(03-10-2015 07:06 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:00 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

5 million illegals granted amnesty with a wave of Obama's hand.... no checks and balances in executive actions either... Obama has reapt the whirlwind...

No. Those are pre-Americans. What the republicans have done is treasonous. They are traitors. Why do they hate America and our president so much?

Obama is reaping what he has sown. Not treasonous however.

I would have preferred they took out full page ads in major American newspapers reminding the king of the Senate's role in treaties, it's not like The Iranians wouldn't have caught wind.

On second thought, maybe the king deserves a bit of public comeuppance - because this is exactly what it was.

This is at an unprecedented level. There is no equating this treacherous act. They've cross the line this time.

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Exactly.

(03-10-2015 08:06 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This is at an unprecedented level. There is no equating this treacherous act. They've cross the line this time.

Unprecedented for a leftist. You have been shown cases where Dems have gone much farther than this letter. You just choose to ignore them because you want to.

Not as far. Impeach Boehner.

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

(03-10-2015 08:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

(03-10-2015 10:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

I don't think you get it

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Dare You to cross That Line !

(03-10-2015 08:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

There is a distinction between violating a concept and violating a law. Presidents (and not just this one) generally don't respect the concept that their authority is constrained by the constitution, just as Hillary Clinton - while she may turn over emails in paper form, that is not respecting the concept of open records, even though it may be a token effort to comply with the law.

This administration does not deserve respect and the country will survive if Congress does not show it respect. The same is not true of the Constitution and the basic concepts that it outlines.

(03-10-2015 02:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 02:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So the Republicans would essentially threaten an invasion of Iran. But even while doing that, Iran would be working on the nukes. The only way to actually stop them would be to invade. Are the Republicans saying that we should invade?

I'm sure there are a couple of GOP knucklehead who think invasion is a feasible option. But I think most know there is little that can be done. This letter and Bibi's congressional invite were more political jockeying disguised as genuine statesmanship.

And that I can understand. I just don't want to hear about how Obama is doing this or that wrong when there's really nothing much that can be done, outside of war (on this board, or if I, god forbid, get forced to watch Fox "News" for any length of time).

I think more than anything what the GOP wants is to head off any hollow victory speeches from Obama.

(03-10-2015 08:06 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This is at an unprecedented level. There is no equating this treacherous act. They've cross the line this time.

(03-10-2015 08:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Exactly.

Explain to me how this act fits the constitutional definition of treason.

(03-11-2015 09:33 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:06 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  This is at an unprecedented level. There is no equating this treacherous act. They've cross the line this time.

(03-10-2015 08:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Exactly.

Explain to me how this act fits the constitutional definition of treason.

It doesn't, but for the water carriers on here - it makes their king look like all the serfs aren't toeing the line - and for them, that's unacceptable.

Since they follow his words to the letter, they can't stomach anyone else not, hence the cry of treason..............even though it's not close to being that. Maybe not how things should operate - but not treasonous.

Now, if we want to get into the Executive not faithfully executing and following the laws of the country, there's plenty of ammo there.

(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.

Not according to the comments made by the WH administration. They have said time and time again, this was the responsibility of the executive branch and only the executive branch.

As for whom leaked the documents? Do I think the Republicans did it? Nope.. I think Israel got their hands on it and leaked parts of it. Do the current Republicans have a problem with that happening? I'd say "no" they don't, but I don't think they're the source.

Yea, but this is legitimately one of the few times where the White House is right. What is going on is entirely in the Executive's ball court.

The fact that people are claiming this is checks and balances in action shows how little people know about their government.

This "deal" with Iran is so Obama. It allows Iran to have nukes in 10 years, so he'll be long gone when they get nukes and he can claim it wasn't his fault.

If Obama played poker, he'd fold with a royal flush.

The way Obama's PR crew is talking, they're acting like once they negotiate it, it's a done deal and totally enforceable as is, without the Senate's vote/confirmation.

That's why the Republican response came as it did IMO. They know they don't have the authority to change the treaty, so this was (IMO) a warning shot saying, "if you write it this way (applicable only until the end of Obama's term), we'll approve it, otherwise, we won't". (The Senate as a body has no negotiation 'responsibilities', but as individuals they can influence it this way).

The Pro-Israel allies are in the "we're not voting for this anyway"
The Leaning-Israel allies are in the "we'll narrow the window" as best we can.
The anti-Obama Administration crew is saying... "this is not happening"
The pro-Obama Administration wants this to be his last best foreign policy shot.
The anti-Israel crowd is in the "F-- israel, let Iran have their way" policy.

I think most republicans fall in the 1, 2, and 3 categories.
Most democrats fall in 1, 2, and 4 categories.

And then there are the hardcore anti-Israel people who simply fall in #5.

(03-11-2015 09:00 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Republicans are dead wrong here. They have totally violated the idea of checks and balances.

Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

There is a distinction between violating a concept and violating a law. Presidents (and not just this one) generally don't respect the concept that their authority is constrained by the constitution, just as Hillary Clinton - while she may turn over emails in paper form, that is not respecting the concept of open records, even though it may be a token effort to comply with the law.

This administration does not deserve respect and the country will survive if Congress does not show it respect. The same is not true of the Constitution and the basic concepts that it outlines.

The problem however is that many people didn't respect this administration from day one. When that happens, disrespect goes both ways. Respect is a two way street.

(03-11-2015 10:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, but this is legitimately one of the few times where the White House is right. What is going on is entirely in the Executive's ball court.

The fact that people are claiming this is checks and balances in action shows how little people know about their government.

So is the agreement / treaty binding if no consent voted on by the legislative branch?

(03-11-2015 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:00 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  Uhhh nope

It's Constitutional Law 101. They are dead wrong.

It doesn't sound like you read it.

There is a distinction between violating a concept and violating a law. Presidents (and not just this one) generally don't respect the concept that their authority is constrained by the constitution, just as Hillary Clinton - while she may turn over emails in paper form, that is not respecting the concept of open records, even though it may be a token effort to comply with the law.

This administration does not deserve respect and the country will survive if Congress does not show it respect. The same is not true of the Constitution and the basic concepts that it outlines.

The problem however is that many people didn't respect this administration from day one. When that happens, disrespect goes both ways. Respect is a two way street.

What has this administration done from day one that would make one respect it? They've fumbled around like the Bad News Bears from the beginning - and amazingly - haven't gotten any better.

What was Obama, one week in when he uttered "Elections have consequences, the Republicans can ride in the back of the bus. We'll do what we want - we don't need them"

Nothing says respect and work with me like rubbing an opponents nose in dog crap.

Then saying "What - they aren't respecting me?"