Will they ratify the nuclear limitation treaty?

[PLC1]

This is a case of partisan politics descending to the elementary school playground dispute level.

The Democrats got their end to DADT, so they can't have another "victory". Therefore, the arms limitation treaty can't be allowed to pass, at least not easily.

There is, of course, no connection between DADT and the nuclear treaty, none, of course, except perceived wins by one party over the other.

And, of course we all know that limiting nuclear arms is far less important than limiting the power of the other party.

Democrats Scramble to Save Votes to Ratify Nuclear Pact

With some prominent Republicans angry over passage of legislation ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, the mood in the Senate turned increasingly divisive and Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers scrambled to hold together a coalition to approve the treaty.

¶ Senator Harry M. Reid, the Democratic majority leader, moved to hold a vote on Tuesday to close off debate, saying, “You either want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists or you don’t.” But the fate of the treaty, known as New Start, was complicated by a deadlock over government spending and the political subtext about whether the pact’s approval would rejuvenate a weakened president after his party’s midterm election defeat.

That is just disgusting and totally juvenile. Why can't they debate the treaty on the its merits?

 

[Gipper]

This is a case of partisan politics descending to the elementary school playground dispute level.

The Democrats got their end to DADT, so they can't have another "victory". Therefore, the arms limitation treaty can't be allowed to pass, at least not easily.

There is, of course, no connection between DADT and the nuclear treaty, none, of course, except perceived wins by one party over the other.

And, of course we all know that limiting nuclear arms is far less important than limiting the power of the other party.

Democrats Scramble to Save Votes to Ratify Nuclear Pact




That is just disgusting and totally juvenile. Why can't they debate the treaty on the its merits?

Once again you side with the left like you have consistently done on most issues...oh but you are not a liberal. And don't label meeeeee...said with a limp wrest...

This lame duck Congress is passing all kinds of crap. Congress should be in recess and not passing anything at all during this time. Many of these A-holes lost in November and yet they are so arrogant as to ignore the voters by passing sh*t that would not pass in the ELECTED Congress.

And, you have been duped by them once again.

 

[PLC1]

Once again you side with the left like you have consistently done on most issues...oh but you are not a liberal. And don't label meeeeee...said with a limp wrest...

This lame duck Congress is passing all kinds of crap. Congress should be in recess and not passing anything at all during this time. Many of these A-holes lost in November and yet they are so arrogant as to ignore the voters by passing sh*t that would not pass in the ELECTED Congress.

And, you have been duped by them once again.

OK, if the "left" is on the side of working for the good of the nation rather than the good of the party, then I'm on the side of the "left."
Can you say anything about the merits of the treaty itself?

 

[Gipper]

OK, if the "left" is on the side of working for the good of the nation rather than the good of the party, then I'm on the side of the "left."
Can you say anything about the merits of the treaty itself?

You think its good for the country? I do not suppose for one minute that anything BO does is good for the country. But that aside, I do not want a lame duck congress doing anything. That is my point, besides you siding with the left on nearly every issue.

 

[Rick]

The op is imbecilic - republicans oppose the treaty because it would preclude US missile defense efforts.

 

[PLC1]

You think its good for the country? I do not suppose for one minute that anything BO does is good for the country. But that aside, I do not want a lame duck congress doing anything. That is my point, besides you siding with the left on nearly every issue.

So, your opposition to the treaty is based solely on partisanship?

 

[Gipper]

So, your opposition to the treaty is based solely on partisanship?

You could say that.

You could also say that anything BO wants is not good for the country. He has a proven track record that in nothing short of disastrous.

You see, when I see someone who has proven himself to be a Marxist, a failure, and a liar; I do not intend to ever agree with him on any issue. Its a character trait that honorable people possess. Sorry you don't have it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is a case of partisan politics descending to the elementary school playground dispute level.

The Democrats got their end to DADT, so they can't have another "victory". Therefore, the arms limitation treaty can't be allowed to pass, at least not easily.

There is, of course, no connection between DADT and the nuclear treaty, none, of course, except perceived wins by one party over the other.

And, of course we all know that limiting nuclear arms is far less important than limiting the power of the other party.

Democrats Scramble to Save Votes to Ratify Nuclear Pact




That is just disgusting and totally juvenile. Why can't they debate the treaty on the its merits?

Its only a major international treaty that would help significantly with keeping track of lose and or poorly secured nuclear material wanted by terrorist...far smaller then the natinal security threat of gays who are already in the military being able to say yep I am, and go about there jobs

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You could say that.

You could also say that anything BO wants is not good for the country. He has a proven track record that in nothing short of disastrous.

You see, when I see someone who has proven himself to be a Marxist, a failure, and a liar; I do not intend to ever agree with him on any issue. Its a character trait that honorable people possess. Sorry you don't have it.

outside that he is not a proven Marxist, failure, liar....it shows the great depth of thought you put into....

I hated Bush, thought he was a horrible leader..but at least I could come up with better then...well bush if for it so I am against it....and even at times...I agreed with Bush....as much as I did not like him....

 

[Gipper]

outside that he is not a proven Marxist, failure, liar....it shows the great depth of thought you put into....

I hated Bush, thought he was a horrible leader..but at least I could come up with better then...well bush if for it so I am against it....and even at times...I agreed with Bush....as much as I did not like him....

Damn pockets...I have been dumping on BO since I joined the HOP with the most intelligent criticisms.

Where have you been?

Do you go to work NEW every day?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you live in a insane little world where you think just repeating something over and over makes it true...the rest of the world does not...

 

[dogtowner]

i don't know about the oroginal question but it seems they may pass yhe START one. too bad, not a good bargain for the US, very good for Russia. generally best to be at least equal.

and we're securing nuke material today without it.

 

[BigRob]

This is a case of partisan politics descending to the elementary school playground dispute level.

The Democrats got their end to DADT, so they can't have another "victory". Therefore, the arms limitation treaty can't be allowed to pass, at least not easily.

There is, of course, no connection between DADT and the nuclear treaty, none, of course, except perceived wins by one party over the other.

And, of course we all know that limiting nuclear arms is far less important than limiting the power of the other party.

Democrats Scramble to Save Votes to Ratify Nuclear Pact




That is just disgusting and totally juvenile. Why can't they debate the treaty on the its merits?

START didn't have the votes well before DADT was going to pass...Additionally, there is no need for a new START treaty. We are securing nuclear arms etc without one, we did not get as much as we should have in such a treaty, and it only solidifies the idea of an adversarial relationship with Russia, which is not the route we should be on in opinion.

If you want to talk about playing partisan politics, look no further than Reid's comment that failure to ratify will somehow result in "terrorists" obtaining nuclear weapons.. that is simply an absurd comment.

 

[BigRob]

Well, I have to say I am a little surprised that they were able to get START done in the lame duck session... I was not expecting that.

 

[PLC1]

Well, I have to say I am a little surprised that they were able to get START done in the lame duck session... I was not expecting that.

Me too. So, why do you think it passed? Was it the merits of the actual treaty that were being weighed, or was it partisan gamesmanship that decided the matter?