(03-10-2015 11:33 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  When the President oversteps his powers with executive actions that go against the powers of Congress, he establishes an environment wherein the Congress will percieve an opportunity to overstep their powers.

The pinheads said it was all well and fine when the President unilaterally changed the Obamacare law. Or when the President refuses to enforce existing immigration laws. Yada, yada, yada.

But let the Congress send a letter and it's armageddon.

Those are separate arguments, which I'm not arguing. Diplomacy is not illegal, nor is it overstepping executive power.

(03-10-2015 11:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:33 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  When the President oversteps his powers with executive actions that go against the powers of Congress, he establishes an environment wherein the Congress will percieve an opportunity to overstep their powers.

The pinheads said it was all well and fine when the President unilaterally changed the Obamacare law. Or when the President refuses to enforce existing immigration laws. Yada, yada, yada.

But let the Congress send a letter and it's armageddon.

Those are separate arguments, which I'm not arguing. Diplomacy is not illegal, nor is it overstepping executive power.

3 co-equal branches of government. They are simply showing Iran that America is bigger than Obama, and that America won't give in to Iran and agree to a bad deal simply because the exalted one thinks we owe them something.

(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details.

For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

(03-10-2015 11:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:33 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  When the President oversteps his powers with executive actions that go against the powers of Congress, he establishes an environment wherein the Congress will percieve an opportunity to overstep their powers.

The pinheads said it was all well and fine when the President unilaterally changed the Obamacare law. Or when the President refuses to enforce existing immigration laws. Yada, yada, yada.

But let the Congress send a letter and it's armageddon.

Those are separate arguments, which I'm not arguing. Diplomacy is not illegal, nor is it overstepping executive power.

Overstepping executive power

The **** you say

Let's not forget about Secretary Kerry...

Whoops. Pot, meet kettle?

What Kerry did was exponentially worse.

The GOP is simply doing what the masses want them to do. They cleaned the Democrats' clocks in 2014, and they're listening to the will of the people. The majority of Americans don't want a deal with Iran. This is a stupid idea.

Whatever it takes to keep the murderous theocrats in Tehran from getting nukes.

(03-10-2015 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details.

For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

Racistreason. The new buzz word from Democrats. Oppose anything Obama does for any reason and it's racistreason.

Never mind that Obama has committed literal acts of war (by the U.S. government's own definition) against Iran.

(03-10-2015 12:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details.

For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

1. The GOP could have known exactly what it was while negotiations were ongoing. They forfeited that privileged when details of the deal were being leaked in the name of political leverage.

2. The NN comparisons are idiotic at best, and at worst an open admission that you are still on the "Obamacare of the Internet" philosophy.

(03-10-2015 12:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details.

For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

1. The GOP could have known exactly what it was while negotiations were ongoing. They forfeited that privileged when details of the deal were being leaked in the name of political leverage.

2. The NN comparisons are idiotic at best, and at worst an open admission that you are still on the "Obamacare of the Internet" philosophy.

I think the letter was stupid.

That being said, if it can be proved that Republicans leaked info, they can be punished.

Also, if you are incensed on this, you should hate Ted Kennedy because what he did was worse.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015...gress.html

You know how Obama would have prevented this fight? He needed to say he considered this a treaty that would be brought to the Senate. Instead, he intends to end run around his obligations and call it an agreement.

(03-10-2015 10:59 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Or did I miss it? Or does nobody want to admit that the action made the particular Republicans look like petulant little children?

As a political tactic, the letter was petulant because it was unnecessary. Whatever agreement the President obtained would still have to be voted by Congress. Now the House and the Senate could be cowards and not bring the measure to the floor, which because of the way politics works at this point, would make the agreement binding until it was voted on it.

Now, from a practical perspective, America has zero leverage at this point with Iran. Any agreement reach will not be worth the paper it's printed on because America nor the UN have the political will to enforce any type of restrictions. IMO, all the President is doing is outlining the ramifications for Iran if they should just so happen to 'misplace' some fissionable material.

Iran will get a nuclear weapon and at this point the best case scenario is a Mexican standoff between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and Russia. In fact, Pres. Obama would be better served trying to figure out how to station Interceptor batteries in key locations. The problem with that is of course Russia's objections to any permanent installations.

(03-10-2015 12:26 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details.

For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

1. The GOP could have known exactly what it was while negotiations were ongoing. They forfeited that privileged when details of the deal were being leaked in the name of political leverage.

2. The NN comparisons are idiotic at best, and at worst an open admission that you are still on the "Obamacare of the Internet" philosophy.

You know how Obama would have prevented this fight? He needed to say he considered this a treaty that would be brought to the Senate. Instead, he intends to end run around his obligations and call it an agreement.

well what choice does he have? the only treaty a republican controlled congress will agree to is a deal that requires Iran to give into every concession while we give into none of theirs. No deal like that will ever happen, and as things stand right now it's better to find a deal that for now will greatly diminish their nuclear weapon making capability and give us more intel on their capabilities. Rather than returning from the status quo where they continue to hide what their true capabilities are and we have no other option than to start a "freedom incoming" campaign.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either? Israel's actions along with their Republican allies throughout this whole affair have been using rather extreme political tactics to nuke this deal (pun intended) because they don't want a deal to be made. They want to force our hand into a military action against Iran IMO.

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:26 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  For good reason. Israel and the Republicans leaked these updates to the media in attempt to undermind the negotiating position of the US gov't. Hence the reason Obama cut both of them off.

Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

1. The GOP could have known exactly what it was while negotiations were ongoing. They forfeited that privileged when details of the deal were being leaked in the name of political leverage.

2. The NN comparisons are idiotic at best, and at worst an open admission that you are still on the "Obamacare of the Internet" philosophy.

You know how Obama would have prevented this fight? He needed to say he considered this a treaty that would be brought to the Senate. Instead, he intends to end run around his obligations and call it an agreement.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either?

Ones out of pure hatred, the other out of self preservation.

(03-10-2015 12:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:26 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:06 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Yea, how about, "we won't know what's in it until it passes" and the same on the net neutrality act. Obama ignores Congress and rules like a King. The Republicans had enough and took action. Finally some Republicans like Tom Cotton with some real determination and action. Obama wants to act like Congress doesn't exist, then they need to act like this. Good for them.

1. The GOP could have known exactly what it was while negotiations were ongoing. They forfeited that privileged when details of the deal were being leaked in the name of political leverage.

2. The NN comparisons are idiotic at best, and at worst an open admission that you are still on the "Obamacare of the Internet" philosophy.

You know how Obama would have prevented this fight? He needed to say he considered this a treaty that would be brought to the Senate. Instead, he intends to end run around his obligations and call it an agreement.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either?

Ones out of pure hatred, the other out of self preservation.

And what's to say all those years of having to fend of Muslim aggression didn't add hatred to the Israel side as well?

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well what choice does he have? the only treaty a republican controlled congress will agree to is a deal that requires Iran to give into every concession while we give into none of theirs. No deal like that will ever happen, and as things stand right now it's better to find a deal that for now will greatly diminish their nuclear weapon making capability and give us more intel on their capabilities. Rather than returning from the status quo where they continue to hide what their true capabilities are and we have no other option than to start a "freedom incoming" campaign.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either? Israel's actions along with their Republican allies throughout this whole affair have been using rather extreme political tactics to nuke this deal (pun intended) because they don't want a deal to be made. They want to force our hand into a military action against Iran IMO.

Neither Republicans or Democrats want a military intervention. The reasons may differ, but the result is the same. And since Iran holds all of the cards, there is no deal to be made.

(03-10-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 10:59 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Or did I miss it? Or does nobody want to admit that the action made the particular Republicans look like petulant little children?

As a political tactic, the letter was petulant because it was unnecessary. Whatever agreement the President obtained would still have to be voted by Congress. Now the House and the Senate could be cowards and not bring the measure to the floor, which because of the way politics works at this point, would make the agreement binding until it was voted on it.

Now, from a practical perspective, America has zero leverage at this point with Iran. Any agreement reach will not be worth the paper it's printed on because America nor the UN have the political will to enforce any type of restrictions. IMO, all the President is doing is outlining the ramifications for Iran if they should just so happen to 'misplace' some fissionable material.

Iran will get a nuclear weapon and at this point the best case scenario is a Mexican standoff between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and Russia. In fact, Pres. Obama would be better served trying to figure out how to station Interceptor batteries in key locations. The problem with that is of course Russia's objections to any permanent installations.

Incorrect. Just like Obama's many Executive Actions, he is going to circumvent Congress by stating this is an "agreement" and not a treaty. Congress will not get to vote on this.

(03-10-2015 12:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well what choice does he have? the only treaty a republican controlled congress will agree to is a deal that requires Iran to give into every concession while we give into none of theirs. No deal like that will ever happen, and as things stand right now it's better to find a deal that for now will greatly diminish their nuclear weapon making capability and give us more intel on their capabilities. Rather than returning from the status quo where they continue to hide what their true capabilities are and we have no other option than to start a "freedom incoming" campaign.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either? Israel's actions along with their Republican allies throughout this whole affair have been using rather extreme political tactics to nuke this deal (pun intended) because they don't want a deal to be made. They want to force our hand into a military action against Iran IMO.

Neither Republicans or Democrats want a military intervention. The reasons may differ, but the result is the same. And since Iran holds all of the cards, there is no deal to be made.

I seriously doubt that at this point considering that Israel/GOP are trying to undermine the only deal possible. Without a deal there is no other course of action besides airstrikes.

(03-10-2015 12:50 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 10:59 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Or did I miss it? Or does nobody want to admit that the action made the particular Republicans look like petulant little children?

As a political tactic, the letter was petulant because it was unnecessary. Whatever agreement the President obtained would still have to be voted by Congress. Now the House and the Senate could be cowards and not bring the measure to the floor, which because of the way politics works at this point, would make the agreement binding until it was voted on it.

Now, from a practical perspective, America has zero leverage at this point with Iran. Any agreement reach will not be worth the paper it's printed on because America nor the UN have the political will to enforce any type of restrictions. IMO, all the President is doing is outlining the ramifications for Iran if they should just so happen to 'misplace' some fissionable material.

Iran will get a nuclear weapon and at this point the best case scenario is a Mexican standoff between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and Russia. In fact, Pres. Obama would be better served trying to figure out how to station Interceptor batteries in key locations. The problem with that is of course Russia's objections to any permanent installations.

Incorrect. Just like Obama's many Executive Actions, he is going to circumvent Congress by stating this is an "agreement" and not a treaty. Congress will not get to vote on this.

True, but they could have had a treaty if they were more level headed about this.

(03-10-2015 12:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well what choice does he have? the only treaty a republican controlled congress will agree to is a deal that requires Iran to give into every concession while we give into none of theirs. No deal like that will ever happen, and as things stand right now it's better to find a deal that for now will greatly diminish their nuclear weapon making capability and give us more intel on their capabilities. Rather than returning from the status quo where they continue to hide what their true capabilities are and we have no other option than to start a "freedom incoming" campaign.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either? Israel's actions along with their Republican allies throughout this whole affair have been using rather extreme political tactics to nuke this deal (pun intended) because they don't want a deal to be made. They want to force our hand into a military action against Iran IMO.

Neither Republicans or Democrats want a military intervention. The reasons may differ, but the result is the same. And since Iran holds all of the cards, there is no deal to be made.

I seriously doubt that at this point considering that Israel/GOP are trying to undermine the only deal possible. Without a deal there is no other course of action besides airstrikes.

That's the type of defeatist attitude that you and Obama share, and is also why we're screwed.

(03-10-2015 12:52 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:47 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well what choice does he have? the only treaty a republican controlled congress will agree to is a deal that requires Iran to give into every concession while we give into none of theirs. No deal like that will ever happen, and as things stand right now it's better to find a deal that for now will greatly diminish their nuclear weapon making capability and give us more intel on their capabilities. Rather than returning from the status quo where they continue to hide what their true capabilities are and we have no other option than to start a "freedom incoming" campaign.

Yes Iran wants to see Israel bleed. But do you really think that Israel doesn't want to see Iran bleed either? Israel's actions along with their Republican allies throughout this whole affair have been using rather extreme political tactics to nuke this deal (pun intended) because they don't want a deal to be made. They want to force our hand into a military action against Iran IMO.

Neither Republicans or Democrats want a military intervention. The reasons may differ, but the result is the same. And since Iran holds all of the cards, there is no deal to be made.

I seriously doubt that at this point considering that Israel/GOP are trying to undermine the only deal possible. Without a deal there is no other course of action besides airstrikes.

That's the type of defeatist attitude that you and Obama share, and is also why we're screwed.

Yeah sorry but that's just reality.