Recognizing A Lawless President

[konradv]

It's funny how we get constant posts about how Obama is breaking the law, but who gets indicted, a Republican governor in a Republican-controlled state!!! Why not a thread about how Rick Perry is lawless, mug shot and fingerprinted? I think this is all a ploy to keep people from looking at the shenanigans the Republicans are perpetrating on a daily basis. How can one really rely on the loyalty of people that would praise someone like Putin and compare him favorably to the president?

Dont live here do you? If you did you'd know this is a common dem tactic and they lose every time. But of course you know this already.

Why would I know this? You just pointed out I'm not from Texas. Also, not being from Texas, I wouldn't know this is a "common Democratic tactic". Sounds suspiciously like in-state trash talk. We have it in MD, too. The main difference being that in MD a Republican ex-governor actually did have to resign the vice-presidency in disgrace. What you characterize as "losing every time", could easily be a sign of the cover-up ability of the Texas R-party. Hey, things are so corrupt down there, lots of people still aren't sure who really shot Kennedy. List me as "not impressed" by the account of your side of the story.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Of course she is, because un, uh. OBAMA AKBAR.

Somewhere in the world there is a leftist who is not a fucking retard.

Not on USMB - but somewhere in the world.....

So you dont care thats it's not legally binding either, do you?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's funny how we get constant posts about how Obama is breaking the law, but who gets indicted, a Republican governor in a Republican-controlled state!!! Why not a thread about how Rick Perry is lawless, mug shot and fingerprinted? I think this is all a ploy to keep people from looking at the shenanigans the Republicans are perpetrating on a daily basis. How can one really rely on the loyalty of people that would praise someone like Putin and compare him favorably to the president?

Dont live here do you? If you did you'd know this is a common dem tactic and they lose every time. But of course you know this already.

Why would I know this? You just pointed out I wasn't from Texas. Also, not being from Texas, I wouldn't know this is a "common Democratic tactic". Sounds suspiciously like in-state trash talk. We have it in MD, too. The main difference being that in MD a Republican ex-governor actually did have to resign the vice-presidency in disgrace. What you characterize as "losing every time", could easily be a sign of the cover-up ability of the Texas R-party. Hey, things are so corrupt down there, lots of people still aren't sure who really shot Kennedy. List me as "not impressed" by the account of your side of the story.

Dont give me that shit,it's been posted all over this board for a week.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Of course she is, because un, uh. OBAMA AKBAR.

Somewhere in the world there is a leftist who is not a fucking retard.

Not on USMB - but somewhere in the world.....

^^^ Avoiding the topic in order to troll this thread with insults? Pick up your game.

Did you actually read the article?

 

[Care4all]

Camp David Accord 1978

Chemical weapons accord 1990

Are all accords treaties, all needing 2/3's of the senate to be binding?

What about "Fast Track" treaty /trade agreements by Presidents, did that take 2/3's of the Senate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The actual "treaty" if that's what we are calling it, HAS NOT EVEN BEEN WRITTEN. It hasn't even been discussed.

If we don't know what the program entails, how do we know that ratification by the Senate is even a requirement?

So....you are no longer giving blanket cover to this lawless President?

Excellent.

Good to see your retreat.



"...ratification by the Senate is even a requirement?"

Of course it is.

That's what the wording of the Constitution states.



Tell me...just between the two of us....were you sold on the lie that this guy is a 'constitutional expert'????
Really.

 

[konradv]

It's funny how we get constant posts about how Obama is breaking the law, but who gets indicted, a Republican governor in a Republican-controlled state!!! Why not a thread about how Rick Perry is lawless, mug shot and fingerprinted? I think this is all a ploy to keep people from looking at the shenanigans the Republicans are perpetrating on a daily basis. How can one really rely on the loyalty of people that would praise someone like Putin and compare him favorably to the president?

Dont live here do you? If you did you'd know this is a common dem tactic and they lose every time. But of course you know this already.

Why would I know this? You just pointed out I wasn't from Texas. Also, not being from Texas, I wouldn't know this is a "common Democratic tactic". Sounds suspiciously like in-state trash talk. We have it in MD, too. The main difference being that in MD a Republican ex-governor actually did have to resign the vice-presidency in disgrace. What you characterize as "losing every time", could easily be a sign of the cover-up ability of the Texas R-party. Hey, things are so corrupt down there, lots of people still aren't sure who really shot Kennedy. List me as "not impressed" by the account of your side of the story.

Dont give me that shit,it's been posted all over this board for a week.

Lies get posted constantly. Wishful thinking gets posted constantly. Just ask President Romney. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than rehashing last week's partisan posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice! You're a constitutional scholar, now?

I'm literate, putting me well ahead of you.

OK, genius - what exactly did the UN come up with? Now (use that tiny brain for something more than a beer-bong stand) does it need to be ratified? If they have not finished it, how would you even know that it would require a vote?

So you believe a red herring is your escape hatch?

You argued that Obama CAN TOOO enter into a global war, er CLIMATE CHANGE (given that the Earth is cooling, we must be careful with revised terms) treaty becase "it isn't a treaty of war."

This is a modifier you (or more accurately, some leftist hate site) pulled directly from your ass. Nothing of the sort is found in the law of the land, which is the Constitution.

NOW you think you can toss out the retardation of "well, he isn't really trying to enter a treaty anyway - so the fucking retardation you just nailed me on doesn't matter because he's just issuing EO's that do the same thing..."

Does "Name and Shame" violate the Constitution? Doesn't matter, that wasn't your false contention. I understand, you need to move the goal posts after being thoroughly humiliated. But the discussion of modified EO's to effect some mushy, non-binding bullshit to appease the Enviro-Nazi lobby in hopes of shoring up support for November is no germane to your absurd bullshit about "war treaties."

Also, what I'm hearing is not Obama saying, "yo, eff congress!" I'm hearing him say that IT MIGHT NOT need ratification depending upon what's in it.

Obama is a sleazy criminal. He says anything he thinks will gain him power and position. Clinton dubbed these sorts of proclamations "trial balloons," to see what the reaction to the attempted criminal acts will be. In this case Obama has found that the reaction is that he will be slapped down, and hard - by his own party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lies get posted constantly. Wishful thinking gets posted constantly.

Well, you COULD always change your posting style.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's funny how we get constant posts about how Obama is breaking the law, but who gets indicted, a Republican governor in a Republican-controlled state!!! Why not a thread about how Rick Perry is lawless, mug shot and fingerprinted? I think this is all a ploy to keep people from looking at the shenanigans the Republicans are perpetrating on a daily basis. How can one really rely on the loyalty of people that would praise someone like Putin and compare him favorably to the president?

Dont live here do you? If you did you'd know this is a common dem tactic and they lose every time. But of course you know this already.

Why would I know this? You just pointed out I wasn't from Texas. Also, not being from Texas, I wouldn't know this is a "common Democratic tactic". Sounds suspiciously like in-state trash talk. We have it in MD, too. The main difference being that in MD a Republican ex-governor actually did have to resign the vice-presidency in disgrace. What you characterize as "losing every time", could easily be a sign of the cover-up ability of the Texas R-party. Hey, things are so corrupt down there, lots of people still aren't sure who really shot Kennedy. List me as "not impressed" by the account of your side of the story.

Dont give me that shit,it's been posted all over this board for a week.

Lies get posted constantly. Wishful thinking gets posted constantly. Just ask President Romney. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than rehashing last week's partisan posts.

But you still managed to miss all of em. Tell me another one.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Camp David Accord 1978

Chemical weapons accord 1990

Are all accords treaties, all needing 2/3's of the senate to be binding?

What about "Fast Track" treaty /trade agreements by Presidents, did that take 2/3's of the Senate?

So you've decided to prove that the Constitution is not the law of the land?

Tragic.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So....you are no longer giving blanket cover to this lawless President?

Excellent.

Good to see your retreat.


"...ratification by the Senate is even a requirement?"

Of course it is.

That's what the wording of the Constitution states.


Tell me...just between the two of us....were you sold on the lie that this guy is a 'constitutional expert'????
Really.

I hadn't heard that he was an "expert," only that he was a constitutional law professor. An expert? I don't know how to answer that. I will say that Obama was the senior lecturer at University of Chicago Law School where he was regarded as a professor because of that.

He was not a constitutional professor, as that title is not awarded - he was a LAW professor.

The constitution is a bible for anyone who studies (or teaches) law.

Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A:His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

FULL QUESTION

When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?

FULL ANSWER

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in theChicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty memberswith the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists.

-Joe Miller
​

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you are no longer giving blanket cover to this lawless President?

Excellent.

Good to see your retreat.


"...ratification by the Senate is even a requirement?"

Of course it is.

That's what the wording of the Constitution states.


Tell me...just between the two of us....were you sold on the lie that this guy is a 'constitutional expert'????
Really.

I hadn't heard that he was an "expert," only that he was a constitutional law professor. An expert? I don't know how to answer that. I will say that Obama was the senior lecturer at University of Chicago Law School where he was regarded as a professor because of that.

He was not a constitutional professor, as that title is not awarded - he was a LAW professor.

The constitution is a bible for anyone who studies (or teaches) law.

Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A:His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

FULL QUESTION

When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?

FULL ANSWER

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in theChicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty memberswith the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists.

-Joe Miller
​

So what is your point, exactly???

Clearly, he has either no knowledge or no respect for the Constitution.



BTW....you might also try to find out his SAT, LSAT, or GPA scores.

Let me know what they were.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

 

[Mustang]

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thus, an international "treaty" as is being talked about with regards to climate change, is not what is considered a treaty by the standards set forth by the constitution that would require a 2/3 vote.

He may present this himself via executive order or by a simple majority vote.

Cabbie.

You'll confuse her by bringing facts into the discussion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. negotiators are instead homing in.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "negotiators are instead homing in

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Yet, earlier, they said that treaties did require ratification.

.....taking off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.


3. "No new legally binding requirements. No new vote."
You dope.....from the article:
"Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."




Let me know the next time you require a beating.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thus, an international "treaty" as is being talked about with regards to climate change, is not what is considered a treaty by the standards set forth by the constitution that would require a 2/3 vote.

He may present this himself via executive order or by a simple majority vote.

Cabbie.

You'll confuse her by bringing facts into the discussion.

Why don't you read the article before you try to jump on the bandwagon.

Then I might not have to show what a dope you are.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. negotiators are instead homing in.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "negotiators are instead homing in

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Yet, earlier, they said that treaties did require ratification.

.....taking off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.


3. "No new legally binding requirements. No new vote."
You dope.....from the article:
"Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."




Let me know the next time you require a beating.

How is it you dont understand this? What the united states wanrs is an understanding that uses the legally binding bits of the 1992 treaty with non-binding pledges. So we would beno more or less bound to action than if no new understanding is reached.
That's what we are pursuing, because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. negotiators are instead homing in.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "negotiators are instead homing in

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Yet, earlier, they said that treaties did require ratification.

.....taking off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.


3. "No new legally binding requirements. No new vote."
You dope.....from the article:
"Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."




Let me know the next time you require a beating.

How is it you dont understand this? What the united states wanrs is an understanding that uses the legally binding bits of the 1992 treaty with non-binding pledges. So we would beno more or less bound to action than if no new understanding is reached.
That's what we are pursuing, because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office.

1. How is it you can't read past item 2?
This: "Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."


2. "...because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office."

Failed history and civics???

Remind me to give you a lesson on "checks and balances."