How many traitors in Congress will vote for Obama’s nuke deal with Iran?

[nat4900]

As it was already pointed out, if not this deal, WAR against Iran is all that right wing morons seem to want.......and with Iran almost 4 times the size of Iraq...with a powerful army, air force and navy, a war with that country would bankrupt us and cause casualties for our troops reminiscent of Viet Nam.......Right wingers calling to abolish the deal are IDIOTS.

 

[Auld Phart]

How about instead of another 2 trillion dollar war,,, we instead spend that money on infrastructure, science, r&d, education and a mission to mars?? Sound like a much better plan!

War?

Obama is going to go to war if the deal isn't passed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The conservative neo-cons want a war. Fuck em.

 

[nat4900]

War?

Obama is going to go to war if the deal isn't passed?

Another R-W idiot chimes in........

I'll type slow for you to understand......IF no deal.....Iran continues with her nukes......IF that happens, the war mongers in Israel will start bombing (and ask us to give them the super bombs).......IF that also happens, the rest of the Shia communities will demand a war on Israel.....AND, IF that happens, we will be pulled in given that AIPAC OWNS congress.

 

[konradv]

The deal does not stop Iran’s government from uranium enrichment.

It also doesn't stop us from renewing sanctions, if it appears they aren't living up to the agreement. It's ludicrous to think this deal is putting us into some sort of straightjacket. Iran plays ball or it's back to square one.

 

[nat4900]

The deal offers us a SLIM chance that in the lull period of 10-15 years, the Iranian nut jobs will be cast aside.

 

[Auld Phart]

War?

Obama is going to go to war if the deal isn't passed?

Another R-W idiot chimes in........

I'll type slow for you to understand......IF no deal.....Iran continues with her nukes......IF that happens, the war mongers in Israel will start bombing (and ask us to give them the super bombs).......IF that also happens, the rest of the Shia communities will demand a war on Israel.....AND, IF that happens, we will be pulled in given that AIPAC OWNS congress.

See all that in your crystal ball, did you?

psst, if NO deal, sanctions remain in place, and even the crazy mullah that is declaring death to both us, and Israel , KNOWS his country is a smoking pit as soon as the first missle is launched.

 

[johnwk]

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley is the latest to announce he will vote in favor of Obama’s nuke deal with the terrorist government of Iran.

The deal does not stop Iran’s government from uranium enrichment.

Iran also gets to use its own inspectors to make sure it isn’t cheating, and gets a 24 day notice before outside inspections can take place.

The deal does not require Iran’s government to shut down its heavy-water reactor or plutonium production at Arak, nor will its Fordow enrichment facility by shut down as originally intended.

In addition, the terrorist government of Iran gets an immediate $150 billion to fund its ongoing terrorist activities and the terrorist activities of is partners in terrorism.

In five years, Iran will be able to purchase conventional arms and the ban on ballistic missiles ends in eight years.

Finally, part of Obama's nuke deal requires the United States to use its force to protect Iran's nuclear program!

These are just a few of the menacing particulars which Sen. Merkley will be agreeing to that are not in the best interests of America or peaceful countries which surround Iran. In fact, Merkley’s vote will be encouraging the terrorist government of Iran to move forward with its expansion of a nuclear arsenal and its terrorist activities.

JWK



Obama’s nuke deal if finalized will guarantee our children and grandchildren will live under the fear of nuclear war like America did under the cold war with the Soviet Union.

Why would they be traitors if they are following the Constitution?

They wouldn't. Who suggested otherwise?


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley is the latest to announce he will vote in favor of Obama’s nuke deal with the terrorist government of Iran.

The deal does not stop Iran’s government from uranium enrichment.

Iran also gets to use its own inspectors to make sure it isn’t cheating, and gets a 24 day notice before outside inspections can take place.

The deal does not require Iran’s government to shut down its heavy-water reactor or plutonium production at Arak, nor will its Fordow enrichment facility by shut down as originally intended.

In addition, the terrorist government of Iran gets an immediate $150 billion to fund its ongoing terrorist activities and the terrorist activities of is partners in terrorism.

In five years, Iran will be able to purchase conventional arms and the ban on ballistic missiles ends in eight years.

Finally, part of Obama's nuke deal requires the United States to use its force to protect Iran's nuclear program!

These are just a few of the menacing particulars which Sen. Merkley will be agreeing to that are not in the best interests of America or peaceful countries which surround Iran. In fact, Merkley’s vote will be encouraging the terrorist government of Iran to move forward with its expansion of a nuclear arsenal and its terrorist activities.

JWK



Obama’s nuke deal if finalized will guarantee our children and grandchildren will live under the fear of nuclear war like America did under the cold war with the Soviet Union.

Why would they be traitors if they are following the Constitution?

I didn't hear anything about Obama passing the deal constitutionally. It violates international law and features commitments that President Obama could not lawfully make. He executed the nuclear deal as an executive agreement, not as a treaty. Treaties must go through Congress. From Wikipedia:

"Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate."

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for your excellent post.

In regard to the treaty making power, and what was meant by a "treaty", let us recall what is meant by the word “treaty” as the word was used and understood by our founders, and requires a two thirds approval vote by our Senate to have the force of law.

In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:


”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”



And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” So, we begin to learn that the word treaty as found in our Constitution is synonymous with a contract or bargain.


In addition to Hamilton’s use of the word “CONTRACTS” to describe a “treaty”, he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:


“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”


So, as it turns out, our founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.


It is also important to note how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, and this is established when they refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. Franklin says:


'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''


After reviewing the above documentation it becomes crystal clear that Obama’s nuke deal with Iran is not in harmony with the rules of our Constitution and those who vote in favor of it will be violating their oath of office to support and defend our written Constitution




JWK

 

[JGalt]

Do you understand the definition of the word "ally"? Obviously not. So in your dark little corner of the world, it's also permissible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons? How about ISIS? Would you like them to have nuclear weapons too? How about AL-Queda or the Taliban? Would you like them to have nuclear weapons too?

Calm down...you're drooling, nitwit......

Tell Israel to give up HER nukes, would you agree with that?

NK already has nukes......

ISIS is the enemy of Iran.

Why should Israel give up their deterrent weapons? If you were surrounded by countries who wanted to wipe you off the map, wouldn't you want a way to prevent that?

I suppose you're one of those Holocaust deniers and an anti-Semite too, eh?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The "deal" forces Iran to give up 98% of their enriched uranium and left them only equip that can't be used to build nukes. 47 traitors signed a letter, telling Iran they could keep their enriched uranium and ALL their equipment and could build any nukes they want.

What does the US give up with "the deal"? Nothing.

We have choices:

Do nothing
Invade
Bomb
Deal

If we do the deal, we don't give up the other choices.

Yeah, its a real brain flosser, all righty!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Do you understand the definition of the word "ally"? Obviously not. So in your dark little corner of the world, it's also permissible for North Korea to have nuclear weapons? How about ISIS? Would you like them to have nuclear weapons too? How about AL-Queda or the Taliban? Would you like them to have nuclear weapons too?

Israel has plenty of nukes. There are 5 million soldiers in the Middle East countries and about 40K ISIL.

What does Israel need us for?

And why are we the ally of Israel but not the other way around? Do you know how much aid we are now sending to Israel?

EXACTLY what does Israel do for the US in return?

 

[nat4900]

Why should Israel give up their deterrent weapons? If you were surrounded by countries who wanted to wipe you off the map, wouldn't you want a way to prevent that?

I suppose you're one of those Holocaust deniers and an anti-Semite too, eh?

Actually funny.......Jews call nukes "deterrent weapons"......while calling nukes WMDs from their enemies.

The deal WILL pass and you jerk offs will just have to live with it.

(but you can always call anyone who doesn't agree with Zionism, anti-Semite....after all, Arabs are ALSO Semites.) LOL

 

[JGalt]

Why should Israel give up their deterrent weapons? If you were surrounded by countries who wanted to wipe you off the map, wouldn't you want a way to prevent that?

I suppose you're one of those Holocaust deniers and an anti-Semite too, eh?

Actually funny.......Jews call nukes "deterrent weapons"......while calling nukes WMDs from their enemies.

The deal WILL pass and you jerk offs will just have to live with it.

(but you can always call anyone who doesn't agree with Zionism, anti-Semite....after all, Arabs are ALSO Semites.) LOL

Whether it passes or not, it will be revoked immediately after Obama leaves office. Along with pretty much everything else he's done.

 

[nat4900]

EXACTLY what does Israel do for the US in return?

Well, AIPAC lobbyists DO spend a lot of money in fancy DC restaurants.....It goes like this.....: The US through Congress sends billions to Israel each year.......in turn, Israel funds AIPAC so that their lobbyists can openly bribe Congress to do its will (well, except on this Iran deal.)

In a way, its rather cyclical, don't you think?

 

[nat4900]

Whether it passes or not, it will be revoked immediately after Obama leaves office. Along with pretty much everything else he's done.

Find a right wing virgin to sacrifice to make your "dream" come true..LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

"it will be revoked immediately after Obama leaves office" unless Dems or Trump are elected. And very little will be revoked anyway

 

[Contumacious]

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley is the latest to announce he will vote in favor of Obama’s nuke deal with the terrorist government of Iran.

INSTEAD OF OPPOSING THE NUKE DEAL AS THE TERRORIST GOVERNMENT IN ISRAHELL WANTS US TO DO.



.

 

[Uncensored2008]

MORE sanctions??? should we bomb the other countries (our "allies") who will NOT impose the sanctions?

Like it or not......Iran WILL have nukes....The Pandora's Box was open in the 1950s when Israel began the nuke pile up.

Everything is the fault of BOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH, and if it isn't, then it is DA JOOOOOOOZZZ.

Obama and Kerry are the JV Team, they got their ass handed to them by the Iranians.

Ya know, Obammy doesn't like Sunni's much, but he seems to have great affection for Shiites. The enemy of America is the friend of Obama, but he does seem to prefer some friends to others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Calm down...you're drooling, nitwit......

Tell Israel to give up HER nukes, would you agree with that?

NK already has nukes......

ISIS is the enemy of Iran.

Russia having nukes, American leftists are cool with that (and helped them get them.)
China having nukes, American leftists are cool with that.
North Korea having nukes, American leftists are cool with that (and Jimmy Carter helped them get them.)
Iran having nukes, American leftists are cool with that (and are helping them get them.)
Pakistan having nukes, American leftists are cool with that.

Israel having nukes? INTOLERABLE TO THE LEFT. Israel is an ally, the left only wants enemies of the USA to have nukes.

Treason; it's a democrat tradition.