreign power. That would be the President whom gets elected to that job. Would you like liberal Democrats designing foreign policy that might impact you, irrelevant of the executive branch? Go ahead, say 'no'. I dare you! I double dog dare you! To answer your question, no, I would not. Now, I pose a question to you. Where in the letter did the Senators attempt to negotiate with Iran? quote: An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran: It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades. What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. Where is the declaration of war against the US or the aid and comfort to the enemy? I fail to see it in this letter.

thishereboi -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 9:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last The rightwing Nazi shiteaters are exporting their goons and thugs to the world, and as always trampling our constitution. Would any of the conservatives/libertarians have a problem with 47 Democrats doing the same action towards a Republican president? The moment they say 'yes', they agree this action of the Republicans is wrong. But we know they will say 'yes' and try to manufacture some reason to worm they're way out of the corruption they created. That we know, they will do this, before they even do it, should tell anyone how easy conservatives are to predict. This action is more so, because Republicans *WANT* a war. When we have had a Republican as President, we always had a war in the Middle East. And ironically not to far from the Iran border. In fact, the last Republican president was on two of Iran's borders. Because when there is a war, its easier for Republicans to push fear out of its propaganda media systems (aka FOX 'news', Breitbart, and infowars.com). I am a conservative and I would react the same way no matter which party they are in. But I can understand why you think they would. Maybe when you aren't ranting and raving about how evil the repubs are you could look up projecting.

joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:27:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I was wondering how long it would take some one to point this out. But, of course, if they noticed that how could they say that Congress doing it's job was treason. Over 50 senators signed a letter telling the President that there was no point in signing the UN small arms treaty because all of them would vote against ratification. I guess that wasn't treason since a Democrat headed that movement. 50 Senators? The link of the PDF only shows 42. Who are the other eight? 42 is enough. Or didn't you know that it takes 67 to ratify. The point being that you guys didn't get outraged when a Democrat did it. Or are you trying to deflect from that point? When did Democrats in the Senate, tell a foreign power "Dont bother dealing with that Republican President, deal with us" when nuclear weapons are on the table for discussion? They merely explained to them that any "executive agreement" would only be valid till Dec 2017, and would not be binding on the U S Government, as opposed to a treaty ratified by Congress. You are not old enough to remember that McGovern went to North Vietnam to assure them of how much better a deal they could get if he won the election. Don't you think that that is far worse than this? But no, of course not McGovern was a Democrat. Your REALLY pulling through the bullshit to make an argument here. No, what they did was politically and diplomatically...DUMB. Even the Iranians through the PROPER channels said it was a Propoganda Ploy That's diplomatic for 'You idiots are totally dumb'. And they didn't address it to President Obama, the diplomats, or the ambassadors; it was for the Republicans. And those 2016 GOP hopefuls that signed on to it. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stated: ""It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history," Even diplomats and ambassadors are stating these Republicans are totally stupid. Not because they report to President Obama, but because there is a way to be diplomatic, and plenty of ways to be dumb. They basically showed they are amateurs at foreign policy. We got to see how good the Republican foreign policy is rated. I think my high school debating class could do better!

joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic nah Joe, its the wording....stating they taking over the executive branch....the wording is wrong, semantics, a bit like yanno like the weapons of mass destruction post on another thread...you gotta have the exact words, ....well for some anyway. The Constitution is very clear on this. The Senate's job is to ratify a treat by vote. Doesn't say anywhere in there "Yo, you foreign power only deal with us for treaties!". Every past treaty voted by the Senate and approved started with a process. The Executive branch handles the particulars of the treat. It typically invites the Senate on to help craft the treaty on our end to help conform with existing treaties and laws. Its the diplomats and ambassadors of the United States whom directly deal with the foreign powers. Thats not what is happening here. The Republicans are doing the diplomats and ambassador's jobs and trying to push the executive branch out of the way. Unless the the 28th amendment was created in the last hour, saying the Senate can do this; they are violating the law and the US Constitution. DIRECTLY! No they can advise that there is no way they will ratify the treaty as currently formed. Would you rather they waited till it was done then tell them they have to start over. Perhaps you didn't READ what I stated. So its quoted above for your viewing pleasure. They can advise...THE PRESIDENT....not a foreign power. That letter is advising a foreign power. Which is against the Constitution. Therefore, they VIOLATED THE LAW. And most of those Republicans if not all of them are lawyers. So they knew going into this, they were violating the law. They are hoping conservatives and libertarians are their usual stupid to ignore this.

Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata >These people have signed a letter *stating they are taking over the executive branch's responsibilities* You're making shit up again. I want you to go to this LINK and tell me these people didn't sign a document. I want you to PROVE to me that Mr. Tom Cotton....DIDN'T....sign that letter. Go ahead, I love hearing BULLSHIT from you. Its all you shovel. Pay special attention to the pretty red words, joether. If you require assistance, see here. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Whose making shit up...again? YOU! [image]local://upfiles/235229/07E89601BD4A4559B27AE188A605DFB7.gif[/image] K.

Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 11:17:29 PM)
See? Told ya.....

joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 11:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Apparently, without Senate approval, any treaty negotiated by President Obama isn't worth a whole lot. Damn those checks and balances, eh?!? That's not the issue, DS. Yes, it is. Are the terms between Iran and the Executive Branch finalized yet? No, the chief foreign affairs guy states that in a letter circulating the news. Therefore, its not the Senate's issue yet. What the Republicans did was bypass the President and handle foreign policy. Which, according to the US Constitution.....THEY AREN'T ALLOWS TO DO. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether First, the Republicans are calling the Iranians 'total idiots'. Do you think the Iranians never set anyone to the United States to learn about our laws and political structure? Reality is, many have come here, learned the whole thing. To be 'instructed' by these Republicans is an insult. That you can not understand it, is sad. The wording may have left much to be desired, but, they're right. Just because the Iranians might come to some sort of agreement with the President, that doesn't make it a done deal. It still has to have 2/3 support of the Senate. No, they are not right. They VIOLATED THE LAW. They basically said "The President is an idiot, and you will do business with us." If the Democrats had pulled this shit, would you be be up in arms about it? Oh fuck yeah. If the Iranians came to a deal with the President, its because the Senate members invited by the President agreed to the terms as well. Which would mean its on the Senate to handle the treaty. If they down voted it, people would go back to the table to discuss things. That's how its been done for 239 years, DS. The Senate doesn't by-pass the President on foreign policy. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Second, the Senate confirms treaties; they dont make them. Its true, that past Senate's have helped the Executive branch in the final crafting process, but they do not interact with the foreign governments. This one wants to say "Ignore the President and only deal with us". THAT, is a violation of the Constitution. Good Lord. They didn't say the Iranians had to deal with them. That's ludicrous bullshit, which I guess I expect out of you, so, congrats on being consistent! Try that third paragraph from Sen. Tom Cotton: "What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congress could modify the terms of the agreement at any time." This comes after two paragraphs of insulting the Iranians intelligence. This part states "Unless we are dictating terms, anything you and President Obama have are null and void. We'll be getting the Oval Office in the next election anyways; so you might as well do business with only us". The only way you can ignore the reality is to keep pushing the conservative bullshit. Which site is giving the conservative talking points? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Third, these Republicans have been hounding the administration since it started on....ANYTHING. Taking any action they could to undermine him, his abilities, and his office. Or are you like Kirata, and totally oblivious to reality and history? It couldn't have anything to do with them representing their constituents in opposing the Democrats and the President, could it? I mean, it's not like they ran on tickets based on opposing the... oh, wait... strike that... What does what you stated have....ANYTHING....to do with what I stated? Answer: NOTHING! Because the Republican/Tea Party is guilty of this. They thought they had an awesome angle on this one; and they thought wrong! Now they are in possible legal trouble. Imagine what skeletons the DOJ would find in their closets during a Treason case, DS. All those superPACs that gave money from unknown donors to them, would become a matter of public record. Wouldn't it be funny if China gave the GOP money to run in elections? WHO handles foreign policy under the US Constitution, DS? That's the Executive Branch! Did those Republicans represent....ALL...their constituents? I think those Democrats and other parties might have a say in the 'We are not being represented here" department. My state is run by a Democrats, DS. But I know there are plenty of Republicans within it. The Democrats are forced to consider the wants and desires of those Republicans. When people run for the Senate, DS, they are running to....REPRESENT....the people of their state in the SENATE of CONGRESS. Not before the world. We elect someone else for that. That would be the President of the United States of America. You know all of this. Why I have to bring it up, I dont know..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Fourth, these Republicans were elected to represent their states....NOT....the United States of America towards a foreign power. That would be the President whom gets elected to that job. Would you like liberal Democrats designing foreign policy that might impact you, irrelevant of the executive branch? Go ahead, say 'no'. I dare you! I double dog dare you! To answer your question, no, I would not. So if that's correct, then you should be....FULLY....against what these Republicans did. But your not. Your trying to defend their actions. So your answer is really 'yes'. If its not 'OK" for Democrats to do it, DS, then its equally not 'OK" for Republicans to do it either. Geez.....I was even a good sport and hinted not to answer 'no' there. I figured someone would get the hint.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now, I pose a question to you. Where in the letter did the Senators attempt to negotiate with Iran? quote: An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran: It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades. What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. That you can't spot it, shows your level of education here. The real sad part is if you had studied things, instead of letting your passion for politics get the best of you; you would know I and others have already explained it in previous posts. I got high school students living on my street DS, that understand how badly these Republicans FUCKED UP on foreign policy.

Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 11:48:47 PM)
>This part states "Unless we are dictating terms, anything you and President Obama have are null and void. We'll be getting the Oval Office in the next election anyways; so you might as well do business with only us". Your inner penguin is lying to you. K.

joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 12:13:06 AM)
.....

Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 12:17:10 AM)
>I am to King Author, as you are to the Black Knight.... Good old King Author! [:D] K.

DesideriScuri -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 3:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Apparently, without Senate approval, any treaty negotiated by President Obama isn't worth a whole lot. Damn those checks and balances, eh?!? That's not the issue, DS. Yes, it is. Are the terms between Iran and the Executive Branch finalized yet? No, the chief foreign affairs guy states that in a letter circulating the news. Therefore, its not the Senate's issue yet. What the Republicans did was bypass the President and handle foreign policy. Which, according to the US Constitution.....THEY AREN'T ALLOWS TO DO. We agree that it is the President's authority to negotiate treaties, and not the US Senate's. There wasn't anything negotiated, however. What the letter states is, in fact, true. Without Senate approval, any treaty signed with President Obama can very easily be thrown out by the next elected President. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether First, the Republicans are calling the Iranians 'total idiots'. Do you think the Iranians never set anyone to the United States to learn about our laws and political structure? Reality is, many have come here, learned the whole thing. To be 'instructed' by these Republicans is an insult. That you can not understand it, is sad. The wording may have left much to be desired, but, they're right. Just because the Iranians might come to some sort of agreement with the President, that doesn't make it a done deal. It still has to have 2/3 support of the Senate. No, they are not right. They VIOLATED THE LAW. They basically said "The President is an idiot, and you will do business with us." If the Democrats had pulled this shit, would you be be up in arms about it? Oh fuck yeah. No, they didn't. You do seem to project an awful lot onto the GOP. You should really look at the facts and get back to reality, Joether. quote: If the Iranians came to a deal with the President, its because the Senate members invited by the President agreed to the terms as well. Which would mean its on the Senate to handle the treaty. If they down voted it, people would go back to the table to discuss things. That's how its been done for 239 years, DS. The Senate doesn't by-pass the President on foreign policy. Very true, Joether. Thus, Iran should understand that anything signed with this President isn't worth much unless the Senate agrees. That's what the letter stated. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Second, the Senate confirms treaties; they dont make them. Its true, that past Senate's have helped the Executive branch in the final crafting process, but they do not interact with the foreign governments. This one wants to say "Ignore the President and only deal with us". THAT, is a violation of the Constitution. Good Lord. They didn't say the Iranians had to deal with them. That's ludicrous bullshit, which I guess I expect out of you, so, congrats on being consistent! Try that third paragraph from Sen. Tom Cotton: "What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congress could modify the terms of the agreement at any time." This comes after two paragraphs of insulting the Iranians intelligence. This part states "Unless we are dictating terms, anything you and President Obama have are null and void. We'll be getting the Oval Office in the next election anyways; so you might as well do business with only us". The only way you can ignore the reality is to keep pushing the conservative bullshit. Which site is giving the conservative talking points? Again, you're projecting. I linked to the sites I'm relying on, Joether. Nowhere in the letter are any terms mentioned. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of Iran and the Senate getting together to discuss those terms. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Third, these Republicans have been hounding the administration since it started on....ANYTHING. Taking any action they could to undermine him, his abilities, and his office. Or are you like Kirata, and totally oblivious to reality and history? It couldn't have anything to do with them representing their constituents in opposing the Democrats and the President, could it? I mean, it's not like they ran on tickets based on opposing the... oh, wait... strike that... What does what you stated have....ANYTHING....to do with what I stated? Answer: NOTHING! If they are representing their constituents accurately, it certainly does have a lot to do with it. quote: Because the Republican/Tea Party is guilty of this. They thought they had an awesome angle on this one; and they thought wrong! Now they are in possible legal trouble. Imagine what skeletons the DOJ would find in their closets during a Treason case, DS. All those superPACs that gave money from unknown donors to them, would become a matter of public record. Wouldn't it be funny if China gave the GOP money to run in elections? No, it wouldn't be funny. And, I certainly would support appropriate penalties for those who broke the law. quote: WHO handles foreign policy under the US Constitution, DS? That's the Executive Branch! Did those Republicans represent....ALL...their constituents? I think those Democrats and other parties might have a say in the 'We are not being represented here" department. My state is run by a Democrats, DS. But I know there are plenty of Republicans within it. The Democrats are forced to consider the wants and desires of those Republicans. When people run for the Senate, DS, they are running to....REPRESENT....the people of their state in the SENATE of CONGRESS. Not before the world. We elect someone else for that. That would be the President of the United States of America. You know all of this. Why I have to bring it up, I dont know..... You bring it up because you think it matters, Joether. And, if you were correct, I'd support your arguments. Sadly, for you anyway, you're wrong. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Fourth, these Republicans were elected to represent their states....NOT....the United States of America towards a foreign power. That would be the President whom gets elected to that job. Would you like liberal Democrats designing foreign policy that might impact you, irrelevant of the executive branch? Go ahead, say 'no'. I dare you! I double dog dare you! To answer your question, no, I would not. So if that's correct, then you should be....FULLY....against what these Republicans did. But your not. Your trying to defend their actions. So your answer is really 'yes'. If its not 'OK" for Democrats to do it, DS, then its equally not 'OK" for Republicans to do it either. Geez.....I was even a good sport and hinted not to answer 'no' there. I figured someone would get the hint.... You can hint at the wrong answer all you want, Joether. Where is the Senate "designing foreign policy?" quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now, I pose a question to you. Where in the letter did the Senators attempt to negotiate with Iran? quote: An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran: It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress. First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement. Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades. What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. That you can't spot it, shows your level of education here. The real sad part is if you had studied things, instead of letting your passion for politics get the best of you; you would know I and others have already explained it in previous posts. I got high school students living on my street DS, that understand how badly these Republicans FUCKED UP on foreign policy. ~~Interesting that you didn't point anything out, or answer my question.~~ Actually, strike that. It isn't interesting, nor is it surprising.

bounty44 -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 5:00:37 AM)
this was mentioned in the original article in question, but don't think anyone's brought it up: "Biden Was For The Senate's Constitutional Power Before He Was Against It" quote: "Among the Framers," Biden argued, "it was Alexander Hamilton who, though renowned as the leading advocate of a strong presidency, stressed that it would have been 'utterly unsafe and improper' to entrust the power of making treaties to the president alone." (Emphasis added.) quote: We need not go back a quarter-century to catch Biden in a moment of astonishing hypocrisy. Just seven years ago, in 2008, Senator Biden complained loudly against the suggestion that President George W. Bush might sign a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq without Senate consent. In a positively Cotton-eque letter to the White House, Senator Biden told President Bush that the president could not purport to bind the nation without the Senate's consent: "Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. ... "[T]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy." I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any “security commitments” the United States negotiates with Iraq." So when Biden complains, twenty-five years later, that the senators' assertion of the Senate's constitutional treaty powers would "undermine the ability of" President Obama and his successors to conduct foreign affairs, perhaps he means this as a very subtle compliment. Were he in their shoes, he probably would have done the same thing. Come to think of it, he did. Repeatedly. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-was-senates-constitutional-power-he-was-against-it_881791.html?utm_campaign=Washington+Examiner&utm_source=washingtonexaminer.com&utm_medium=referral so one interesting question about this would be, what was the republican response then to biden's doing that...

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 5:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail There are less than treaties, and the approval is after negotiation, by a vote, they do not have the power to negotiate. Thank you for your demonstration of not understanding the constitution. I suspect you do not know what is at stake. One can invoke natural law here. There is no way the President can stop it without making a move so unpopular that it would spark a civil war. They can because there is nothing to stop them. Obama is an antichrist. If you are worried that a tragedy is going to ensue, ask yourself why did you vote for him? To vindicate yourself? To prove it was only a superstition? You sided with the devil.

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:10:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I got high school students living on my street DS, that understand how badly these Republicans FUCKED UP on foreign policy. Though I do not feel that Bush II was not an especially bright bulb and screwed up, it is nothing in comparison to how badly the Democrats messed up. At least the Democrats should have the intellectual fortitude to realize that the problem is one of spilt milk. The facts are in. Bush was kind of right. These people are monsters and he was trying to fight fire with fire. The Democrats were kind of right in saying that it is best not to fight fire with fire. I would not give Bush II nor the Democrats credit for being right, however. With Bush II we got a moron. We managed to vote for a moron, then the Democrats managed to do one better. The Democrats went out their way to say that they could do one better.

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:12:09 AM)
P.S. I wouldn't consider what high school students think as relevant. They have no real life experience.

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:19:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Did you answer my question like a mature adult, Kirata? I would put Kirata in the category of an intellectual. He is Dom and worthy of respect.

Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:19:41 AM)
Well the world is laughing...but not at the Prez well deserved chortling at the GOP and other ....right wingers....deservedly so

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Well the world is laughing...but not at the Prez well deserved chortling at the GOP and other ....right wingers....deservedly so Why are the liberals so non-dominant in their outlook? The liberal interest in global opinion is obsessive and weak.

Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:39:16 AM)
The day your opinion matters in my life BM, is the day I give up living in reality thank you, I still have a LONG way to go...bless your heart

BenevolentM -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/10/2015 6:48:09 AM)
It is unfortunate that what we have to look forward to is Bush II was kind of right. It is unfortunate today's high school students may soon get some life experience, like what burning flesh smells like or what it is like to experience a crucifixion. Can war be averted through peace? Bush II knew that war in the middle east was inevitable. Maybe he knew things we don't. It is possible that we needed to go to war when we did for reasons that were kept from us. Obama is trying to rewrite history and did all he could to reverse what good Bush II did. In every dark cloud there is a silver lining. He did not see this. Why did he fail to see it? A wise leader does not fail to see such things.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875