Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

The right won't be over it by then either eh....

Prez Obama is not calling it anything. He's stated his firm intention to exercise his Executive Agreement option which presidents since WW2 have used especially prolifically over its use by presidents before then.

And there is no set period of validity to an Executive Agreement by a president in foreign affairs and diplomacy. Your calculation looks like you tallied the daze till the next inauguration, which is neat especially if you got the countdown from Hillary's website.

(Can write the reply to this for you if you'd like.....)

Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

The right won't be over it by then either eh....

The right won't be ready to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and neither will most democrats. If he insists on allowing the sunset clause to stand, the lawless president's latest parlor trick will not stand the test of time.

Edited March 15, 201511 yr by Ulysses G.

The Republicans are just trying to make Obama look bad, as they've been doing since he got elected.

"The Republicans are just trying to make Obama look bad"??? Republicans simply point out how dangerous and naive Obama, and his minions of leftist loonies are. Obama males himself look bad.

So by inference I suppose I must be a "jew hater" and a "muslim hater".

Of course the truth is far from it, but some seem happy to apply labels when they are either too lazy or too stupid to know any different.

Are you denying that many posters on this forum hate Jews, try to deny anti-Semitism exists and constantly make excuses and justifications for terrorist acts and for radical Islam? There have been plenty of hateful posts that prove that they are around in spades. Some labels are earned and denying the obvious does not exactly make one a raving genius.

Edited March 15, 201511 yr by Ulysses G.

So by inference I suppose I must be a "jew hater" and a "muslim hater".

Of course the truth is far from it, but some seem happy to apply labels when they are either too lazy or too stupid to know any different.

Are you denying that many posters on this forum hate Jews, try to deny anti-Semitism exists and constantly make excuses and justifications for terrorist acts and for radical Islam? There have been plenty of hateful posts that prove that they exist. Some labels are earned and denying the obvious does not exactly make one a raving genius.

I'm sure there are some posters that hate Jews, but there posts must be deleted quickly, because I haven't read a lot of posts espousing their hatred. And I don't think anyone would deny that there are countless posts which demonize people of Semitic origin. Particularly Muslims.

However, this is all off topic.

This thread is about how despite the fact that Republican senators sent a letter of advice to Iran, the P5+1 negotiations are moving forward and reports indicate that progress is being made.

There are plenty of haters of all types, creeds, ethnic groups, political and sexual orientation and many of the posts are removed. So, anti-Semitic posts are removed. Here's the rule:

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Now please get back on the topic.

Pretty simple really, if you don't support the Republican position, you're a Jew hater.

It must be so easy being a Republican. No thinking necessary, lower taxes, love your guns, embrace war, oppose women's rights and blame the coloreds.

Republican politicians (the dumb 47) are trying to bail on the support with the criticism and polls. It hasn't stopped the support here on TV. No surprise the same people continue their supporting for this nonsense.

McCain now saying it was a mistake. People were trying to leave town because there was a snowstorm coming and they didn't read the letter. Really? It seemed like such a good idea at the time. Screw Obama and support Sheldon Adelson. What could possibly go wrong?

Your Republican congress in action. Enjoy it while it lasts.

^^ Yup, it's the politics of insult

So by inference I suppose I must be a "jew hater" and a "muslim hater".

Of course the truth is far from it, but some seem happy to apply labels when they are either too lazy or too stupid to know any different.

Are you denying that many posters on this forum hate Jews, try to deny anti-Semitism exists and constantly make excuses and justifications for terrorist acts and for radical Islam? There have been plenty of hateful posts that prove that they are around in spades. Some labels are earned and denying the obvious does not exactly make one a raving genius.

I call a spade a spade. The problem is people here who call a pair of garden shears a spade.

Let's just call it tarring everyone with the same brush.

Off-topic posts removed. The topic is about the GOP and its letter.

Remarks should relate in some manner to the topic of the thread.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

The right won't be over it by then either eh....

The right won't be ready to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and neither will most democrats. If he insists on allowing the sunset clause to stand, the lawless president's latest parlor trick will not stand the test of time.

If you can take the time and commit to the effort to edit my posts that you quote, then you can also take time to indicate you have edited my post by removing a part of it.

I ask you again, in respect of Rule 16 of the Forums, to properly edit my posts when you decided to edit them: 16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

I'm asking you nicely.

I am not breaking any rules. I have not changed the meaning of what was quoted from your post. I directly addressed the statement that I was referring to.

I suggest that you report it to the moderators, if I ever do change the meaning of what you said, but I am under no obligation to include the miles of spin attached to each and every pronouncement in your posts.

Edited March 15, 201511 yr by Ulysses G.

Yes snippets are allowed unless they're used to blatantly distort intended meaning.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes snippets are allowed unless they're used to blatantly distort intended meaning.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You mean like this?

Yes snippets are allowed to blatantly distort intended meaning.

When/if somebody does something this blatant, they should be reported and dealt with accordingly.

What UG does is entirely within reason. I do the same thing.

Glad to see the attention, the new attentiveness and awareness.

What UG does is entirely within reason. I do the same thing.

I dread to think how big the messages would get if we all didn't do some sensible pruning!

Glad to see the attention, the new attentiveness and awareness.

Something you might want to try sometime as often as you scramble other posters words.

It is Rule 16 concerning context so the one single poster has been put on further notice, thx.

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

Edited by Publicus for tech reasons

Edited March 15, 201511 yr by Publicus

Although democrats disapprove of the GOP letter there are plenty still lining up with the Republicans stance on a Veto.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/even-democrats-wont-back-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal

Although democrats disapprove of the GOP letter there are plenty still lining up with the Republicans stance on a Veto.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/even-democrats-wont-back-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal

Ok, who cares. Dont make any difference, its little domestic stuff of no importance to the deal. There is no veto on the table.

Edited March 17, 201511 yr by BKKBobby

There is no veto on the table.

According to BKKBobby anyway.

‘The administration would like to have a distraction, but the point is the subject of the matter,’ the GOP leader said.

‘Apparently, the Obama administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.’…

There is no veto on the table.

According to BKKBobby anyway.

‘The administration would like to have a distraction, but the point is the subject of the matter,’ the GOP leader said.

‘Apparently, the Obama administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.’…

US domestic partys and politicans cant veto in this matter except the US representative in the UN security council.

The other member countries of the security council can also veto.

Edited March 17, 201511 yr by BKKBobby

There is no veto on the table.

According to BKKBobby anyway.

‘The administration would like to have a distraction, but the point is the subject of the matter,’ the GOP leader said.

‘Apparently, the Obama administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.’…

The new CNN-ORC survey released a couple of hours ago found that a paltry 18% of Americans believe the letter to Iran "helped US efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

The survey found that approximately half of Americans (48%) have confidence in Prez Obama in foreign policy issues across the board, while only 39% have more confidence in the Republicans in congress. The confidence in Prez Obama in this respect hovers around his norm in recent polling findings.

Poll: Iran negotiations popular

Direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran are broadly popular, 68% favor them, while 29% oppose them. That support cuts across party lines, with 77% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 64% of independents in favor of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/politics/iran-negotiations-gop-letter-poll/

Methinks 90% of the 18% are posting to various discussion boards here and there, around and about.

There is no veto on the table.

According to BKKBobby anyway.

‘The administration would like to have a distraction, but the point is the subject of the matter,’ the GOP leader said.

‘Apparently, the Obama administration is on the cusp of entering into a very bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world.’…

Samantha Power is Obamas representative in the UN security council. Thus representing the people of the US with a veto power in the UN security council.

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by BKKBobby

Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

Incorrect - the Senate doesn't ratify treaties.

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.

Source - https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm

Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

Incorrect - the Senate doesn't ratify treaties.

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.

Source - https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.

Uh the Constitution requires any treaty be ratified by Congress. Then Senator Joe Biden said as much in 1997. Nobody trusts this President as he had sold out America at every turn and has proven over and over he is incompetent.

I trust him. Congress doesn't ratify treaties.

The Senate, which is part of Congress, ratifies treaties.

Obama is running around the Senate by calling this an Executive Agreement, valid for 22 months (677 days).

Incorrect - the Senate doesn't ratify treaties.

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.

Source - https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.

Nope.

The President ratifies treaties. It (as a treaty only) requires the advice and consent of the Senate.

Who says? The Senate.

Not so. It takes a vote of 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty. This is welded into the US Constitution.

"Advice and consent" includes the itty bitty word "consent."

From the Senate's website:

The Senate's Role in Treaties

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.

LINKhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Not so. It takes a vote of 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty. This is welded into the US Constitution.

"Advice and consent" includes the itty bitty word "consent."

From the Senate's website:

The Senate's Role in Treaties

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.

LINKhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Not so.

The Senate is needed to ratify a treaty. It doesn't ratify. That is the sole prerogative of the President.

The Senate could vote for a treaty with 100% voting for it and still cannot ratify it.

They cannot overrule the President to get a treaty ratified.

See my link above from the same website you use where it clearly states that "the Senate does not ratify treaties "