plain, Which or what "animals" are you talking about?
On Jul 13, 10:36 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > I spent 27 PROFFESSIONAL years in most of the countries of the world > overseeing treay and trade agreement implementation > --- > so you're one of those who fucked Americans with treaty and trade > agreements with the those animals? > thanks a lot > > On Jul 11, 11:05 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Since I spent 27 PROFFESSIONAL years in most of the countries of the world > > overseeing treay and trade agreement implementation I can see you are > > speaking from ignorance. Agreements spell out the limitations of actions > > (trade or treaty) and the limited responsibilities involved to the > > signators. It does not matter if it is CAFTA (my last assignment) or > > the Kosovo armistice.... or your agreement to buy a house. it is very > > simple... who gets what from whom and under what conditions. > > To think otherwise is ludicrous. > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Look moron, I have tried to explain to you the effect of TREATIES on > > > domestic law , as opposed to "trade agreements" which you inserted > > > later. If you don't get it, thats your problem. > > > > On Jul 11, 11:49 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > All international (or otherwise) put restrictions on all sides of the > > > table. > > > > That is what an agreement is... anything else is simple capitulation or > > > pure > > > > isolationism. > > > > > Get a grip and look at the total implications.. something the USA is > > > > TERRIBLE at doing (with a long history of proof to back it up). You > > > > consistently make bad or no long term agreements. I guess it starts from > > > the > > > > bottom up. > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A trade agreement is not a treaty, loopy. Kyoto is not a trade > > > > > agreement. Get your shit together, Marky. The only thing that kills > > > > > millions is you asshole libs with your jerkoff ideas....like banning > > > > > DDT and killing millions in Africa as a result. > > > > > > On Jul 11, 3:59 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Just think about what you are saying and then turn all those > > > implications > > > > > > around 180 degrees and see where it would put you..... NO oil that > > > was > > > > > > produced, (drilled or refined) beyond your borders (yes, those > > > > > > things > > > are > > > > > > covered under trade agreements) next to nothing for fresh fruits and > > > > > > vegetables in the winter months... just off the top of my head.... > > > your > > > > > idea > > > > > > freezes to death millions the first winter and starves millions > > > more... > > > > > > > Great idea Zeb. > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Idealism sure is cozy, but things seldom work that way. > > > International > > > > > > > treaties when ratified in the US can supersede domestic law. We > > > should > > > > > > > NEVER give foreigners ANY authority over our domestic energy > > > policies, > > > > > > > through a Kumbaya treaty about global warming hokum or anything > > > else. > > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 10:59 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The whole idea behind an international treaty is that they have > > > the > > > > > > > subject > > > > > > > > of the treaty in mind ....NOT the best interest of ONE side but > > > of > > > > > all > > > > > > > > involved as a whole. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It would be madness to allow Obama or any President to commit > > > the > > > > > US > > > > > > > > > to the Kyoto treaty on his own. Treaties such as this > > > > > > > > > surrender > > > our > > > > > > > > > sovereignty to outside entities which seldom evidence that > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > our best interest in mind. Mostly the opposite, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 4:51 pm, RICHARD BROWN < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hollywood, it has zip to do with your question posed to > > > Travis. > > > > > I > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > pointing out that all of our politicians do the same thing > > > when > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > executive power. They find ways around the other branches > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > government. It is part of the power game that they all > > > > > > > > > > play. > > > > > > > > > > If Obama can commit the U.S. to in effect go along with the > > > Kyoto > > > > > > > > > > Treaty without actually getting the Senate to approve it, he > > > > > will. > > > > > > > > > > Politicians are very adroit at doing an end run around the > > > > > opposition > > > > > > > > > > or side stepping the rules and regulations to get what they > > > want. > > > > > > > > > > Did Obama go to Congress to get a declaration of war in > > > > > Afghanistan > > > > > > > > > > before he sent an additional 30,000 troops there, or before > > > he > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > drones to bomb Pakistan? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 1:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > > > > > > > What has that to do with the question I posed to Travis > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > > treaties? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 3:04 pm, RICHARD BROWN < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did the President of the United States get a UN > > > Resolution to > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > force, or did he get permission from the U.S. Congress > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > use > > > > > > > force > > > > > > > > > > > > when we invaded Kosovo? Did we have an exit strategy? > > > Do we > > > > > > > plan on > > > > > > > > > > > > letting them become self-governing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 9:26 pm, Hollywood < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell us how many times this has happened in our entire > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:22 pm, Travis <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dick: Do you know how many senators it actually > > > takes to > > > > > > > approve > > > > > > > > > a treaty? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't think so. Try TWO (2). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is all. One (1) to preside over the senate and > > > one > > > > > (1) > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > vote yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That one (1) vote YES is two-thirds (2/3) of the > > > > > senators > > > > > > > > > present (1) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voting (again 1). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was a grave mistake the founding fathers made > > > when > > > > > they > > > > > > > did > > > > > > > > > not make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the vote a required two-thirds (2/3) of the senate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, dick thompson < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the > > > president > > > > > can > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > make the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I > > > > > remember > > > > > > > > > right it takes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both of them to approve the treaties. It is not > > > really > > > > > a > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > deal if the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > president signs it unless the senate also approves > > > it. > > > > > > > Guess > > > > > > > > > they forgot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that one. Of course they also tried to forget > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > when it > > > > > > > > > came to Kyoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a while as the Dems tried to force the US to > > > > > implement > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > treaty that the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Senate never ratified. Looks like another one > > > coming > > > > > > > along. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A > > > > > President's > > > > > > > > > Treaty-Making > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Powers: * Here's the relevant section< > > > > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am.. > > > > > > > .>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Obama administration is finding that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limitation > > > > > > > > > inconvenient< > > > > > >http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat.. > > > > > > > .>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily > > > bypassing"< > > > > > >http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot.. > > > > > > > .>the > > > > > > > > > Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Russians on limiting nuclear arms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and > > > could > > > > > not > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provision that allows a president to bypass, > > > > > temporarily or > > > > > > > > > otherwise, that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limit on his treaty-making powers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Senator Byrd — among others — isn't going to like > > > this > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > little bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 [link]< > > > > > > > > >http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > > > > -- > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
