START on its way to ratification

Obama aides, Republicans predict START ratification - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

The only question is how many Republicans will put politics ahead of doing what is best for the country?

thx for telling me whats best for the country. not that you have had a single sane argument to counter any of the opposing viewpoints but hey, uber-partisanship has its own reward I guess.

and the answer is 11, thats how many voted yes on the cloture vote....is that enough for you?

I think when the actual vote takes place Republicans will jump on board.They know they have no defense of a negative vote

Oh they have a defense, you and the sheeple just don't want to hear it. The One said he lets go, so its go go go.

2 days ago obama wrote a letter to the committee saying he will not allow , despite the preamble language STILL in the treaty, any linkage to missile defense, IF that so, let him pull the preamble language that refers to such. OR, how about this, lets see a letter stipulating such from Putin or the puppet that is Medvedev.
 
You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

why yes with all of the verification inc. AND a complete disconnect from any linkage to Missile defense apparatus, development etc...
Verification is still there.

where? not at the Voltinsk strategic missile factory......

Star Wars opens up a new arena of nuclear escallation. The easiest way to defeat a missile defense system is to throw more missiles at it.

We still have 1500 missiles that we will never use

you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about, in fact your statement is response to mine makes zero sense.
 
Finally..

The arguments against this treaty made no sense.

Do you even understand the arguments for the the treaty? You dont seem to be making them.

Besides, why is wanting to discuss and debate it mean you are against the treaty?

Is it so unreasonable to discuss and debate these issues?
 
Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

Ronnie Reagan started the campaign for START and GWB 41 signed the first treaty.

Why do you detest republican achievements? Or why do you piss on Ronnie's accomplishments and legacy?
 
Republicans preventing this WOULD be what is best for the country, wrongwinger

You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?
 
Finally..

The arguments against this treaty made no sense.

Do you even understand the arguments for the the treaty? You dont seem to be making them.

Besides, why is wanting to discuss and debate it mean you are against the treaty?

Is it so unreasonable to discuss and debate these issues?

Did you notice the lefties are ignoring this question?


I guess we must pass it to know what's in it.....:eusa_doh:
 
You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?


It's amazing that your hyper-partisanship leads to such ignorance
 
Finally..

The arguments against this treaty made no sense.

Do you even understand the arguments for the the treaty? You dont seem to be making them.

Besides, why is wanting to discuss and debate it mean you are against the treaty?

Is it so unreasonable to discuss and debate these issues?

Did you notice the lefties are ignoring this question?


I guess we must pass it to know what's in it.....:eusa_doh:

what 'lefties', hon? they already know what's in it. they have had more debate on this than on most things and the first START treaty took 3 days to ratify.

it has been endorsed by every past secretary of state and each former president.

pure partisan hackery not to ratify it notwithstanding the propaganda of mitch mcconnell and john kyl.
 
Is it so unreasonable to discuss and debate these issues? The answer is that, yes, is not unreasonable to debate and discuss the issue, and, yes, it has been adequately debated and discussed.

At least eleven Republican patriot senators will vote for it.

Then the GOP will cave under to the 9-11 responders' bill, and we all will have realized the "massive" and "epic changing" election of last month.

Either we learn to work with Obama, or he will make us look as stupid as Clinton did to the party.
 
You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?


It's amazing that your hyper-partisanship leads to such ignorance

I am completely non partisan, egg on face.

Unlike you I don't allow childish ideological allegiance to separate me from the good of the nation.
 
Finishing the treaty is best now for the country. The far wack right has not shown any reason in light of the former presidents and secretaries of states saying "yes, this is good," and the diamondaves saying "no." Moronic.
 
Do you even understand the arguments for the the treaty? You dont seem to be making them.

Besides, why is wanting to discuss and debate it mean you are against the treaty?

Is it so unreasonable to discuss and debate these issues?

Did you notice the lefties are ignoring this question?


I guess we must pass it to know what's in it.....:eusa_doh:

what 'lefties', hon?
The ones who posted above me...

they already know what's in it. they have had more debate on this than on most things and the first START treaty took 3 days to ratify.
I don't believe enough time was spent on it...

it has been endorsed by every past secretary of state and each former president.
Yay...

pure partisan hackery not to ratify it notwithstanding the propaganda of mitch mcconnell and john kyl.

I'd rather see more discussion... That's not partisan hackery, hon...
 
Did you notice the lefties are ignoring this question?


I guess we must pass it to know what's in it.....:eusa_doh:

what 'lefties', hon?
The ones who posted above me...


I don't believe enough time was spent on it...

it has been endorsed by every past secretary of state and each former president.
Yay...

pure partisan hackery not to ratify it notwithstanding the propaganda of mitch mcconnell and john kyl.

I'd rather see more discussion... That's not partisan hackery, hon...

The pentagon brass is unanimously for it. This direction was universally accepted by every president since Nixon.

To object is to pick nits. But the real reason why rejecting this treaty is stupid is because it undermines all non proliferation efforts.

If our nation and Russia can have unlimited nukes why can't Iran, NK and AQ? There is no moral authority to deny them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top