DEMOCRATS TREASONOUS PAST.......

[Whirlaway]

No shit sherlock....................

And the Obama agreement isn't binding on future presidents or Congress. And will be DOA 5 minutes after Obama leaves office in 18 months.

Oppps, I guess I just violated the Logan Act........according to Obamazoids.

Originally Posted by timpage

Yeah, except its not a treaty half-wit.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No shit sherlock....................

And the Obama agreement isn't binding on future presidents or Congress. And will be DOA 5 minutes after Obama leaves office in 18 months.

Oppps, I guess I just violated the Logan Act........according to Obamazoids.

Actually, you fucking moron, the president can enter into a treaty or sole executive agreement, all on his own.

A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).


Several framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No shit sherlock....................

And the Obama agreement isn't binding on future presidents or Congress. And will be DOA 5 minutes after Obama leaves office in 18 months.

Oppps, I guess I just violated the Logan Act........according to Obamazoids.

You think a democratic president is going to overturn it?

[tulsatiger]

Well, I see Mr. Whirlaway has answered my question. He doesn't apparently intend to attempt to persuade anybody. If he does, he certainly has an interesting method of how to go about it.

This is the only thread I have participated on in this forum. I didn't start some other thread that apparently has some people upset, nor did I post in it.

So are any of these threads actual arguments, or do they all involve name-calling, insults, and not much else? I can play it either way, I just want to know the landscape. However, politics that aren't persuasive tend to be pretty useless.

Oh, and I happen to be a Republican. I am NOT a conservative, I am NOT a liberal, and I am NOT a Tea Bagger.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by tulsatiger

Well, I see Mr. Whirlaway has answered my question. He doesn't apparently intend to attempt to persuade anybody. If he does, he certainly has an interesting method of how to go about it.

This is the only thread I have participated on in this forum. I didn't start some other thread that apparently has some people upset, nor did I post in it.

So are any of these threads actual arguments, or do they all involve name-calling, insults, and not much else? I can play it either way, I just want to know the landscape. However, politics that aren't persuasive tend to be pretty useless.

Oh, and I happen to be a Republican. I am NOT a conservative, I am NOT a liberal, and I am NOT a Tea Bagger.

Mostly like this. Someone will start a thread. In less than a page, when they're proven wrong or someone comes with a different take, it devolves into a name-calling free for all. You haven't lived until you've been called an odumbo grubered minion. You'll find out what that means soon enough.

[tulsatiger]

So you're saying it's a reflection of what goes on in the rest of the world?
Well, I have hopes... not realistic ones, mind you. After all, this IS the internet.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by tulsatiger

So you're saying it's a reflection of what goes on in the rest of the world?
Well, I have hopes... not realistic ones, mind you. After all, this IS the internet.

Pretty much. It's sad that it's 2015 and we still haven't learned to solve any problems without resorting to ugliness. I'm not going to start it, but if they're gonna start in with the name calling, I can damn well give as good as I get. If I'm treated in a somewhat respectable tone, I react in kind. If not, they can fuck themselves.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Pretty much. It's sad that it's 2015 and we still haven't learned to solve any problems without resorting to ugliness. I'm not going to start it, but if they're gonna start in with the name calling, I can damn well give as good as I get. If I'm treated in a somewhat respectable tone, I react in kind. If not, they can fuck themselves.

Oh how I wish I could be as refined and above it all as you.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Oh how I wish I could be as refined and above it all as you.

Not to worry Lama!

We all need a difficult to attain goal to work toward!

Best of luck on your self-improvement plans.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Not to worry Lama!

We all need a difficult to attain goal to work toward!

Best of luck on your self-improvement plans.

Thanks bigtex and good luck with AA.

I'm looking forward to my letter!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Oh how I wish I could be as refined and above it all as you.

Totally missed my point, but then based on your previous comments, I wouldn't expect any less. You haven't displayed the requisite skill to grasp any subjects which require critical thought.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Actually, you fucking moron, the president can enter into a treaty or sole executive agreement, all on his own.

A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).


Several framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President

Where did you pick this up, or are you taking WPF's as the board's plagiarizing member? And, correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, the Constitution requires the advice of the Senate as well as consent. Advice AND consent. Puts a different light on it.


Oh, and how is an executive agreement "nominated"? You are taking WPF's place! You copy and paste without attribution, and without understanding what you're posting!

[Yssup Rider]

Working the Jedi mind trick is...

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Where did you pick this up, or are you taking WPF's as the board's plagiarizing member? And, correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, the Constitution requires the advice of the Senate as well as consent. Advice AND consent. Puts a different light on it.


Oh, and how is an executive agreement "nominated"? You are taking WPF's place! You copy and paste without attribution, and without understanding what you're posting!

Not for a sole executive agreement it doesn't, which is what I stated. Look again. Where did I pick it up? Article 2 of the goddamned constitution you hold so dear. I don't need to attribute that.

[Whirlaway]

Idiot.

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Actually, you fucking moron, the president can enter into a treaty or sole executive agreement, all on his own.

.........