Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[ChrisL]

What is my fuss? Seriously you have to ask that question? All one has to do is look at Iran's history. That should answer your question.

What is your fuss because as I said

Obama is opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And he said he would use military force after obtaining the best intelligence ever (through this deal) and use military force to stop the bomb if Iranians break the deal. There's a one year breakout time where military action can stop an attempt by Iran to start making a bomb.

You are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb and so is Obama and Gregg Rosembaum and me.

Yet you carry on as if that reality does not exist.

Naivety. Obama's agreement is that Iran should be able to have nuclear power. FACE it, Obama is dealing with Iran because he is trying to appease them. If he was against them obtaining nuclear weapons, he should never deal with them over nuclear power. Once they obtain the materials (with OUR blessings), they are going to make a bomb.

 

[Ernie S.]

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.

 

[ChrisL]

Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject. This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

YOU made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.

But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.

American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.

Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world. That would be Islam.

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass ***** of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Kondor3]

Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject. This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

YOU made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.

But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.

American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.

Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world. That would be Islam.

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass ***** of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

 

[ChrisL]

I am an agnostic, FYI.

So?

So? I don't believe in the revelations. You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran. Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.

I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.

Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me. Backfire!!!

You're a nut. I never said you were religious. It's put up or shut up time. Quote me saying what you now ascribe to me or you are exposed as a ******* nut who can't follow a discussion. ...

Liar. As soon as you started talking about Christians in America, you were trying to insinuate that I held those beliefs.

 

[Faun]

Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.

Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it. He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.

There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?

What the ****? Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

 

[ChrisL]

Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it. He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.

There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?

What the ****? Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings. That's a fact.

 

[Faun]

So?

So? I don't believe in the revelations. You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran. Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.

I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.

Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me. Backfire!!!

You're a nut. I never said you were religious. It's put up or shut up time. Quote me saying what you now ascribe to me or you are exposed as a ******* nut who can't follow a discussion. ...

Liar. As soon as you started talking about Christians in America, you were trying to insinuate that I held those beliefs.

Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what your deranged brain thinks I said. Congrats, Chris .... you just exposed yourself as a ******* nut who can't follow a discussion.

 

[nat4900]

Obama is bowing to pressure from Iran while denigrating one of our closest allies.

Well, sure, Israel, as an ally, has fought on our side all throughout the Korean, Vietnam, First Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, wars.......and, as an extra show of amicability, has bombed the U.S. Liberty.....(lol)

 

[Statistikhengst]

We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
"negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be struck down.

You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.

The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.

So much irrational hate coming from one little owl. And yet, owl cannot debate the facts lined out in the OP. Can little owl explain why 47 GOP Senators decided to commit a mutinous, seditious act like the stunt they pulled last week?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it. He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.

There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?

What the ****? Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013. FACT.

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

 

[nat4900]

yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings. That's a fact.

Indeed, another "fact" that Chrissy pulled out of the back of her undies......

 

[ChrisL]

Mr. Obama seems to think he is beyond reproach. Well, that is just not the case.

 

[Statistikhengst]

[QUOTE="Jarhead, post: 10924397,
You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.

The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.

This latest idiot just managed in one post to smear everyone...EXCEPT....his/her fellow bigots......Must be sad to be so damn full of bile.......Aren't we glad we're not that sick?

His hatred of Jewry is indeed at the boiling point, I would venture to say.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings. That's a fact.

Indeed, another "fact" that Chrissy pulled out of the back of her undies......

Read and learn little boy.

 

[Faun]

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.

Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.

 

[rhodescholar]

Liberal logic 101: Derrrrrrp. They are going to make a bomb anyways, let's help them out!

That was my post earlier, that the liberal chimps want to disarm you and take away your guns - since they do not believe in MAD on a personal level - but for nations the concept of MAD works well...

Its like with global warming, liberals love to quote the science behind it, but those same liberals rail against the science of genetically modified food, claiming the science is "wrong."

That's the benefit of being a liberal, you can be on both sides of the argument when you need to, and can manufacture whatever moronic nonsense you feel like at that moment - as long as it is satisfactory to the NYT and the heinous obama administration.

 

[Faun]

YOU made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.

But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.

American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.

Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world. That would be Islam.

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass ***** of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.

 

[rhodescholar]

She lies that Obama would not use military force to stop Iran from getting a bomb following a deal.

Given obama's "redlines" on syrian use of chemical weapons, his refusal to protect and defend Ukraine in the face of purin's red army rolling across it despite the US' obligation to defend Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as per the Budapest Memorandum, and the refusal to arm the FSA with lethal weapons in syria, the history there supports her position completely. It is only the True Believers / idiots like yourself who still buy into obama's assurances.

 

[Faun]

YOU made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.

But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.

American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.

Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world. That would be Islam.

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass ***** of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."