General Discussion

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)

2. Because our side did it, which makes it okey dokey.

Reply to FBaggins (Original post)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 10:34 PM

Mar 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'd love to see the TREASON!!!! crowd clarify why this isn't worse [View all] FBaggins Mar 2015 OP

Reccing for asking a damned good and interesting question. Bonobo Mar 2015 #1

Because our side did it, which makes it okey dokey. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #2

Five nations are negotiating an international agreement, with the UN. Not a treaty. Fail. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #3

That's incorrect. FBaggins Mar 2015 #6

Those are GOP talking points fully repudiated by the White House. And you seem to forget that the Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #8

Next he's going to pretend ex agreements are not binding both countries into a policy agreement. Rex Mar 2015 #12

According to the very wrong poster all the foreign agreements, hundreds over the years, do not bind the next President. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #13

Yikes! Rex Mar 2015 #15

Can you imagine....all agreements are immediately subject to termination..what foreign nation would negotiate one? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #16

Yeah every four years you have to hope the new POTUS doesn't go all willy nilly on your ass! Rex Mar 2015 #18

Watching Stewart...Raygun signed 1500 international executive agreements...... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #20

That is exactly the case if the agreement doesn't pass both houses or isn't ratified be the Senate. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #64

This is a multi-nation agreement subject to approval by the UN Security Council and enforced by Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #71

What does the number of nations or US involvement have to do with the agreement being binding on TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #75

All agreements are not equal, Fred. The only binding ones go through Congress TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #76

You are purposely ignoring seventy plus years of foreign policy precedent, just like the Republicans are. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #77

That statement does not support your assertion nor does it have anything to do with me agreeing with TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #79

You are supporting the Republican position, a wrong position, I do not need to say anymore. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #88

No, I'm not. You are being overwrought and will not even process information TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #100

I am afraid you are the one not listening, ergo your rudeness - to your own President. My position is his position. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #101

I need'nt "pretend"... that's exactly the case. FBaggins Mar 2015 #25

Okay Rex Mar 2015 #26

WHOA! Step off the crazy train Telcontar Mar 2015 #57

No, they didn't because there is no such thing One can only commit treason against the United States TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #63

You agree with the White House? FBaggins Mar 2015 #19

Obama is clear that lifting of sanctions, the ones imposed by Congress, will be repealed by Congress Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #21

I'm surprised they did not call for Obama's outting after his Cuba ovetures. Rex Mar 2015 #23

So? FBaggins Mar 2015 #24

The Senate does not ratify treaties. They advise and consent on treaties. onenote Mar 2015 #34

That's the same error that the 47 Republicans made FBaggins Mar 2015 #41

Every major act of treason/sedition over the last 100 years was commited by a Republican. yourout Mar 2015 #4

obviously, correct. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #7

you forgot the Selection of 2000 -- a de facto coup grasswire Mar 2015 #85

Do I understand the point of equivalenance being made in your post? Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #5

Apparently not. FBaggins Mar 2015 #11

Hard lesson here. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #17

This is NOT a treaty! Why are folks so obtuse? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #22

Hy, Fred, I'm jusr acknowleding what the OP stated. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #27

That's the very problem. FBaggins Mar 2015 #30

If the Iran negotiations are little more than a gentleman's agreement we don't need a letter from Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #45

We don't... FBaggins Mar 2015 #47

Well the first thing that strikes me is there... one_voice Mar 2015 #9

Because "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong? Binkie The Clown Mar 2015 #10

No the OP is saying both parties are the same. Rex Mar 2015 #14

No, he is saying that this particular incident may have similarities to an incident initiated by Democrats Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #28

So both parties are the same, because they do the same thing. Like he said in his OP. Rex Mar 2015 #29

Really. You are actually trying to defend your extra-ordinary simplistic thinking. Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #35

Nice try at dodging for a buddy! Rex Mar 2015 #80

No... he most certainly isn't. FBaggins Mar 2015 #31

Thanks for completely going back on what you said! That didn't take long at all! Rex Mar 2015 #32

You've had a very active imagination today. FBaggins Mar 2015 #38

Except you are misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against mythology Mar 2015 #42

What a shock you poo poo the Logan act. Rex Mar 2015 #81

A 1799 law under which no one has ever been prosecuted despite numerous Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #86

And Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in Syria in 2007, against Bush's wishes. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #33

And the Republicans characterized her actions as "treason". Our political intelligence Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #37

Isn't it encouraging FBaggins Mar 2015 #40

" . . . the President should be negotiating a treaty that the Senate should vote on." Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #36

So let's see if I've got this straight FBaggins Mar 2015 #39

How is this productive to bring up now? John Poet Mar 2015 #43

"throw cold water on everyone's anger" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #46

I appreciate your final sentence FBaggins Mar 2015 #48

I had the privilege of knowing an Iranian student while in college. She was one of the best people Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #49

Obama/Admin should be talking with Congress as well... GetTheRightVote Mar 2015 #44

Once again? trumad Mar 2015 #50

Your "concern" is duly noted and is surprisingly identical to the GOP traitors...interesting. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #51

This congress? B Calm Mar 2015 #52

Once again... onyourleft Mar 2015 #72

to republicans and anyone else defending them against charges of treason by bringing up the Contras bigtree Mar 2015 #53

So... that was one great big rhetorical... FBaggins Mar 2015 #54

you're arguing against the political wind bigtree Mar 2015 #55

Who said those Democrats were in the wrong then? I think you are missing the point on purpose TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #69

treason, not treason bigtree Mar 2015 #74

the Reagan Administration was carrying on an illegal war that was condemned by the International Douglas Carpenter Mar 2015 #56

Plus, that 'illegal war' wasn't public policy. Bizarro, indeed. randome Mar 2015 #58

You can't possibly argue that we didn't have a public foreign policy related to Nicaragua FBaggins Mar 2015 #59

Didn't say that, did I? randome Mar 2015 #61

It's hard to tell what you're actually saying FBaggins Mar 2015 #62

That's at least the closest to a valid position that I've seen so far. FBaggins Mar 2015 #60

I have not used the word treason in regard to either case. But there is no implied or stated Douglas Carpenter Mar 2015 #65

Well written/expressed eom salin Mar 2015 #67

But, unless I am missing something... salin Mar 2015 #66

. Rex Mar 2015 #84

I wrote this before DC wrote an upthread response salin Mar 2015 #87

Because peace is better than war. Duh. n/t Orsino Mar 2015 #68

Reagan was conducting a secret & Illegal war against US law in Nicaragua. So why would a letter sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #70

That one is a huge defender of the nuke industry. Rex Mar 2015 #83

Edit. BainsBane Mar 2015 #92

"All the difference in the world" FBaggins Mar 2015 #95

You forgot 'in opposition to the President's ILLEGAL foreign policy decisions'. All the difference sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #98

Dude, you should be ashamed of yourself Hutzpa Mar 2015 #73

Shame!? HA! Rex Mar 2015 #82

You don't think illegal wars and drug running and clergy murders should be stopped blm Mar 2015 #78

I do in fact FBaggins Mar 2015 #89

Another difference BainsBane Mar 2015 #90

That has been mentioned half a dozen times already FBaggins Mar 2015 #91

Excuse me BainsBane Mar 2015 #93

The morality of a position does not change the Constitution FBaggins Mar 2015 #94

That is something you will have to put to a constitutional lawyer BainsBane Mar 2015 #96

I'd say the efforts in the senate to kill the talks by threatening new sanctions was worse Chathamization Mar 2015 #97