Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[bendog]

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

Typically, a treaty contains some legal adverse consequence for a county pulling out, or refusing to do some action promised in the treaty. It's sort of like a contract. The Senate must consent, because the executive is not supposed to be able to bind the country to paying money or funding stuff the congress doesn't pass a bill to accomplish.

This is not a treaty because all the 5plus1 nations agree to do is to suspend economic sanctions. I don't believe Obama has signed any laws saying a sanction is imposed without his consent. I cannot imagine any potus signing that kind of law. There are still questions about the timing of suspending sanctions, what Iran has to do, who decides whether Iran is in compliance, and what happens it Iran is not. Personally, unless there's a provision of reapplying the hammer to Iran without going through all the negotations to get sanctions in the first place, then we should not be agreeing.

 

[Siete]

Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."

The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as United States vs. Belmont (1936), United States vs. Pink (1941), and Dames and Moore vs. Regan (1981).

 

[Faun]

Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.

Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.

Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...

U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty

Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.

Damn, you suck at this.

Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.

And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word. What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.

Good. The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.

That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.

It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."

The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move abrogating the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world.​

You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.

One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party. And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.

Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.

Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.

No no, sevenpointsevenseven. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge. Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.

It ought to be easy.

Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.

But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.

Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...

U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty

Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.

Damn, you suck at this.

Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.

And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word. What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.

Good. The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.

That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.

It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."

The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move abrogating the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world.​

You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.

One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party. And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.

Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.

Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.

Wrong, you dishonest hack bitch.

he withdrew from the treaty and thus couldn't possibly abrogate it.

 

[Faun]

Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?

"

• 
  
  
  • The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders

• 
  
  
  • It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994

• 
  
  
  • Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty

• 
  
  
  • Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country

• 
  
  
  • President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news

• 
  
  
  • The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]

Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"

• 
  
  
  • The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders

• 
  
  
  • It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994

• 
  
  
  • Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty

• 
  
  
  • Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country

• 
  
  
  • President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news

• 
  
  
  • The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]

Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain unwilling to admit that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

 

[Siete]

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.

No no, shitforbrains. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge. Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.

It ought to be easy.

Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.

But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.

classy ... for a convict.

````````````````
Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; [Emphasis added.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home.

 

[Dot Com]

Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...

U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty

Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.

Damn, you suck at this.

Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.

And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word. What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.

Good. The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.

That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.

It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."

The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move abrogating the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world.​

You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.

One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party. And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.

Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.

Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.

Wrong, you dishonest hack bitch.

he withdrew from the treaty and thus couldn't possibly abrogate it.

ummm.....this is the politics sub-forum kiddo.

as to the OP, The Cotton 47 haven't heard the last from this.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.

I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties. So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?

then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.

No no, shitforbrains. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge. Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.

It ought to be easy.

Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.

But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.

classy ... for a convict.

````````````````
Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; [Emphasis added.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home.

^ Pointless, even by your standards.

Note: for slow people, I will occasionally deign to make the already clear a bit clearer.

I did not say that the Constitution doesn't address the Senate authority with regards to the making of treaties. We all already know about the advice and consent provision.

What I said is that the Constitution says nothing about the un-making of treaties.

As usual, I was completely correct.

thank me.

 

[Siete]

"

• 
  
  
  • The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders

• 
  
  
  • It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994

• 
  
  
  • Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty

• 
  
  
  • Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country

• 
  
  
  • President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news

• 
  
  
  • The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]

Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

 

[Faun]

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain unwilling to admit that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

I am well aware of your ignorance. My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.

Actually, the problem is all yours. YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone. He nailed you.

I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual. But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.

Thank me.

 

[nat4900]

I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.

Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need antie to teach us such things

Lol. Good catch!

Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.

It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.

So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.

Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.

You're not eluding anyone there, Antie.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.

Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.

Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need antie to teach us such things

Lol. Good catch!

Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.

It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.

So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.

Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.

You're not eluding anyone there, Antie.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.

Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."

Zzzz. A TENET of the FAITH calls upon the Muslims to LIE.

What tenet of any faith CALLS upon the folks who are not Muslims to lie?

 

[Siete]

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

I am well aware of your ignorance. My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.

post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.

You're welcome.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

I am well aware of your ignorance. My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.

post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.

You're welcome.

His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up. Here. I'll help.

What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone. But, of course, it CAN be.

I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post. Don't cherry pick.

 

[Faun]

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.

Actually, the problem is all yours. YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone. He nailed you.

I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual. But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.

Thank me.

You remain terminally stupid as I never said anything about that. You're so senile, you've actually convinced yourself that ant nailed me on a subject I've never even discussed -- which you think he did while actually avoiding what I did discuss.

You're a fucking loon.