sorry hollyfool
I don't know who the we is who you think defended Bush

and I don't know many Bush supporters who spent a lot of time trying to
justify him by referring to Clinton

maybe you can do your homework and find some examples

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote:

>
> bruce,
>
> Why not/ You lads defended Bush for years by saying "But Bill
> Clinton.............".
>
> On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote:
> > why do obamanoids think that saying Bush did something is a defense of
> > Odumba
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >  How is this like what Bush did.  Bush did not implement a treaty
> without
> > > the approval of the Senate first.  That is what Obama is trying to do.
> > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down.  Then what
> happens.
> >
> > > Frederick The Moderate wrote:
> >
> > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except it's
> > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling us how
> > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all up
> > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark Side of
> > > the Force.
> >
> > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they actually try
> > > it, before getting to rattled...
> >
> > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> <
> [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...>
> <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...>
> <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...>
> <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/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> <
> http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>- 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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to