Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Ah, finally. It's the old "I defend this action by claiming "somebody else did it"." play. Well done, sir. You win a cookie. Not to be outdone by the "it's cool when my party does it, when y'all do it it- racists! Because of reasons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 http://weaselzippers.us/216624-flashback-pelosi-dismisses-criticism-from-bush-after-she-meets-with-assad-in-syria/ DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — 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. You can't actually belive the smokescreens you're throwing up are valid. The republicans that signed that letter undermined the office of the president. Not just their hated rival currently holding that office. They delivered an official signed statement that the American President is unable to make any lasting commitments beyond his term, to a foreign government while negotiations are underway. This was wrong and if it falls short of treason, it isn't nearly as far from the line as so many senators should be. A line was crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Not to be outdone by the "it's cool when my party does it, when y'all do it it- racists! Because of reasons"The other party hasn't done it but when you absolutely need cover for something arguably treasonous with 40+ names on it, anything remotely similar will have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So is this the 47% that Romney was talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You can't actually belive the smokescreens you're throwing up are valid. The republicans that signed that letter undermined the office of the president. Not just their hated rival currently holding that office. They delivered an official signed statement that the American President is unable to make any lasting commitments beyond his term, to a foreign government while negotiations are underway. This was wrong and if it falls short of treason, it isn't nearly as far from the line as so many senators should be. A line was crossed. ANOTHER line was crossed. Our system is broken. I'm just not someone who is going to continue to blame only one side for breaking it. Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to get advice and consent from the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Not to be outdone by the "it's cool when my party does it, when y'all do it it- racists! Because of reasons" Pointing out that I don't believe anybody has stated at least the first part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The other party hasn't done it but when you absolutely need cover for something arguably treasonous with 40+ names on it, anything remotely similar will have to do. Even the guy that brought the term treason to the table has acknowledged it doesn't fit, are you really gonna double down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Even the guy that brought the term treason to the table has acknowledged it doesn't fit, are you really gonna double down? Hey the Logan Act violation certainly hasn't started and won't end with me (it did in this thread, just in general). I just said it wasn't specifically TREASON that we associate with ... aka the kind you get put to death for. Treason in the sense that their move is a 3-year prison sentence if it is determined these 47 violated the Logan Act. I've seen arguments for or against it. My guess is that no one will pursue it ... but it will be used and thrown around to shame them for some time. Curious to see how this resolves. It could easily blow over, but then again, it could drag on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 ANOTHER line was crossed. Our system is broken. I'm just not someone who is going to continue to blame only one side for breaking it. Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to get advice and consent from the Senate. When you're caught ****ting in the punch bowl, arguing "well hey we've all done bad things, right?" isn't generally viewed as wisdom so much as transparent bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 a yes... a co-del is the same thing... got it do you think that everyone reading this thread is a booger eating moron? (because...the alternative is that you BELIEVE that you have made a point here.. and that is worse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to get advice and consent from the Senate. True. But I will not that that's "advice". not "We will oppose whatever you do, just because we don;t want anything good to happen, while you're here". And I will further assert that I don't think the Framers intended for him to receive his advice after the person he's negotiating with, by reading the press release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 a yes... a co-del is the same thing... got it do you think that everyone reading this thread is a booger eating moron? (because...the alternative is that you BELIEVE that you have made a point here.. and that is worse) Yes. I believe most of the liberals here are booger eating morons. I like almost all of them. But I think most of them are dumber than a box of rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Sad thing is that the Iranian foreign minster seems to have a better grasp of our constitution than the republicans in question. Not really a better grasp since Senate consent is a requirement both under our constitution and I believe international law for it to be binding. this ain't no banana republic....despite many in both parties acting like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to get advice and consent from the Senate. Actually, no he technically does not. Unless we really are only talking about an actual treaty. He could have gone the unpopular (only because of the magnitude of it) but perfectly accepted route of an Executive Agreement. An action that has been in frequent use (a lot moreso than treaties) since the 1930's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Even the guy that brought the term treason to the table has acknowledged it doesn't fit, are you really gonna double down? Absolutely. Let's have the 47 arrested and allow them to make their defense in the third branch. That's not abuse of power because hey, that's how the system is supposed to work right? Checks and balances and all that. If they are innocent they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that what law and order republicans like to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Actually, no he technically does not. Unless we really are only talking about an actual treaty. He could have gone the unpopular but perfectly accepted route of an Executive Agreement. An action that has been in frequent use (a lot moreso than treaties) since the 1930's. Absolutely. But opposing an Executive Agreement isn't treason. Even in writing, directly to the other side of the agreement. Absolutely. Let's have the 47 arrested and allow them to make their defense in the third branch. That's not abuse of power because hey, that's how the system is supposed to work right? Checks and balances and all that. If they are innocent they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that what law and order republicans like to say? Those 47 would LOVE for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Absolutely. Let's have the 47 arrested and allow them to make their defense in the third branch. That's not abuse of power because hey, that's how the system is supposed to work right? Checks and balances and all that. Uh, you are aware that our Constitution actually specifies who it is that has the power to try sitting members of Congress? (And it's not the Judicial branch?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This is one of several heinously stupid and harmful things they've done. Making the president's authority to negotiate treaties a partisan football is unbelievably stupid. Making Israel a partisan football is unbelievably stupid. Making the effort to keep Iran from getting the bomb a partisan football is the most stupid move of all. We're going to end up with a nuclear war in the Middle East one day because a bunch of dumb **** congressmen thought they could score points with their white trash base by sticking it to the president they hate. Republicans must think they'll never have the White House again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 But opposing an Executive Agreement isn't treason. Even in writing, directly to the other side of the agreement. I'm not sure where the whole treason thing started but I would never call there action that. I would say that these Senators are acting like they do not acknowledge the power of the President. That's a more dangerous charge though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So is this the 47% that Romney was talking about? Does 47 x 1% = 47%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Uh, you are aware that our Constitution actually specifies who it is that has the power to try sitting members of Congress? (And it's not the Judicial branch?)47 senators being arrested was complete insanity so what followed might as well be a fantastic exaggeration. I should have demanded they be declared enemy combatants.But opposing an Executive Agreement isn't treason. Even in writing, directly to the other side of the agreement.Telling a foreign nation that the president can't negotiate anything of lasting value is not the same thing as opposing an agreement. On the bright side, you've moved on from the glass houses argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I guess what I don't get, other than implying that these 47 Senators (edit - and 1 loon Governor) will never allow the current President to enter into any treaties (especially ones that might have a historical significance to his enduring legacy), is what was the purpose of the letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Uh, no, I'm pretty sure that the EU has recently demonstrated that all it takes to thwart sanctions is for one country to decide not to go along with them. Now, the above might be a good reason why it might be a bad idea to do so. That isn't the point, but OK I guess what I don't get, other than implying that these 47 Senators will never allow the current President to enter into any treaties (especially ones that might have a historical significance to his enduring legacy), is what was the purpose of the letter? To make very anti-Obama people foam at the mouth. Probably also a play for the jewish-voting population (or the money from the big jewish donors) in the US that put the Iranian issue at the top of the list and think any negotiations with Iran is a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Probably also a play for the jewish-voting population (or the money from the big jewish donors) in the US that put the Iranian issue at the top of the list and think any negotiations with Iran is a bad thing. I don't have the numbers at hand - but I wonder if that jewish population even votes GOP or anything? From what I remember, they are largely centered in high urban areas (which predominently vote Democrat). I doubt this one issue would move them - especially when the GOP is still largely controlled by the Christian right - which has taught against the jewish faith for many decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think a better debate would be ACTUALLY ABOUT the pro's and con's of negotiating with Iran. But I doubt that ever happens. I don't have the numbers at hand - but I wonder if that jewish population even votes GOP? They are largely centered in high urban centers (which predominently vote Democrat). I doubt this one issue would move them - especially when the GOP is still largely controlled by the Christian right - which has largely taught against the jewish faith for many decades. NM. Bad memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.