Why do Republicans feel they should be respected when they have no respect for anyone else?

[rdean]

So you're saying it takes 67 votes in the Senate before the agreement goes into force?

Here is Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

OK, so it takes two thirds to stop him. And the GOP didn't get two thirds. Done!

 

[rdean]

I'm curious. The US just signed a treaty with Iran and a half dozen other countries. Republicans act as if it were between Obama and Iran. So disrespectful of our allies.

And you know there are many other examples where Republicans refuse to show respect that have been listed here before with examples.

And Republicans are angry they aren't respected. But who do they respect?

Once again you start your post with a flat out lie. Constitutionally a treaty requires 67 affirmative votes in the US Senate to ratify. Your dear leader went out of his way to avoid calling this pile of crap a treaty, knowing it would never be ratified. So how about you get back to us when you get your facts straight.

No. It takes 67 to stop, not ratify. Don't "invent".

 

[rdean]

I'm curious. The US just signed a treaty with Iran and a half dozen other countries. Republicans act as if it were between Obama and Iran. So disrespectful of our allies.

And you know there are many other examples where Republicans refuse to show respect that have been listed here before with examples.

And Republicans are angry they aren't respected. But who do they respect?

We are not sheep like you people are, we don't just do something because others are doing it. We believe this is not a good deal for us and we reject it. How does our ally Israel feel about this "deal"?

Feelings, nothing but, feelings.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

What is wrong with these people. It takes 67 to override the president. Could you imagine a country where it took 67 Republicans to get anything done?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you're saying it takes 67 votes in the Senate before the agreement goes into force?

Here is Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

OK, so it takes two thirds to stop him. And the GOP didn't get two thirds. Done!

No. It takes two-thirds of the Senate to approve a treaty, not to stop it. President Obama does not have two-thirds of the Senate supporting his ersatz treaty, and there's no way he's going to get it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What is wrong with these people. It takes 67 to override the president. Could you imagine a country where it took 67 Republicans to get anything done?

I guess “What is wrong with these people” is that we can read and understand the Constitution, and you cannot.

You're probably thinking of overriding a veto. That pertains to domestic legislation, not to foreign treaties. If both houses of Congress pass a bill, and the President refuses to sign it into law, which is to veto it; then by a two-thirds vote in each house, the President's veto is overridden and the bill becomes law without the President's signature. See Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Foreign treaties are a different matter entirely. The President negotiates the treaty with the heads of states of other relevant nations, but it takes two-thirds of the Senate to approve it, as stated in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

 

[Kondor3]

...We shouldn't be the worlds policeman any more than we should be the worlds homeless shelter. But when you have a country bent on getting nuclear weapons and delivery systems, who have sworn our destruction, you can't just sit on your hands.

Disagree...

Metaphorically speaking...

It has been done before...

And what were the costs?

50,000,000 souls...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm curious. The US just signed a treaty with Iran and a half dozen other countries. Republicans act as if it were between Obama and Iran. So disrespectful of our allies.

And you know there are many other examples where Republicans refuse to show respect that have been listed here before with examples.

And Republicans are angry they aren't respected. But who do they respect?

I've yet to find a reason you deserve respect. Many other lefties on this board have ny respect.
The only reason you're not on ignore is a daily laugh is good for me

The only reason people threatening with IGNORE are pussies and weak...You come to Internet and you expect the brutality of Internet not by choice. If you can't stand it then go to gardening section or Get the fuck out.

Get bent loser. People of no character that post nonsensical gibberish are not going to clutter the threads with their trolling as long as the ignore feature exists.
Or are you gonna tell me the shit guno or shootspeeders posts is worth your time?

Idiot

You are not worth my time either just like Stephanie BUT that doesn't mean I will ignore you or Stephanie. Because this is the world where you or I get into.

Low liberal iq tends to make a lot of posts not worth reading since you can't comprehend most of what you read.
But carry on trolling

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying it takes 67 votes in the Senate before the agreement goes into force?

Here is Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

Agreed, but the mulatto messiah is not calling this a treaty to get around the 2/3rds requirement. Something the OP has yet to grasp. It is an executive agreement, not a treaty, that's why the next president can tear the damn thing up.

 

[OKTexas]

Is Obama's foreign policy a disaster or not? Did he fail in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya? Of course he did. Putin does as he pleases, Obama draws red lines and Putin and others laugh at him. He's a disaster...nothing more and nothing less

Well hell, I guess we just don't have enough wars to make you happy these days, explain why we should be the world's policeman? Personally I feel the world should learn to solve it's own problems without the US butting into every little thing.

We shouldn't be the worlds policeman any more than we should be the worlds homeless shelter. But when you have a country bent on getting nuclear weapons and delivery systems, who have sworn our destruction, you can't just sit on your hands.

Like with Bush, the GOP and North Korea?

Yep, big mistake. Didn't think I would say that did ya?

North Korea didn't sign an agreement with half a dozen other countries.

Why do you keep deflecting from your own thread?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I give respect to someone who show they have respect for others.

so that would leave off most of you on the left, democrat cult followers and the whole lot of nasty people in our Congress from the Progressive/democrat/commie party. starting with that nasty man Obama

About 99.9% of your post are hatred, racist, bigotry and no respect. Just like your avatar of NAZI flag. I'm sure you are very proud of that.

YAWN
it is a given that you idiots will make charges of racism you cant back up

Maybe it's better when you are not sleepy so you can have a better judgement. Look at Stephanoski avatar. Is that a sign of love and respect? Or a sign of hatred and racism.... Answer that when you are not sleepy.

might make it easier if you actually understood the meaning behind that avatar.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying it takes 67 votes in the Senate before the agreement goes into force?

Here is Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

OK, so it takes two thirds to stop him. And the GOP didn't get two thirds. Done!

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Agreed, but the mulatto messiah is not calling this a treaty to get around the 2/3rds requirement. Something the OP has yet to grasp. It is an executive agreement, not a treaty, that's why the next president can tear the damn thing up.

It has less standing, even, than that.

All that it means is that within what power President Obama himself has to exercise, he's promising to comply with the terms of this agreement, but it is not binding on any other part of government. The legislature is not bound by it, the courts are not bound by it, and even all of the various bureaucracies not subject to Obama's direct control are not bound by it. Even the President himself, could almost certainly violate it, and face no significant repercussions for so doing. It is not legally binding on anyone in the United States. As a group of Senators wrote in an open letter, some months ago, this agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written.

 

[charwin95]

I give respect to someone who show they have respect for others.

so that would leave off most of you on the left, democrat cult followers and the whole lot of nasty people in our Congress from the Progressive/democrat/commie party. starting with that nasty man Obama

About 99.9% of your post are hatred, racist, bigotry and no respect. Just like your avatar of NAZI flag. I'm sure you are very proud of that.

YAWN
it is a given that you idiots will make charges of racism you cant back up

Maybe it's better when you are not sleepy so you can have a better judgement. Look at Stephanoski avatar. Is that a sign of love and respect? Or a sign of hatred and racism.... Answer that when you are not sleepy.

might make it easier if you actually understood the meaning behind that avatar.

Hatred, Racism, Oppression, murdered millions of people. Anything else you can add?

 

[rdean]

So you're saying it takes 67 votes in the Senate before the agreement goes into force?

Here is Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Section. 2.The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

OK, so it takes two thirds to stop him. And the GOP didn't get two thirds. Done!

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

That seems to be one of the minor clichés about wrong-wing ideology—that it thinks that it is better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; and that anyone who wants to prevent something harmful from being done is somehow obligated to supply a “better idea”.

 

[rdean]

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

That seems to be one of the minor clichés about wrong-wing ideology—that it thinks that it is better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; and that anyone who wants to prevent something harmful from being done is somehow obligated to supply a “better idea”.

Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next 15 years to the right wing is "harmful". See? They have hit the trifecta. Delusional, crazy and stupid. What else could explain it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

That seems to be one of the minor clichés about wrong-wing ideology—that it thinks that it is better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; and that anyone who wants to prevent something harmful from being done is somehow obligated to supply a “better idea”.

Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next 15 years to the right wing is "harmful". See? They have hit the trifecta. Delusional, crazy and stupid. What else could explain it?

Anyone who believes that this traitorous deal that Obama has struck with Iran's terrorists will prevent them from making or obtaining nuclear weapons, who thinks that this deal will do anything other than to facilitate their doing so, is in no position to accuse anyone else of being “Delusional, crazy and stupid.”

 

[rdean]

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

That seems to be one of the minor clichés about wrong-wing ideology—that it thinks that it is better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; and that anyone who wants to prevent something harmful from being done is somehow obligated to supply a “better idea”.

Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next 15 years to the right wing is "harmful". See? They have hit the trifecta. Delusional, crazy and stupid. What else could explain it?

Anyone who believes that this traitorous deal that Obama has struck with Iran's terrorists will prevent them from making or obtaining nuclear weapons, who thinks that this deal will do anything other than to facilitate their doing so, is in no position to accuse anyone else of being “Delusional, crazy and stupid.”

Since the agreement means Iran can't build a bomb for the next 15 years, then you can't lie about it for the next 15 years.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious. The US just signed a treaty with Iran and a half dozen other countries. Republicans act as if it were between Obama and Iran. So disrespectful of our allies.

And you know there are many other examples where Republicans refuse to show respect that have been listed here before with examples.

And Republicans are angry they aren't respected. But who do they respect?

It's "disrespectful" because GOP representatives believe what Barry and John Kerry have done with Iraq is an awful agreement?

Respect is earned. When the Obama Administration conducts foreign policy that isn't naive to the extreme then they will earn respect. Until then they'll get what they deserve.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, it's takes 2/3rds to ratify a treaty, dumbass. Only takes 1/3rd plus 1 to stop a treaty. Do try to keep up.

But if you can't replace it with something better, why try to stop it at all?

That seems to be one of the minor clichés about wrong-wing ideology—that it thinks that it is better to do something harmful than to do nothing at all; and that anyone who wants to prevent something harmful from being done is somehow obligated to supply a “better idea”.

Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next 15 years to the right wing is "harmful". See? They have hit the trifecta. Delusional, crazy and stupid. What else could explain it?

Anyone who believes that this traitorous deal that Obama has struck with Iran's terrorists will prevent them from making or obtaining nuclear weapons, who thinks that this deal will do anything other than to facilitate their doing so, is in no position to accuse anyone else of being “Delusional, crazy and stupid.”

Since the agreement means Iran can't build a bomb for the next 15 years, then you can't lie about it for the next 15 years.

You really aren't that bright, R-Derp. Anyone who thinks THAT deal keeps the Iranians from building a bomb is so clueless it borders on farce.