Capitalist
Jeffersonian Liberal
- May 22, 2010
- 835
- 210
- 78
I thought Obow was busy punishing the GOP as an enemy?
Now he wants a reset, oh wait.
Now he wants a reset, oh wait.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.This treaty is between Russia and the US. It does not involve Iran or North Korea. If we insisted that the treaty address all issues of concern to us to our satisfaction, there will be no treaty. This is why diplomats negotiate treaties and not Congress. If Congress negotiated treaties, we would probably still be at war with Germany and Japan.No Rubber Stamp on this one. The Democrats should actually support the Republicans on this.
They should since this treaty does not address Defense versus offense.
As I posted earlier? The sore spot does not address IRAN...or North Korea...and response if they should launch a bone headed move to launch rogue weapons...
Oddly? Russia supports both countries with thier endeavours.
This should be stopped dead in it's tracks.
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.This treaty is between Russia and the US. It does not involve Iran or North Korea. If we insisted that the treaty address all issues of concern to us to our satisfaction, there will be no treaty. This is why diplomats negotiate treaties and not Congress. If Congress negotiated treaties, we would probably still be at war with Germany and Japan.They should since this treaty does not address Defense versus offense.
As I posted earlier? The sore spot does not address IRAN...or North Korea...and response if they should launch a bone headed move to launch rogue weapons...
Oddly? Russia supports both countries with thier endeavours.
This should be stopped dead in it's tracks.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
[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....
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.This treaty is between Russia and the US. It does not involve Iran or North Korea. If we insisted that the treaty address all issues of concern to us to our satisfaction, there will be no treaty. This is why diplomats negotiate treaties and not Congress. If Congress negotiated treaties, we would probably still be at war with Germany and Japan.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
[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....
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
[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....
And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.This treaty is between Russia and the US. It does not involve Iran or North Korea. If we insisted that the treaty address all issues of concern to us to our satisfaction, there will be no treaty. This is why diplomats negotiate treaties and not Congress. If Congress negotiated treaties, we would probably still be at war with Germany and Japan.They should since this treaty does not address Defense versus offense.
As I posted earlier? The sore spot does not address IRAN...or North Korea...and response if they should launch a bone headed move to launch rogue weapons...
Oddly? Russia supports both countries with thier endeavours.
This should be stopped dead in it's tracks.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
[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....
And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
If this country ever fails, it will not because of government spending, terrorism, illegal immigration, or any of a multitude of ills. It will be because of the inability of our two political parties to work together for the good of our country.
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
If this country ever fails, it will not because of government spending, terrorism, illegal immigration, or any of a multitude of ills. It will be because of the inability of our two political parties to work together for the good of our country.
“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”Barack Obama
22 October 22, 2007
the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
they always could have blocked it, the senate hasn't been that one sided since the early 36 if I recall.
But you still want Congress to vote on it, right.This treaty is between Russia and the US. It does not involve Iran or North Korea. If we insisted that the treaty address all issues of concern to us to our satisfaction, there will be no treaty. This is why diplomats negotiate treaties and not Congress. If Congress negotiated treaties, we would probably still be at war with Germany and Japan.
Or would you prefer an Executive Order?
Of course they do. Why not? Statists love circumventing that old piece of parchment called the Constitution.
the senate is who votes on it, not the House, and the Senate has to have a 2/3's yea vote to get it passed, not a simple majority vote, to get it passed....no treaty can be made without the approval of 2/3's of the Senate.
And once again, the Republicans in the Senate will put defeating Obama ahead of what is best for the country
Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
If this country ever fails, it will not because of government spending, terrorism, illegal immigration, or any of a multitude of ills. It will be because of the inability of our two political parties to work together for the good of our country.
Man you sure are sucking that Kool Aid down. Why is this Treaty so great for America? And if it's so important,why not allow our Congress Members to fully read and comprehend it before voting on it? What's the rush? And don't give me that "Crisis" shit either. There is no need to ram this through. It can wait. Lots of other more important things for our Congress to be taking up. January will be a very active time for our Congress. The Lameduckers have to go. It is what it is.
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.Defeating Obama and his Treaty likely is what's best for the country. Think about that a bit.
If this country ever fails, it will not because of government spending, terrorism, illegal immigration, or any of a multitude of ills. It will be because of the inability of our two political parties to work together for the good of our country.
Man you sure are sucking that Kool Aid down. Why is this Treaty so great for America? And if it's so important,why not allow our Congress Members to fully read and comprehend it before voting on it? What's the rush? And don't give me that "Crisis" shit either. There is no need to ram this through. It can wait. Lots of other more important things for our Congress to be taking up. January will be a very active time for our Congress. The Lameduckers have to go. It is what it is.
Hes just trying to remold his image and take the focus off of his domestic failures. Deception is his mantra
Why would anyone believe the stated positions of a pathological liar?
Im the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.Barack Obama
22 October 22, 2007
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
Like the Republicans in the Senate, your emphasis is on defeating Obama, not the treaty. This could have been a tax bill, energy bill, or whatever. It would be opposed by the Republicans without regard to it's content.
If this country ever fails, it will not because of government spending, terrorism, illegal immigration, or any of a multitude of ills. It will be because of the inability of our two political parties to work together for the good of our country.
Man you sure are sucking that Kool Aid down. Why is this Treaty so great for America? And if it's so important,why not allow our Congress Members to fully read and comprehend it before voting on it? What's the rush? And don't give me that "Crisis" shit either. There is no need to ram this through. It can wait. Lots of other more important things for our Congress to be taking up. January will be a very active time for our Congress. The Lameduckers have to go. It is what it is.
The "rush" is that the original START treaty expired a year ago next month, and since that time there has been no "trust but verify" vehicle available passed by previous administrations. But why am I bothering to try to explain something so simple to a fucking idiot? Nevermind. Think what you want, fool.