Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
What is with this treaty BS?
So you are saying it didn't get passed in November 1993? Boy, our government has got major explaining to do! Been lying to us for decades!Lol, you mean the one that got ratified by Congress? Genius, dave. Fucking geniusNaftaLets compare then. Name one.Please do not repost your crock of shit, stupid argumrent that it is a treaty. We have numerous agreeements around the world that are not treaties.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?
I feel like I'm down at the creek fishing for suckers.
1) The second "A" in NAFTA stands for "Agreement".
2) Congress failed to ratify NAFTA (defeated by Democrats)
3) The terms of NAFTA were written in a bill & passed by the Republican Congress & Bill Clinton signed it.
4) So it is not a treaty because it was never ratified
Now, don't you look like a big, giant asshole?
No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
I am the one who made that statement.. and in further posts down I showed how I came to that conclusion from the Paris accord itself... but alas idiots cant read and he has proven he only sees what he wants too, ignoring facts presented.You cannot prove your lies on the $380 billions and Germany $18 billions then double down by posting a worthless untrustworthy bias media national review. What a crap.
National Media: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Right, because when you can't prove a story wrong, attack the source instead. Typical liberal strategy we see all the time.
So tell us, how much of our GDP would we have to pour into "green" under this agreement and how much money would that amount to? BTW, I never said anything about 380 billion or Germany.
What are you talking about dude?
Your buddy lied big time about the $380 billions and Germany's $18 billions. Then you supported his lies dude.
Then because of your desperation you posted a link from an asshole media. That's pathetic Ray.
No, that's not pathetic. What's pathetic is making a mistake and not admitting to it. That''s pathetic..........well.......I guess not for a leftist.
I never mentioned the$380 billions Ray your buddy did. You supported a big bullshit lie. That makes you a liar Ray. Sad very sad.
And what mistake did I make Ray? All my post are facts and I know what I'm talking about compared to you by keep blabbering nonsense all the way.
Oh, you didn't mention 380 billion and you didn't lie?
The best thing about telling the truth is never having to remember what you said.....like this just a few posts earlier:
So you cannot prove your $380 billions and Germany $18 billions. You lied and don't shit what you are taking about.
Why do you people lie? Like Trump.
You see, all you have to do is click the link that says "Click to expand" and it will bring up the entire conversation up to the last post. Now if you do that, you can clearly see you accused me of saying 380 billion when I didn't say shit about it. But of course you're not man enough to live up to your own mistakes. Typical lib.
Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
dude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
And he was arguing with me about it. That's why I asked if you were confused.The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one....dude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
NO FUCKING SHIT. Jesus Christ people!So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
You don't read well do you? A Treaty is binding, an accord is not. ONLY the Senate can ratify a treaty.
The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
Obama had them use these word 'accord' to hide the fact it was a treaty. it was a bait and switch hoping no one would look deeply into it and find out Obama Lied as did the Global elitists.So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
You don't read well do you? A Treaty is binding, an accord is not. ONLY the Senate can ratify a treaty.
Obama had them use these word 'accord' to hide the fact it was a treaty. it was a bait and switch hoping no one would look deeply into it and find out Obama Lied as did the Global elitists.So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
You don't read well do you? A Treaty is binding, an accord is not. ONLY the Senate can ratify a treaty.
If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses... An "Accord" can not give up sovereign rights, only a treaty can do this....The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
AGAIN, we have a process that determines if something should receive ratification. This Accord kicked that process in the nuts. That's why obamas press sec said they weren't going to congress because it wasn't a complete collective.The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts..."Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
