Are you guys still buying this shit?

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Republicunts haven't won a national election in 11 years. . . they keep insulting Women, Gays, Blacks and Hispanic. . . u might be an uncle tom cum sucker but most people aren't so blind.

So the Republicans winning control of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate doesn't mean anything to you lying liberals ? Ask Hasslin Harry Reid how he likes being in the minority party where he can't obstruct legislation from going to the Senate floor ? And how 'bout that Leticia Van De Putte getting her wide liberal ass handed to her by a BLACK woman that spent a little over $ 100,000 to Van De Pukes $ 800,000 ? And Van De Puke saying how she could work with people "across the aisle" when she ran away to Oklahoma to avoid having a quorum in the Texas Senate back in the early 2000's ? ! Poor libs, the people of America are seeing you lying liberals for what you really are ! It's SO bad, you all have to change your clique's "name" to progressives to try to keep your thin skinned lying asses from the pain of being found out !

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

So the Republicans winning control of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate doesn't mean anything to you lying liberals ? Ask Hasslin Harry Reid how he likes being in the minority party where he can't obstruct legislation from going to the Senate floor ? And how 'bout that Leticia Van De Putte getting her wide liberal ass handed to her by a BLACK woman that spent a little over $ 100,000 to Van De Pukes $ 800,000 ? And Van De Puke saying how she could work with people "across the aisle" when she ran away to Oklahoma to avoid having a quorum in the Texas Senate back in the early 2000's ? ! Poor libs, the people of America are seeing you lying liberals for what you really are ! It's SO bad, you all have to change your clique's "name" to progressives to try to keep your thin skinned lying asses from the pain of being found out !

If u cant win a national election, youll never hold the single most powerful office. You cant override a veto . . the only thing republicunts can do is try to obstruct. Yet we still have Obamacare, and im sure it makes u angry now that poor children with cancer cannot be denied medical insurance.

The only reason th "BLACK woman" as u refer to her got the seat to begin with is because Julian Castro got a cabinet seat. You probably hate him too cause hes a Hispanic that's not an uncle tom.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

So the Republicans winning control of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate doesn't mean anything to you lying liberals ? Ask Hasslin Harry Reid how he likes being in the minority party where he can't obstruct legislation from going to the Senate floor ? And how 'bout that Leticia Van De Putte getting her wide liberal ass handed to her by a BLACK woman that spent a little over $ 100,000 to Van De Pukes $ 800,000 ? And Van De Puke saying how she could work with people "across the aisle" when she ran away to Oklahoma to avoid having a quorum in the Texas Senate back in the early 2000's ? ! Poor libs, the people of America are seeing you lying liberals for what you really are ! It's SO bad, you all have to change your clique's "name" to progressives to try to keep your thin skinned lying asses from the pain of being found out !

You can't even get 60 guys to vote to defund PP. You fell 7 votes short. Why not quit bellyaching about democrats and start working on a consensus.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You can't even get 60 guys to vote to defund PP. You fell 7 votes short. Why not quit bellyaching about democrats and start working on a consensus.

That is what happens when they lie about baby parts being sold!

Shit they can't even get PPH charged with the crime they say they have committed. ..much less convicted!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

If u cant win a national election, youll never hold the single most powerful office. You cant override a veto . . the only thing republicunts can do is try to obstruct. Yet we still have Obamacare, and im sure it makes u angry now that poor children with cancer cannot be denied medical insurance.

The only reason th "BLACK woman" as u refer to her got the seat to begin with is because Julian Castro got a cabinet seat. You probably hate him too cause hes a Hispanic that's not an uncle tom.

Keep trying to project lib !! I hate Castro because he's ANOTHER lying liberal that THINKS he knows what's best for the people of the City of San Antonio and pushed for a streetcar system that wasn't wanted by the taxpayers of the city. He wouldn't hear of putting it to a vote of the taxpayers. And he was recently fined for campaign finance "irregularities" like UNDER REPORTING the contributions he was given when running for Mayor. And his entire family backs the La Raza Reconquista movement . If he and his communist Mother and twin brother want Communism, let them go with THE OTHER CASTROS in Cuba and they can live in their "paradise" there. And pushed for it as HIS legacy project like Henry Cisneros pushed for the pink elephant Alamo Dome. How long did the Spurs use that before they extorted a facility more to THEIR liking for the taxpayers and willing lying liberal tax-and-spend politicians ?
You like the term "Uncle Tom" a lot don't you lib ? So does that mean that an African American that doesn't speak "hood" and wears his pants around his ankles AND ACTUALLY HAS A JOB were he has to pay taxes on his earnings is a "Tom" to YOU ? Like DOCTOR Ben Carson or Herman Cain ? Maybe Doctor Carson could come out of retirement if he doesn't get the nomination or is asked to fill a cabinet position and reverse that lobotomy you had. Once he pries your head out of your ass !!

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Keep trying to project lib !! I hate Castro because he's ANOTHER lying liberal that THINKS he knows what's best for the people of the City of San Antonio and pushed for a streetcar system that wasn't wanted by the taxpayers of the city. He wouldn't hear of putting it to a vote of the taxpayers. And he was recently fined for campaign finance "irregularities" like UNDER REPORTING the contributions he was given when running for Mayor. And his entire family backs the La Raza Reconquista movement . If he and his communist Mother and twin brother want Communism, let them go with THE OTHER CASTROS in Cuba and they can live in their "paradise" there. And pushed for it as HIS legacy project like Henry Cisneros pushed for the pink elephant Alamo Dome. How long did the Spurs use that before they extorted a facility more to THEIR liking for the taxpayers and willing lying liberal tax-and-spend politicians ?
You like the term "Uncle Tom" a lot don't you lib ? So does that mean that an African American that doesn't speak "hood" and wears his pants around his ankles AND ACTUALLY HAS A JOB were he has to pay taxes on his earnings is a "Tom" to YOU ? Like DOCTOR Ben Carson or Herman Cain ? Maybe Doctor Carson could come out of retirement if he doesn't get the nomination or is asked to fill a cabinet position and reverse that lobotomy you had. Once he pries your head out of your ass !!

Just out of curiosity, what do you call a conservative who thinks he knows best?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

You cant override a veto... the only thing republicunts can do is try to obstruct.

Hey stooge, by definition the party that vetoes a bill is the one doing the OBSTRUCTING, not the party approving it. God, are you stupid.

Here is the $64k question for you Odumboturds - if the Iran nuclear deal is so good, if it strengthens our national security, if 99% of people outside the US support it, if we need to have a robust national discussion of its merits (as Odumbo claims), then why is it being executed as an executive agreement instead of a treaty???
.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey stooge, by definition the party that vetoes a bill is the one doing the OBSTRUCTING, not the party approving it. God, are you stupid.

Here is the $64k question for you Odumboturds - if the Iran nuclear deal is so good, if it strengthens our national security, if 99% of people outside the US support it, if we need to have a robust national discussion of its merits (as Odumbo claims), then why is it being executed as an executive agreement instead of a treaty???
.

Because he learned in his first two years that conservatives had no interest in reaching across the aisle. You'd also be the disingenuous turd who acts as if this is an unheard of process prior to Obama.

From your beloved WSJ, since you love to cut and paste, I followed suit.

"The ability to make treaties, agreements, or even nonbinding handshakes with foreign leaders has long rested with the White House — sometimes, but not always, with the consent of the Senate. But exactly what type of deal they cut is often dictated by political realities in Washington. And presidents stretching back to George Washington himself have grumbled about Senate obstruction in the process"

Why even GW didn't like that pesky Senate getting all up in his shit. Imagine that. If you're going to make your case, you must first start forming a basis of honesty.

Now this part here is interesting. Continued from your WSJ:

"Treaties, which require approval by the U.S. Senate, used to be more common, but now are a relatively rare occurrence. Presidents of both parties have instead opted to enter into so-called executive agreements, which for the most part don’t require congressional authorization"

It seems, if I'm reading this correctly, that these treaties you're calling for are becoming exceedingly rare and Presidents of BOTH parties seem to prefer the executive agreement route.

Lusty Tard, I think your question has been answered. People like you are why presidents have preferred the EA route versus treaty.

And this is not even a new trend, as you suggest in your attempt to knock Obama down a peg... or two.

Again, from the WSJ. It seems that executive agreements have become quite prevalent.

A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%


To be fair, something you don't attempt often, I do concede that it's not the fact that he wants this brokered as an EA, but the subject matter. Again, from the WSJ:

“Their argument isn’t that the president can’t make executive agreements. But, rather, that the president can’t make an executive agreement on an issue of this importance.”

Obviously, it's an important agreement. Obama feels little respect from the Senate. Why do you think the President of the United States would feel little respect from the Senate? Because it's populated by people like you. Small-minded ideologues who would rather send a letter to Iran, updating them on our process whilst simultaneously looking like the biggest bunch of crybabies I've ever seen.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

From your beloved WSJ, since you love to cut and paste, I followed suit.

“Their argument isn’t that the president can’t make executive agreements. But, rather, that the president can’t make an executive agreement on an issue of this importance.”

Obviously, it's an important agreement.

Odumbo claims it is very important and deserving of robust discussion and debate. And yet he is unwilling to abide by the will of a majority in Congress and/or the American people if he loses the debate. His arguments smack of desperation - like it or not, it's a done deal, the sanctions are off, we can't go back now, war is the only alternative (a perfect example of the false dichotomy you accuse others of but overlook in this case), all options will still be available to my successors if Iran violates the deal, etc.

You need to read your WSJ more thoroughly. Here is a recent article exposing the depths of Odumbo's treachery in ramming this deal through as a fait accompli against the good sense and better judgment of the American people:


The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY
July 26, 2015 6:32 p.m. ET

The Iranian nuclear agreement announced on July 14 is unconstitutional, violates international law and features commitments that President Obama could not lawfully make. However, because of the way the deal was pushed through, the states may be able to derail it by enacting their own Iran sanctions legislation.

President Obama executed the nuclear deal as an executive agreement, not as a treaty. While presidents have used executive agreements to arrange less-important or temporary matters, significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.

The Constitution’s division of the treaty-making power between the president and Senate ensured that all major U.S. international undertakings enjoyed broad domestic support. It also enabled the states to make their voices heard through senators when considering treaties—which are constitutionally the “supreme law of the land” and pre-empt state laws.

The Obama administration had help in its end-run around the Constitution. Instead of insisting on compliance with the Senate’s treaty-making prerogatives, Congress enacted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015. Known as Corker-Cardin, it surrenders on the constitutional requirement that the president obtain a Senate supermajority to go forward with a major international agreement. Instead, the act effectively requires a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress to block elements of the Iran deal related to U.S. sanctions relief. The act doesn’t require congressional approval for the agreement as a whole.

Last week the U.N. Security Council endorsed the Iran deal. The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, legally binds all member states, including the U.S. Given the possibility that Congress could summon a veto-proof majority to block the president’s ability to effect sanctions relief, the administration might be unable to comply with the very international obligations it has created. This is beyond reckless.

On March 11 Secretary of State John Kerry defended the administration’s decision not to take the treaty route with Iran, saying it had “been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan.” The Security Council gambit has enabled the administration, without Senate consent, to bind the U.S. under international law.

The U.N. Charter resolution has trapped the U.S. into a position where it can renounce its obligations only at the cost of being branded an international lawbreaker. The president has thus handed the legal high ground to Tehran and made undoing the deal by his successor much more difficult and costly.

Yet the nuclear agreement’s legitimacy in international law is far from clear. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention.

Since nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are the most likely means by which Iran could implement its genocidal policy, an agreement that calls for lifting the Security Council resolutions banning the sale of ballistic missiles to Iran after eight years—as this nuclear deal does—also seems to contravene the genocide convention.

A further legal complication: Even if Congress doesn’t vote to bar President Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran, the president still wouldn’t be able to deliver fully on the deal’s unprecedented sanctions-lifting commitments. They were promised regardless of any future Iranian aggression in the region, sponsorship of terrorist acts or other misconduct.

Some of the U.S. statutes allow the president to lift certain sanctions on Iran. But many of the most important sanctions—including sanctions against Iran’s central bank—cannot be waived unless the president certifies that Iran has stopped its ballistic-missile program, ceased money-laundering and no longer sponsors international terrorism. He certainly can’t do that now, and nothing in the deal forces Iran to take either step. The Security Council’s blessing of the nuclear agreement has no bearing on these U.S. sanctions.

The administration faces another serious problem because the deal requires the removal of state and local Iran-related sanctions. That would have been all right if Mr. Obama had pursued a treaty with Iran, which would have bound the states, but his executive-agreement approach cannot pre-empt the authority of the states.

That leaves the states free to impose their own Iran-related sanctions, as they have done in the past against South Africa and Burma. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause prevents states from imposing sanctions as broadly as Congress can. Yet states can establish sanctions regimes—like banning state-controlled pension funds from investing in companies doing business with Iran—powerful enough to set off a legal clash over American domestic law and the country’s international obligations. The fallout could prompt the deal to unravel.

For now, though, we are left with another reminder from the administration that brought ObamaCare: Constitutional shortcuts almost invariably lead to bad policy outcomes.

.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Just out of curiosity, what do you call a conservative who thinks he knows best?

I call him one HELL of a lot smarter than a lying liberal, gloryhole attendee from Arkansas, puto !

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Odumbo claims it is very important and deserving of robust discussion and debate. And yet he is unwilling to abide by the will of a majority in Congress and/or the American people if he loses the debate. His arguments smack of desperation - like it or not, it's a done deal, the sanctions are off, we can't go back now, war is the only alternative (a perfect example of the false dichotomy you accuse others of but overlook in this case), all options will still be available to my successors if Iran violates the deal, etc.

You need to read your WSJ more thoroughly. Here is a recent article exposing the depths of Odumbo's treachery in ramming this deal through as a fait accompli against the good sense and better judgment of the American people:


The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY
July 26, 2015 6:32 p.m. ET

The Iranian nuclear agreement announced on July 14 is unconstitutional, violates international law and features commitments that President Obama could not lawfully make. However, because of the way the deal was pushed through, the states may be able to derail it by enacting their own Iran sanctions legislation.

President Obama executed the nuclear deal as an executive agreement, not as a treaty. While presidents have used executive agreements to arrange less-important or temporary matters, significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.

The Constitution’s division of the treaty-making power between the president and Senate ensured that all major U.S. international undertakings enjoyed broad domestic support. It also enabled the states to make their voices heard through senators when considering treaties—which are constitutionally the “supreme law of the land” and pre-empt state laws.

The Obama administration had help in its end-run around the Constitution. Instead of insisting on compliance with the Senate’s treaty-making prerogatives, Congress enacted the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015. Known as Corker-Cardin, it surrenders on the constitutional requirement that the president obtain a Senate supermajority to go forward with a major international agreement. Instead, the act effectively requires a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress to block elements of the Iran deal related to U.S. sanctions relief. The act doesn’t require congressional approval for the agreement as a whole.

Last week the U.N. Security Council endorsed the Iran deal. The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, legally binds all member states, including the U.S. Given the possibility that Congress could summon a veto-proof majority to block the president’s ability to effect sanctions relief, the administration might be unable to comply with the very international obligations it has created. This is beyond reckless.

On March 11 Secretary of State John Kerry defended the administration’s decision not to take the treaty route with Iran, saying it had “been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan.” The Security Council gambit has enabled the administration, without Senate consent, to bind the U.S. under international law.

The U.N. Charter resolution has trapped the U.S. into a position where it can renounce its obligations only at the cost of being branded an international lawbreaker. The president has thus handed the legal high ground to Tehran and made undoing the deal by his successor much more difficult and costly.

Yet the nuclear agreement’s legitimacy in international law is far from clear. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention.

Since nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are the most likely means by which Iran could implement its genocidal policy, an agreement that calls for lifting the Security Council resolutions banning the sale of ballistic missiles to Iran after eight years—as this nuclear deal does—also seems to contravene the genocide convention.

A further legal complication: Even if Congress doesn’t vote to bar President Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran, the president still wouldn’t be able to deliver fully on the deal’s unprecedented sanctions-lifting commitments. They were promised regardless of any future Iranian aggression in the region, sponsorship of terrorist acts or other misconduct.

Some of the U.S. statutes allow the president to lift certain sanctions on Iran. But many of the most important sanctions—including sanctions against Iran’s central bank—cannot be waived unless the president certifies that Iran has stopped its ballistic-missile program, ceased money-laundering and no longer sponsors international terrorism. He certainly can’t do that now, and nothing in the deal forces Iran to take either step. The Security Council’s blessing of the nuclear agreement has no bearing on these U.S. sanctions.

The administration faces another serious problem because the deal requires the removal of state and local Iran-related sanctions. That would have been all right if Mr. Obama had pursued a treaty with Iran, which would have bound the states, but his executive-agreement approach cannot pre-empt the authority of the states.

That leaves the states free to impose their own Iran-related sanctions, as they have done in the past against South Africa and Burma. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause prevents states from imposing sanctions as broadly as Congress can. Yet states can establish sanctions regimes—like banning state-controlled pension funds from investing in companies doing business with Iran—powerful enough to set off a legal clash over American domestic law and the country’s international obligations. The fallout could prompt the deal to unravel.

For now, though, we are left with another reminder from the administration that brought ObamaCare: Constitutional shortcuts almost invariably lead to bad policy outcomes.

.

More examples of the same old shit. What is called an 'end-around' when Obama uses it is framed as a 'shrewd move' when a republican employs. it. The republicans handed the high ground to Tehran by proving to be obstinate turds who had no interest in true diplomacy or discussion. It's easy to sit back and be a shitass and then when you don't like the deal, complain about it. This is the republican playbook, however. They never offer a solution of their own, they simply shit all over the opposition's.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

More examples of the same old shit. What is called an 'end-around' when Obama uses it is framed as a 'shrewd move' when a republican employs. it. The republicans handed the high ground to Tehran by proving to be obstinate turds who had no interest in true diplomacy or discussion. It's easy to sit back and be a shitass and then when you don't like the deal, complain about it. This is the republican playbook, however. They never offer a solution of their own, they simply shit all over the opposition's.

Hasn't Chuck Schumer come out against the "deal" and any veto override? So is he a Iranian hardliner, and "obstinate turd", or "shitass"? That sounds like bipartisan support for NO DEAL.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hasn't Chuck Schumer come out against the "deal" and any veto override? So is he a Iranian hardliner, and "obstinate turd", or "shitass"? That sounds like bipartisan support for NO DEAL.

That "end around" by odummer is ok with woomby because it make him think of all those reach around's he's done down at the 'holes daydreaming that he could give odummer some of his famous puto " lip lock " action !

[timpage]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey stooge, by definition the party that vetoes a bill is the one doing the OBSTRUCTING, not the party approving it. God, are you stupid.

Here is the $64k question for you Odumboturds - if the Iran nuclear deal is so good, if it strengthens our national security, if 99% of people outside the US support it, if we need to have a robust national discussion of its merits (as Odumbo claims), then why is it being executed as an executive agreement instead of a treaty???
.

Arguments about Democrats obstructing the process ring fairly hollow these days. Let's face it....obstructionism is the House GOP's stated agenda these days and it has been for years. Shit, you people crow about it like there is something to be proud of in refusing to agree to anything or to cooperate politically in any way. There is nothing that Obama can do that you and your folks are ever going to agree with and that is a fact. I've said it before....The man could cure cancer and you'd complain he is putting oncologists out of business.

And, the Iran deal is as good as we could get.....short of attacking Iran. If that's your alternative, you can have it. The reality is that the deal makes the likelihood of Iran being able to develop a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely unlikely. I understand all of your arguments to the contrary but you asked so I'm giving you the answer.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Hasn't Chuck Schumer come out against the "deal" and any veto override? So is he a Iranian hardliner, and "obstinate turd", or "shitass"? That sounds like bipartisan support for NO DEAL.

Admiral, just when I think you've grown a brain stem, you disappoint.

Hmmm, let's see....Schumer is a.....wait....a.....Jew! His political contributors are.....uhhhh.....mmmmm.....Je wish!

What's interesting about Schumer''s opposition is he isn't actively lobbying for votes against it and, he waited until the other NY senator came out in favor. This was about political survival and pleasing a constituency, nothing more.