|
|
Treason and Congress letter to Iran - No one undermines the US like the Republicans
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-13 09:10:50
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material. You're allowed to murder all you want. It just has to be justified, or not get caught.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 09:16:30
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material. You're allowed to murder all you want. It just has to be justified, or not get caught.
So...serial killers that don't get caught are your idea of the prime human specimen...?
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-13 09:24:54
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material. You're allowed to murder all you want. It just has to be justified, or not get caught.
So...serial killers that don't get caught are your idea of the prime human specimen...? How you make such incredible leaps and bounds is beyond me. Forget reading between the lines, you take it to a whole new level that's purely in your head.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-13 09:28:37
Does the law define Authority of the United States? No? Thank you. Then show us where authority of the United State is defined as exclusive powers of the executive branch of the US government.
I never said exclusive to the executive branch.
Executive agreement = Executive branch
Congressional-Executive agreement = Executive + Congress
Have to use the seperation of powers. You still haven't tied the executive agreement to the law. Therefor, you still haven't proven that the law was broken by that open letter.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 09:33:39
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material. You're allowed to murder all you want. It just has to be justified, or not get caught.
So...serial killers that don't get caught are your idea of the prime human specimen...? How you make such incredible leaps and bounds is beyond me. Forget reading between the lines, you take it to a whole new level that's purely in your head.
I just honestly have a hard time telling when you're just trying to goad people on to more argument and how often you're expressing your true (wait for it!)...feelings.
You seem to be very appreciative of people without feelings who do what they want to do, and do so in an efficient and thorough fashion.
So, really...what I said isn't that big of a leap.
Though I do have a penchant for speaking in hyperbole, it's true.
And for hats. I like hats.
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-13 09:34:28
And for hats. I like hats. I like hats too.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 09:34:59
And for hats. I like hats. I like hats too.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-13 09:37:56
You still haven't tied the executive agreement to the law. Therefor, you still haven't proven that the law was broken by that open letter.
The only way you can make an argument that this was a direct violation of the Logan Act is if you change it to "without authority of the executive branch of the United States government"
Quote: 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
At least you admit I cannot read and comprehend the English language. Sure, I'll admit that.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-13 09:38:48
Does the law define Authority of the United States? No? Thank you. Then show us where authority of the United State is defined as exclusive powers of the executive branch of the US government.
I never said exclusive to the executive branch.
Executive agreement = Executive branch
Congressional-Executive agreement = Executive + Congress
Have to use the seperation of powers. You still haven't tied the executive agreement to the law. Therefor, you still haven't proven that the law was broken by that open letter.
The constitution doesn't exclusively give the president the right to negotiate treaties. There's just one problem with your logic here, he wasn't negotiating a treating, he was negotiating an agreement, essentially a cease-fire. That process doesn't involve congress, doesn't require their approval, is recognized as the right of the executive under international law, and the 47 congressmen sought to undermine that process.
The constitution denotes how our government shall be run, but international agreements fall under international law. You could certainly make a case for sedition or espionage if the logan act doesn't fit your brand of politics.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-13 09:39:38
And for hats. I like hats. I like hats too.

Everyone loves hats.
<----------------------
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-03-13 09:44:21
Does the law define Authority of the United States? No? Thank you. Then show us where authority of the United State is defined as exclusive powers of the executive branch of the US government.
I never said exclusive to the executive branch.
Executive agreement = Executive branch
Congressional-Executive agreement = Executive + Congress
Have to use the seperation of powers. You still haven't tied the executive agreement to the law. Therefor, you still haven't proven that the law was broken by that open letter.
The constitution doesn't exclusively give the president the right to negotiate treaties. There's just one problem with your logic here, he wasn't negotiating a treating, he was negotiating an agreement, essentially a cease-fire. That process doesn't involve congress, doesn't require their approval, is recognized as the right of the executive under international law, and the 47 congressmen sought to undermine that process.
The constitution denotes how our government shall be run, but international agreements fall under international law. You could certainly make a case for sedition or espionage if the logan act doesn't fit your brand of politics. Um...thanks for proving my point?
I wasn't arguing that the Logan Act was in violation.....
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 09:47:45
Not true. I know this because many, many people insult the dignified Trilby simply because it's become common for douchebags to wear them.
Insult the person, not their fine hat choices!
takebackthetrilby.jpg
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-13 09:48:55
Leave it to Ramy to poo poo a working universal theory.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 09:58:59
Leave it to Ramy to poo poo a working universal theory.
Look, I like trilbies, and I'm not a douchebag.
I'm a lot of very negative things and I'll cop to that.
But I am not a douchebag.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-03-13 10:00:46
Laws based on feels? Aren't they already there?
Strictly speaking "no murder" is a law based on feels, right?
Really, aren't they all based on feels?
Isn't every man or woman or child for themselves the way of nature? These laws just get in the way of filtering out the poor genetic material. You're allowed to murder all you want. It just has to be justified, or not get caught.
So...serial killers that don't get caught are your idea of the prime human specimen...? How you make such incredible leaps and bounds is beyond me. Forget reading between the lines, you take it to a whole new level that's purely in your head.
 He's loves that brush.
By fonewear 2015-03-13 10:03:40
What's happening here? I'm apparently not smart enough to make sense of the 14 pages I skimmed over. Summary preez D:
I'll summarize Hitler is a jerk !
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-13 10:50:52
Does the law define Authority of the United States? No? Thank you. Then show us where authority of the United State is defined as exclusive powers of the executive branch of the US government.
I never said exclusive to the executive branch.
Executive agreement = Executive branch
Congressional-Executive agreement = Executive + Congress
Have to use the seperation of powers. You still haven't tied the executive agreement to the law. Therefor, you still haven't proven that the law was broken by that open letter.
The constitution doesn't exclusively give the president the right to negotiate treaties. There's just one problem with your logic here, he wasn't negotiating a treating, he was negotiating an agreement, essentially a cease-fire. That process doesn't involve congress, doesn't require their approval, is recognized as the right of the executive under international law, and the 47 congressmen sought to undermine that process.
The constitution denotes how our government shall be run, but international agreements fall under international law. You could certainly make a case for sedition or espionage if the logan act doesn't fit your brand of politics. Um...thanks for proving my point?
I wasn't arguing that the Logan Act was in violation.....
I've been saying all along that it wasn't a violation of the logan act, lol. You could make a case for it being several things, and that would be up to the DoJ to determine. That's what I hope comes of the petition, the DoJ makes a statement and explains why they believe it is or isn't a violation and acts accordingly. Nobody stands to benefit from 48 congressmen being indicted in an already dysfunctional and unproductive legislative term. And, I don't particularly want to see a precedent set of charging elected officials instead of working with them.
Does that mean I agree with the letter or their premise, hell no, even moreso that they don't even know their role in international agreements.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 10:50:59
I prefer to work in charcoals.
By Bloodrose 2015-03-13 10:53:28
Because I didn't get to respond to Zackan last night, i'll do so now:
I appreciate your stance, and your opinion, as it's one of the only well articulated ones against the FRS, and that you are the first to admit they aren't well versed in what it does, or it's responsibilities, and am also pleased you see this as a learning opportunity.
Also, I did point out that a better option to the complete dissolution of it would be to enact reforms at a relative pace, which would be a progressive, yet conservative stance.
And that there are indeed many progressive conservative stances being taken already by both parties, as a middle ground, unless you see those progressive stances by the conservative members doing so as some kind of disease, despite making things better, but still highly recognizable, for as many people as possible, and not just their constituents. A prime example of this would be of Mitt Romney and his "Romney Care" during his tenure as governor.
By Zackan 2015-03-13 11:48:05
Because I didn't get to respond to Zackan last night, i'll do so now:
I appreciate your stance, and your opinion, as it's one of the only well articulated ones against the FRS, and that you are the first to admit they aren't well versed in what it does, or it's responsibilities, and am also pleased you see this as a learning opportunity.
Also, I did point out that a better option to the complete dissolution of it would be to enact reforms at a relative pace, which would be a progressive, yet conservative stance.
And that there are indeed many progressive conservative stances being taken already by both parties, as a middle ground, unless you see those progressive stances by the conservative members doing so as some kind of disease, despite making things better, but still highly recognizable, for as many people as possible, and not just their constituents. A prime example of this would be of Mitt Romney and his "Romney Care" during his tenure as governor.
2 questions: What can you tell me about interest rates, and how they are not recycled back in? Basically what I am referring to is how 1 dollar can be owed to multiple entities at the same time(taking a loan out against a loan), How banks use your interest as a form of actual currency, and the biggest issue of the fact that if everyone belonging to a bank were to withdraw there money at the same time, there would be serious issues.
2) I know about this thing that JFK did(conspiracy i suppose) Where he actually signed some kind of executive agreement which actually would have directly placed direct control of the currency back in the governments hands. It was at this point the suspicious things happened.(he was assasinated and his vice president(who became president) immediately dissolved the executive action.)
By Lye 2015-03-13 11:52:17
Got busy last night! Here you go:
But not what you do!
By Zackan 2015-03-13 11:53:58
i am tempted to block your idiotness. All you do Lye is try to prove your personal point. You are full of hot air and nothing else.
By Lye 2015-03-13 11:56:17
Satire isn't for everyone :(
Best of luck to you!
By Zackan 2015-03-13 11:57:57
Satire isn't for everyone :(
Best of luck to you!
Is that all you are capable of is satire? because every response over the last 5 or so pages has been the same.(at least the responses to me)
I would not take issue with your responses if they were individual responses, the issue that is your standard operating procedure when responding to me.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 12:20:46
Is that all you are capable of is satire?
Being capable of satire is actually quite a skill. Lost on most in this day and age.
Quote: Pam: Man, and here you are without your gun; that's pretty ironic, huh?
Archer: No, Pam, once again you're confusing the word ironic with "you are an idiot". What's ironic is that every other store we drive by is a gun shop!
Pam: Oh. Okay, so then what's satire?
Archer: Nobody really knows!
Possibly my favorite Archer exchange ever, and there are some real gems from which to choose.
[+]
By Lye 2015-03-13 12:20:55
It is my opinion that being able to look at the caricatures of ones' beliefs and views is an important step in developing a well rounded perspective.
The difference between satire and sarcasm lies in its intent:
Sarcasm is butchery where satire is surgery.
"If" it's any consolation, you can opt out of retrospective thinking and stick with this verse from "If" by Rudyard Kipling. Here's the verse:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
In the words of another STRONG WISE man....
[+]
By Lye 2015-03-13 12:25:00
If it makes you feel better, I can make a satirical MSPaint of myself. My intimate knowledge of my own foibles is surpassed only by my wife.
Damn, someone call the fire department because I just got BURNED!
Ridiculous - Republicans send Iran a letter that undermines and contradicts their own president. Perhaps the severest blow to American international standing since ever?
EDIT: Below is the NYT's article on the subject. I chose the NYT despite the fact that I think they went soft on the issue to try and be objective.
Quote: WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Obama Says Nuclear Deal Offered to Iran Tests Whether It Is SeriousMARCH 8, 2015
After Talks, Nuclear Deal on Iran Is Seen as CloseMARCH 7, 2015
Netanyahu Speech Has Eager Audience in IranMARCH 3, 2015
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.
Continue reading the main story
Document: Letter From Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran
While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.
The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.
Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.
The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.
“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”
Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”
Continue reading the main story
GRAPHIC
The Nuclear Talks With Iran, Explained
What the United States and Iran want out of discussions over Iran’s nuclear development.
OPEN GRAPHIC
The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “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,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.
Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.
Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS
Eugene Gorrin 27 minutes ago
Disgraceful.The Republican/Tea Party has made no secret of its desire to sabotage negotiations over Iran's nuclear capabilities. That was...
Sonny Pitchumani 28 minutes ago
As usual, many liberal commenters in this forum are happy to throw around the word TREASON and to suggest that the Senators who sent the...
horatio fisk 28 minutes ago
It is highly amusing that the GOP does not realize that no one in this country takes them seriously so why should anyone in Iran. Well you...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.
The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.
Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.
An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.
Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.
Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”
Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.
Correction: March 9, 2015
A previous version of this article misstated the given name of the senator who drafted the letter from American lawmakers to Iranian leaders. He is Tom Cotton, not Tim Cotton. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.html?_r=0
The Republicans first undermine their democratically elected president AND Nation by inviting a foreign leader to address them in a televised event, effectively turning the American people's house of representatives into a political brothel.
They then openly contradict the commander in chief of the nation and more or less say the US presidency is a lame duck office not worthy of taking seriously.
At best, the American political system is the greatest threat to American foreign policy.
At worst, America is so deeply entrenched in racism - made apparent by how the election of a black american has polarized the country's population - that its foreign policy be damned.
Republicans might as well have just said "Burn this house down".
I can't wait to see how the GOP goons on this forum try to deflect from the issue and/or demonstrate just how retarded their demographic is.
|
|