Or did I miss it? Or does nobody want to admit that the action made the particular Republicans look like petulant little children?

Checks and balances...(Liberals, especially Obama HATE those pesky things)

The Republicans didn't say anything that wasn't correct.

I dont think it made them look like petulant children. O's plan blew up in his face and republicans are letting their feel in be known. It's not their fault O got schooled.

LOL

It basically said .. if Iran and Obama reach a deal, that deal will be considered null and void at the end of Obama's term..

What's so petulant about that?

What's the big deal?

You don't like checks and balances?

(03-10-2015 11:06 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Checks and balances...(Liberals, especially Obama HATE those pesky things)

The Republicans didn't say anything that wasn't correct.

Not that I'm agreeing with this talking point, but a lot of the left leaning blogs/commentators are screaming about how those actions constitution a felony and/or treason.

You are delusional out of your ass if you think "checks and balances" means that congress gets to do anything & everything they want. This current congress seems content on over reaching on diplomatic dealings that have traditionally been reserved for the POTUS rather than congress. I just find it hilarious that a con is branding this as checks & balances when it is the complete opposite of that.

(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?

You're right, They probably can't read English Anyway !

(03-10-2015 11:09 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It basically said .. if Iran and Obama reach a deal, that deal will be considered null and void at the end of Obama's term..

What's so petulant about that?

So let's say a Republican is president and wants to make a deal with another country. The other country knows that the deal will only last as long as that particular person is president. And let's say he only has a couple years left in his term. No other country is going to bother dealing with us. This is the same thing that businesses say - for them to not be adversely impacted, they want to know what the rules are, they want stability, and not carpricious changes due to government. Other countries, whomever they are, want the same thing.

Republicans are just crying about a deal being made that hasn't even been made. They must not have much to do.

(03-10-2015 11:09 AM)maximus Wrote:  What's the big deal?

You don't like checks and balances?

Checks & balances means that they can vote against the deal if they don't like it, and if they have enough votes, can override it.

What they tried to do was sabotage the negotiating power of the US gov't while sitting at the table with Iran.

It's called pre-emptive strike on an illegal action, NIU.

It's basically a statement that says "any deal made between Obama and Iran" is not a deal between the "United States and Iran".

I don't see a problem here. And I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were a Democratic Congress and a Republican President had this issue involving a treaty that could give another country nuclear weapons.

(03-10-2015 11:16 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  It's called pre-emptive strike on an illegal action, NIU.

It's basically a statement that says "any deal made between Obama and Iran" is not a deal between the "United States and Iran".

I don't see a problem here. And I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were a Democratic Congress and a Republican President had this issue involving a treaty that could give another country nuclear weapons.

How is it illegal? In any case, this basically removes ANY diplomacy that ANY president can do. It will not be possible for the president to do anything. Therefore, checks and balances are null and void, in favor of Congress. But that's okay for Republicans right now. It won't be later.

(03-10-2015 11:15 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 11:09 AM)maximus Wrote:  What's the big deal?

You don't like checks and balances?

Checks & balances means that they can vote against the deal if they don't like it, and if they have enough votes, can override it.

What they tried to do was sabotage the negotiating power of the US gov't while sitting at the table with Iran.

No...They did it...and good for them.

Obama has refused to give updates to Congress on the negotiations or any details. Barry said he would let them know after it is signed. They did exactly what they should have done in sending that letter. When Obama wants to act without Congress it is ok???? I love the letter. Lets him know he isn't King.

What updates? No deal has been made. There are no updates.

They can now expect the Democrats to do the same in a similar situation, which will adversely affect any negotiations, and they'll only have themselves to blame for bringing government even lower than it already is. But they won't accept that, they'll blame the Democrats for pulling the same **** they did.

I fully expect the next update to be that Iran has nuclear weapons.

(03-10-2015 11:23 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  What updates? No deal has been made. There are no updates.

Obama: I’ll Inform The Folks In America After Iran Deal Is Made – Period…

Quote: President Obama will wait until after a nuclear deal with Iran is made to make the case to the American people that it’s the right thing to do. He made the comment today after being asked about this letter from nearly 50 U.S. senators to Iran, which stated, “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

A member of the press asked Obama, “Can you comment on the Republican letter to Iran? Can you comment on that?”

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition,” Obama told the reporter.

“I think what we’re going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we can get a deal or not. And once we do — if we do — then we’ll be able to make the case to the American people, and I’m confident we’ll be able to implement it.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...81000.html

(03-10-2015 11:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I fully expect the next update to be that Iran has nuclear weapons.

So Bush invaded the wrong country. We should have invaded Iran instead. Or wait, he should have invaded both Iran and Iraq. And Syria. And Egypt. And Yemen. And Libya.

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.

Did The Left Scream ‘Treason’ When Jimmy Carter And Jesse Jackson Lobbied Foreign Governments Against U.S. Positions?



The Left is all in a collective tizzy over Sen. Tom Cotten’s open letter to Iran which advised that any agreement with President Obama is not binding on future administrations unless it had approval by Congress.

Screams of “treason!’ and claims that it violates the Logan Act which states:

Quote:“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Problem with this? The Logan Act specifically refers to ‘private correspondence’. An open letter on social media advising of the nature of the Constitution hardly seems to qualify.

Jimmy Carter actually sent private correspondence to the UN, lobbying against the U.S. resolution from the first Bush administrationbefore the UN Security Council, trying to demand Iraq get out of Kuwait. Listen to Brent Scowcroft:

Quote:In the midst of this careful diplomacy, former President Jimmy Carter wrote the members of the [UN] Security Council asking them not to support the resolution. He argued that the costs in huiman life and the economic consequences, not to mention the permanent destabilization oif the Middle East, were too high and unnecessary,”unless all peaceful resolution efforts are first exhausted.” He called for the UN to mandate a”good faith” negotiation with the Iraqi leaders to consider their concerns, and to ask the Arabs to try to work out a peaceful solution,”without any restraint on their agenda.” It was an unbelieveable letter, asking the other members of the council to vote against his own country. We found out about it only when one of the recipients sent us a copy. Carter later acknowledged he had sent the letter, but claimed he had told President Bush what he was doing. He did send the President a similar one, but without mentioning he had also lobbied the President’s foreign colleagues. It seemed to me that if there was ever a violation of the Logan Act prohibiting diplomacy by private citizens, this was it. President Bush was furious at this interference in the conduct of his foreign policy and the deliberate attempt to undermine it, but told me just to let it drop. –

During the Reagan Administration, Jesse Jackson almost made seeming violations of the Logan Act a cottage industry, visiting Syria, Cuba and the Sandinistas, with purpose, as Dr. Karin Stanford, professor at Cal-State Northridge noted, at least in part, of promoting their positions in the face of U.S. administration.

At that time, folks on the Left like Stanford argued against the Logan Act. Stanford said it “constrained the citizen diplomat” like Jackson and it was unconstitutional, in her book, “Beyond Boundaries, Reverend Jesse Jackson In International Affairs”. Of course, the fact that she was his mistress might have influenced her opinion.

But once again, just another instance where rules will be over-applied to Republicans, but should be done away with completely when it comes to the Left…