Posted on 07/14/2015 5:38:38 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
....Obama heralded a historic nuclear agreement with Iran Tuesday as an opportunity for the longtime foes to move in a "new direction," while sharply warning Congress that it would be irresponsible to block the accord.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
As if Boehner and McConnel would dare get in the way of anything Obama wants.
treaty - noun trea·ty \ˈtrē-tē\ : an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups
Yes.
Control the language, control the debate.
No.
It’s an agreement, they’re calling it an agreement, that makes it an agreement, every uniparty controlled media outlet is only going to call it an agreement, only a mouf breathing, bitter gun clinging, Bible thumping, racist, troglodyte would call it a treaty.
Heck, I just heard Ambassador Bolton call it an agreement...
“”Obama acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. and Iran remain at odds over many issues, including Tehran’s support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of several American citizens.””
Minor details - “Tehran’s support for terrorism” - forget isolating it to the Middle East - and “detention of our citizens.” Who’s advising these clowns Kerry and obozo - the Girl Scouts? Disgusting! Sheer lunacy and stupidity to ignore what is as plain as the noses on THEIR FACES!
His entire statement is just plain idiocy!
Hope they can get a good night’s sleep before Iran starts blowing up everyone who doesn’t agree with them.
I guess we can’t show an elephant waiving a white flag...
In saner days, Barky, Francois and the she-devil would have already been stood against a wall with a cigarette and blindfold for treason.
What is it with him and his endless ‘warnings?’ Has he ever tried to persuade people that his position is right or is it all ‘warnings?’ Is he ever open to thinking maybe those opposed to him actually have a point and/or may just be right?
But then I have to step back and remember that stuff like this was exactly what a majority of those that voted said, via their votes, they wanted. Not once, but twice in succession!
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. You can't veto the rejection of a bill. The only veto power the president has is a veto of legislation that has been passed by both houses of congress.
Talk about stupid, read the rest of the thread and the history of the April Iran bill. You are being deliberately dense.
“Obama’s place in history is secure, however it will not be for what he thinks.”
The victors write the history. Consider the faux truth that the American Civil War was fought over one issue — slavery. The truth will be whatever the victors choose it to be.
“Because if they called it a treaty they’d need a 2/3 vote.”
Same reason the GOP voted to allow the upcoming TPP trade agreement to be voted in with a simple majority versus 2/3 vote. They want the agreement.
Explain how if congress rejects a bill that the president can veto it. If it is not sent to the president’s desk as a piece of legislation, there is nothing to veto.
Some people on Free Republic started this rumor that the president can veto a negative vote by congress and people like you have picked up on it.
It can’t happen. Not even under Obama.
Hmmm...... so the agreement is not a treaty
then the congressional product is not a vetoable bill but a vote of no confidence, a condemnation, a censorship
Obama warning Congress: that’s real insulting to Congress. Is Congress his child?
Yes, isn’t this the new Corker bizarro world treaty ratification procedure, heads Obama wins, tails the GOPe loses??!!
I think congress would get a jump of a dozen points in the popularity polls if they administered a resounding “biatch slap” to Obama on this.
The Bob Corker rule!
For your reading pleasure:http://www.vox.com/2015/4/15/8420669/corker-menendez-iran-sanctions
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.