Obama supporters, riddle me this...

I see the Obama supporters on this forum are once again trashing republicans and supporting Obama on the negotiations with Iran. So libs tell us what the terms are that Obama is trying to get. Do you know? Is this like Obamacare, "we need to pass it before we can find out what's in it"? Fill everyone in on what you are defending here.

 

You remember when the details of every treaty negotiation conducted by the U.S. were released to the public before negotiations were complete?

Me neither.

 

I think what is being defended is that there are only 3 things that can really be done. 1. You can hit them with more sanctions. But sanctions very rarely work anyway and essentially never work when the "Great Satan" imposes them. That simply allows the government to blame everything on the sanctions, thereby keeping the government in power via the common enemy theme. 2. You can militarily handle it. But that will never work. Our track record there is horribly bad. 3. You can try and reach some agreement to limit the scope of the program. Since this is the only option with any chance of working, there you have it.

More to the point, what would it matter if they got the bomb anyway? Who do you suppose they are going to drop it on?

 

I don't think they (the libs) can. They simply have to go with anything and everything that King Hussein says.

 

Another obtuse post and I won't explain to you again your ACA quote since you repeatedly refuse to learn.

Suggesting that the traitors in the GOP, called so by other GOP members, does not mean we agree with what the President is doing. It means we think the traitors are once again showing their lack of respect for THIS PRESIDENT. So I reject your question as irrelevant and I understand you support the terrorist government in Iran over your own President.

 

It's not up to the Republicans to negotiate with Iran. It's Obama's job. He's negotiating with Iran about ending their uranium enrichment program, which could allow them to make nuclear weapons.

It's also not the job of liberals to educate conservatives. There are newspapers and online news sources that discuss news rather than complain about Obama.

This reminds me of Republicans yelling: "Obama doesn't have a plan!" with Syria, despite the fact that he was carrying out his bombing plans.

 

Iran Declares Pre-emptive Victory in Nuke Talks
Top Iranian negotiator: ‘We are the winner’

 

the GOP are the ones who don't know their place when it comes to negotiating an international treaty

 

Here, this link should explain it you in simple terms: http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm

 

Oh come on now. That is just another Nancy Pelosi tactic you are using. So if you do not know what Obama's terms are how can you defend it?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice dodging. Try to stay on topic.

- - - Updated - - -

I figured you could not answer the question.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you actually had an answer there for a minute then you balk. Why are you such a tease?

- - - Updated - - -

That wasn't the question but thanks for responding.

- - - Updated - - -

That wasn't the question but thanks for responding.

 

You are the guys whining about it and I already asked you guys to fill us in to what you are whining about and you cannot do it. So Tells us the details

- - - Updated - - -

There is no deal if there is why not fill us in to the details?

 

In the big picture, it is not as much of a problem with them getting the bomb... it is to whom they would give bombs under the table.

 

Hey, it's not my fault you were asleep in Civics class.

 

Pelosi's statement was (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb because the public commonly knows what is in bills even while they are being debated in committee.

The same is not true for treaties in ongoing negotiations. The public doesn't commonly know what is in them.

And I am not defending Obama. I am reserving judgement until the negotiations are done.

 

Given the failed history of Obama there is plenty to complain about. What usually happens is Obama does things on the sly and it ends up being a disaster. But thanks for proving you are clueless as to what the terms of the negotiations are.

- - - Updated - - -

Still has nothing to do with the question.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

It is the president's job to negotiate treaties with foreign governments, and it is the Congress's job to ratify it. It cannot be anymore simple than this.

 

At least you have an honest position on the matter but you are wrong. The general terms are known and most treaties are relatively simple in terms. There is no excuse for not knowing what Obama is trying to accomplish here. Why is there such a need on his part to keep everything secret? Sounds suspicious.

- - - Updated - - -

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 My question is what terms is Obama trying to negotiate here? Does that help? I didn't ask whose job it was to negotiate treaties.

 

Damn, I thought Bibi would have filled you in. Wasn't that the reason for his visit?

But don't you just know it, Obama is promising the Iranians all the reactors and delivery systems they need to eradicate Israel in exchange for one flyable Persian rug in "like new" condition.

 

Wow, almost a carbon copy of the reply I got last time I asked the question, your whining is based totally on your opinion of him and not the details of negotiations. Meaning you do not know what it is you are whining about, jeeez Cons are funny, are there any other tricks your talking heads cannot make you do? I do not know the details, You do not know the details, the idiots that sent a letter to the Iranians don't know the details but you all run around stomping your feet and making threats anyway, sheep are funny to watch. Few if any know the details and they have not even been worked out totally nor have they been agreed to, once they are everyone will learn the details and Congress can do what is their actual JOB and either ratify it or not. So go ahead keep stomping your feet, everyone now knows you do not know why you are even doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Aww come on I know he can get at least two rugs for it.

 

According to Kerry it's a non-binding deal that requires a bowel movement before we can see what's in the "non-binding' agreement fecal matter. Which means it's worth less than an Obama BM.

 

Why don't you tell us what the gop is opposing?

 

I remember many such, in fact. All through the 80's Americans and the world were kept well informed about the various SALT talks. And over the years, if you were paying attention, the aims and goals of NAFTA were well discussed long before it was sent for ratification.

So, in answer to your question: STOP LYING

 

I would suggest that if you are going to insult another poster's knowledge of the United States constitution, accuracy is important. There are numerous errors in your child's guide to the constitution, and none of what's offered even deals with the subject at hand, foreign treaties.

And in that regard planet Obama is very much on board the spaceship 'dreamland express" as the United States limits the president to negotiating only. What he negotiates needs to be ratified by...now please have a seat, the senate which is now in the hands of the hated Republicans despite all you guys insisting he would regain control of the house.

The president on treaties is an errand boy, he negotiates what congress wants and they approve it, with a two thirds majority.

Please read the United States Constitution, it is an impressive legal document.

 

no problem at all...

Just the loss of every Israeli in the middle east.

 

Or read the letter that the Republicans sent to Iran.