Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[MaggieMae]

Are those of you that claim the gop is putting party ahead of people aware that the old treaty expired a year ago?

If this was so damn important, why wasn't this done a year ago?

or were the dims putting party ahead of people then?

Or maybe
Just MAYBE

They knew it was a waste of time and money b/c russia, while not an ally, certainly can not be considered an actual enemy.

It's grandstanding people, and you all fell for it.

I give up. It's been shown to you at least a half-dozen times that the agreement has been discussed ad nauseam for a year, and now all it needs once signed off on by Russia is ratification by Congress. Do you ONLY read what your buddies write as indicated by your perpetual "thanks" to them? How about reading the fucking FACTS for a change?

 

[Trajan]

Did the lame duck congress under President Bush take a 2 month holiday?

I don't know but I do know that the adjournment they took a coupe of months ago was the earliest since LBJ...does that count?

At least the 108th through 111th Congress worked four and a half days a week instead of two and a half, as it was the habit of the Republican Congress to begin work on Tuesdays, and adjourn on Thursday afternoons for the weekend.

oh really? so you took Pelosi's word for it....?

have you checked?

I have.....and this is one reason why I want the treaty vetted completely, trust BUT verify ....



DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #89: Institute a Five-Day Work Week
Promise: “‘Next year, members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2pm Friday,’ Hoyer said.” – “Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work Five Days a Week,” Washington Post, December 6, 2006

Broken Promise: Of the 21 weeks in session through June 22, 2007, only six have included full five-day work weeks. – Office of the Clerk Web Site

and-

House: Working hard or hardly working?

Like most Americans, members of the House are expected to report promptly — no excuses — when summoned by their bosses for the start of another workweek. One difference: For lawmakers, starting time doesn’t come until about 6:30 Tuesday evening.

After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.

But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.

snip-

Two-and-a-half-day workweeks are not exactly what Hoyer had planned.

In December 2006, as he prepared to take the reins as majority leader, Hoyer said lawmakers should expect to be on duty in the House from 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to around 2 p.m. on Fridays.

When Hoyer released his 2009 legislative calendar last December, he said: “The American people voted decisively for change this November, and we will work hard to make that change a reality.”

According to that calendar — no longer on Hoyer’s website but cached through Google — the House was to have been in session 120 days by now. In fact, it’s been in session for 113 days — and many of those have been brief.

House: Working hard or hardly working? - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

 

[JBeukema]

Only a liberal fascist loony communist america hater would want to to disarm america..
Ask yourself...

What would Reagan do?

 

[JBeukema]

The GOP is interested in one thing...Making sure Obama fails

They are giving Iran unlimited propaganda by making it clear that the US is demanding nuclear concessions while refusing to reduce our own nuclear stockpile

The blame america first crowd strikes again...

 

[Trajan]

Republicans once again show they are only giving lip service to deficit reduction. A chance to reduce the required number of nukes with an equal reduction from the Russians is passed up for political animosity.

The cost of sustaining those weapons and their platforms is huge.... the Republicans would rather chase pennies

because what you call equal really isn't, its a matter of negotiation, we already gave up the land base missile shield....for what? exactly? Please show me the quid pro quo.

Take your time....


IF you had ANY idea of how the counts and classifications are made, what is deemed strategic or is a launch vehicle how they calculated bombers, submarine or land based rockets etc. you know, the fine points you would know that what Russian says is equal, in fact isn't and the cost (and this is an old story) and, any kind of 'win' is paramount to/for this admin. not deterrence or negotiating a hard bargain.

This a negotiation, just because obama has a Nobel prize to live up to means squat to me. What is the rush?

NATO agrees to build missile defense shield | Reuters

I asked YOU about this already, do you think this plan is better than what we had set up originally?
from your link-


This will involve the stationing of ship-based interceptors in the Mediterranean from 2011, followed by land-based interceptors in Romania from 2015 and in Poland from 2018.

and

The United States is also keen to station a forward radar in Turkey, another NATO member state.



"This is a phased system and if the threat of long-range missiles, ICBMS, develops, this system will be capable of actually intercepting those missiles coming from the Middle East," said Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO.

NATO diplomats have said details, including command and control, will be worked out later.

They said expectations were that the shield would be operated through NATO's existing command structure in tandem with national commands, as is already the case with air defense.

notice anything about the language here, the phrasing etc.?



and, lets see how Putin feels about this because previously he was against a land based shield hence the turn around last year and the ship based plan....

The leaders will invite Moscow, NATO's former Cold War enemy, to join the system when they meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Lisbon on Saturday.



and this has what to do with my question and the treaty?

 

[JBeukema]

But, I guess I Will translate your own post for you..

It is a nuclear arms treaty, some feel careful consideration (unlike Obamacare) might be in order PRIOR to ratifying. We don't need another teachable "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" moment.

Someone already linked it

it's 17 pages

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf

 

[JBeukema]

here to fore

If you want to sound smart by using words that are too big for you, learn what the words are.

heretofore - definition of heretofore by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[JBeukema]

I would bet anything neither Reid or Pelosi have read the START Treaty front to back. The Democrats have a history of not reading their own Legislation before voting on it. The Republicans should fight this and any other Legislation the Democrats try to jam through in this Lameduck session. The Democrats just can't be trusted. See ya in January.

yes.. this international treaty is Pelosi's legislation...


fucking retards

 

[Trajan]

here to fore

If you want to sound smart by using words that are too big for you, learn what the words are.

heretofore - definition of heretofore by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I meant previously, here to fore we had validation in the factory.......

and you know, you language is snotty and insulting, I believe I have always addressed you civilly and with respect, so in short whats your problem?

 

[JBeukema]

Btw,weren't the Russians just busted for operating a major Spy-Ring here? .

And we traded them for some of our spies the Russians had caught

First rule of statescraft: always have spies- especially spying on your allies

 

[JBeukema]

your know you language is snotty and insulting

Wha?

 

[Trajan]

uh huh.

 

[JBeukema]

Ever since the black guy won, the GOP base has come out of the woodwork

 

[Trajan]

here to fore

If you want to sound smart by using words that are too big for you, learn what the words are.

heretofore - definition of heretofore by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I meant previously, here to fore we had validation in the factory.......

and you know, your language is snotty and insulting, I believe I have always addressed you civilly and with respect, so in short whats your problem?

well , to bad.......I guess civil discourse is not in your playbook(?). I tried.

 

[Trajan]

Ever since the black guy one, the GOP base has come out of the woodwork

? what exactly do you mean?

 

[JBeukema]

because what you call equal really isn't, its a matter of negotiation, we already gave up the land base missile shield....for what? exactly? Please show me the quid pro quo.

Take your time....


IF you had ANY idea of how the counts and classifications are made, what is deemed strategic or is a launch vehicle how they calculated bombers, submarine or land based rockets etc. you know, the fine points you would know that what Russian says is equal, in fact isn't and the cost (and this is an old story) any kind of 'win' is paramount to/for this admin. not deterrence or negotiating a hard bargain.

This a negotiation, just because obama has a Nobel prize to live up to means squat to me. What is the rush?

The same reason we rushed Obowmaocare, we can read it after it's passed. Not to worry.

You can read it now, genius.

facts ill only confuse the reichwingers

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBxzMMCokpI[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

Only a liberal fascist loony communist america hater would want to to disarm america..
Ask yourself...

What would Reagan do?

he would trust BUT verify.....

 

[JBeukema]

Only a liberal fascist loony communist america hater would want to to disarm america..
Ask yourself...

What would Reagan do?

he would trust BUT verify.....

So he'd support a new START...


so why are the Reps pissing on Reagan to screw the ****** in the White [Man's] House?

 

[Trajan]

Only a liberal fascist loony communist america hater would want to to disarm america..
Ask yourself...

What would Reagan do?

he would trust BUT verify.....

So he'd support a new START...

sure but he would not rush into it, as he clearly didn't, nor would he compromise his principals at Reykjavik, he would not budge on the consideration of human rights etc. yet here, what have we in that regard?

so why are the Reps pissing on Reagan to screw the ****** in the White [Man's] House?

I wouldn't know since race doesn't color my judgment, no pun intended.

You seem caught up in the race question though. Why?

 

[JBeukema]

sure but he would not rush into it

The only people rushing anything are the morons rushing to attack anything Obama does while claiming that 'we can't read it' when the link's been posted.