MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
Dunno if you guys have noticed, but we really haven't been in a strong enough position to get a really 'good' treaty out of Iran in a long damn time. If we ever were.
Maybe this is as good as it gets for now. And it's more direct contact and negotiation than we've had with Iran since maybe the Carter administration.
That is like saying that someone is threatening you with a knife, wants you to give him a shotgun, but since he accepts a handgun you should be happy with the deal.
Chamberlain would have loved that argument.
Did you read the treaty? No of course not. The Iranians stand to gain more stability and credibility with the world by going along with the treaty. If they screw any part of it, all those sanctions which are straggling their country will get worst. They are taking a bigger gamble than anyone else (including the United States).
So why haven't you read the treaty?
First a brilliant person like you should know that there is no treaty, merely an executivey agreement.
Second anyone who knew the first thing about Iran would know that public relations is far from their first concern.
Third if Kerry can't release it to Congress how did you get it.
Four since you think we can trust Iran you must believe that they intent to use these weapons against us.
Five they get a lot, we get their word to play nice for a little while, and they have stated that a promise to us means nothing.
A treaty and an exec. agreement are the same thing except that presidents use the expression exec. agreements to get past the 2/3 vote required to approve a treaty. (FDR was the first and came up with the concept)
Therefore, having agreed to a vote up or down for approval, a simply majority of disapproval, could be vetoed. That then would require the 2/3 override same as a treaty-approval anyway. This gives dems a chance to vote it down but vote against an override.
And it had the force of an executive order, not the force of law.
Yes the whole idea is to let Obama rule without those pesky things like Congressional approval.
Exec. Orders:
.....same as FEMA although it gets now over $10 billion a year for who knows what. So none of it really has the force of law...until it's law.
Trade agreements are the same thing...exec. agreements (hardly free trade at all but profit protection agreements) that congress votes for beforehand so the pres. can put in all of the goodies the various corporate sponsors want and then only get a vote up or down.
They are hardly treaties and it's all typical semantic legerdemain. And no, the whole idea is to let ALL presidents rule subject to various congressional reactions or overreactions.
And since Obama is doing it, at the moment it is a good thing. But let a Republican do it and you will be screaming about abuse of power.
Not one of those things are designed to help someone get nukes who want to blow us to Hell.
Not true at all about any of [my] screaming at all. I lost (gave up) my political voice when Reagan was to be (our family's and most family's) modern-day, great white hope but then proceeded to be anything but conservative, with his Keynesian spending on defense, violations of law, 5 (I think) cabinet level people pardoned and became the 'Teflon' president...nothing stuck. He should have been thrown out on his ear.
What is true is the right's hypocrisy now when a dem does it. All of a sudden it's unconstitutional and something brought only by a dictator. I have never heard any such ridiculous harangues from the left of about repub exec. orders.
|
RE: GOP = Iranian Hardliners - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread