Republicans in charge: 911 can wait.. Now START can wait....

[LibocalypseNow]

BOOOOOSH did 911. Haven't you heard? So if another 911 happens on your Hopey Changey One's watch,it will be because your Hopey Changey planned and carried it out. You can't have it both ways. This is your guy's show now. If anything happens,it's all on him. This START Treaty doesn't have anything to do with that though. Nice try.

 

[shintao]

BOOOOOSH did 911. Haven't you heard? So if another 911 happens on your Hopey Changey One's watch,it will be because your Hopey Changey planned and carried it out. You can't have it both ways. This is your guy's show now. If anything happens,it's all on him. This START Treaty doesn't have anything to do with that though. Nice try.

Of course you cannot see the simularities being played out, because...................... pick one.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Still doesn't make this Treaty a "Crisis." I think most people are sick of this President and Democrats calling everything a "Crisis." There is no need to ram this thing through. The World will not suddenly explode if it's not rammed through. It can wait till January when the real Congress takes over. This Lame Duck Congress is done. No one cares what they think anymore. No Rubber Stamping. You Democrats of all people should support the Republicans on that.

This is how the Statists operate. Create crisis, create unrest and you help create need for central, authoritarian figures. Read Chomsky, read Allinsky. They have told us how they plan on doing this.

Stopping terrorists was just another phony crisis for the right. You see, it isn't a crisis until after 3,000 human beings fry in jet fuel. Then it is a crisis.

Stopping Republicans is just a phony crisis for YOU!

It's pretty obvious that's what you are about here. Especially, as I pointed out, equating 9/11 with this treaty is about as dumb as you can get.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You are talking like the congressional fools who thought saving Americans from 911 wasn't important enough to prevent. Everyday without a treaty is a day the Russiians can avoid inspections of the nuclear arms programs, a real Christmas treat for them and a death bed for you. Like 911, you can perish knowing it was your retards who sent you to an early grave. I wonder if there will be video tapes of people raining down from the sky after the explosion, like 911.

Okay, you are a total dumbass.

LIKE A FREAKING TREATY WITH AL QUEDA WOULD HAVE PREVENTED 9/11????????????????

I mean HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

And HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, bringing up 9/11 is a bad way to back up your treaty argument since the situation involved , VIOLATING WEAPONS TREATIES IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!!!

There were all kinds of weapons used in the Soviet war on Afghanistan that violated treaties. The whole damn thing violated treaties.

How STUPID do you have to be to equate 9/11 with another dumbass Russian TREATY???????????

We have had inspectors before. Just like Saddam, the Russians know how to get around them.

But another paper tiger treaty is going to prevent another 9/11.

YOU are just using this treaty as a distraction against Republicans because they ARE putting domestic business first.

That's obvious, because you OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT when you try to use 9/11 as a evidence for your argument.

You lost that one.

You are an imbecile talking out your ass. Just opening your ass made you Lose this one, Loser!!! :

Of COURSE! That's why you can't REFUTE ONE LINE OF IT. Just call me stupid and run away!

But the truth is, THE SOVIETS VIOLATED TREATY AFTER TREATY IN AFGHANISTAN!

And somehow a NEW TREATY is going to prevent 9/11, when you can draw a line from the Soviet/Afghanistan war TO 9/11???????????

You are a total idiot, just trying to find a way to deflect away from the Republican agenda of cutting spending/extending the Bush tax cuts.

You can't attack that agenda. So you go on the EXTREMELY LAME meme of how another treaty WILL BE PEACE IN OUR TIME.

As I pointed out. We have had treaty after treaty with Russia/the Soviets. THEY VIOLATED EVERY ONE OF THEM.

Yet, another treaty is the answer to everything.

Everyone sees the EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT AGENDA behind your entire rant.

No one is buying it.

 

[Vanquish]

Fix it:

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Thar you go Annie. 12 immediate issues that could melt down your family into crispy critters, and Retards think spending your money and tax cuts are more important.

You know you don't fool anyone.

What you are saying, is you are angry Republicans ARE focused on cutting spending extending the Bush tax cuts, instead of getting distracted.

And liberals are ALWAYS TALKING LIKE we are all going to die if the lastest "treaty" with the Soviets/Russians isn't signed.

Well we have signed more of those stupid things than I can count on one hand, AND THE RUSSIANS ALWAYS VIOLATE THEM.

We are the only ones that obey the stupid things and they always weaken US.

It's always Democrats and "moderate Republicans" (aka Rinos) like Ford that were all hot to sign treaties with Russia.

Reagan knew they were a joke and would walk away from the table.

And THE LIBERALS WOULD WHINE AND WRING THEIR HANDS. Oh!!!!! Reagan is going to get us into a war. Oh nuclear war is just a count down a way.

The liberal media had movie after movie about what this country would look like after a nuclear war. We had "Threads." And we had "The Day After." (I think that was it's name).

DIDN'T HAPPEN. Instead, Reagan stayed firm and the Soviet Union fell.

Now, HERE WE GO AGAIN. Another liberal president wants to sign a treaty with Russia, WHICH THEY WILL NEVER OBEY, but it's PEACE IN OUR TIME if it's signed.

But if it isn't, we are all heading for war. Boooooooooooo!

Never changes. You libs always think the answer is the next stupid treaty.

Did Neville Chamberlain never teach you liberals anything?????

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls[/ame]

This post above is total revisionist bullshit. Yep, I'm calling you on it. The Gipper wasn't some badass who was better than his legislature. Sometimes you talk things out...sometimes you dont. Even Congressional liberals have done that. To inflate Ronnie to some demi-god status makes you sound imbecilic.

What you're failing to grasp is that the irony that what Reagan fought for is being trampled simply because it's got Obama's name attached to it. Conservatives tried to stonewall healthcare and make it Obama's Waterloo. Now you're trying to stonewall everything else that is even close to being tied to him. Even when YOUR OWN party member says it's important.

Stop playing politics and do what's right for the country.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Thar you go Annie. 12 immediate issues that could melt down your family into crispy critters, and Retards think spending your money and tax cuts are more important.

You know you don't fool anyone.

What you are saying, is you are angry Republicans ARE focused on cutting spending extending the Bush tax cuts, instead of getting distracted.

And liberals are ALWAYS TALKING LIKE we are all going to die if the lastest "treaty" with the Soviets/Russians isn't signed.

Well we have signed more of those stupid things than I can count on one hand, AND THE RUSSIANS ALWAYS VIOLATE THEM.

We are the only ones that obey the stupid things and they always weaken US.

It's always Democrats and "moderate Republicans" (aka Rinos) like Ford that were all hot to sign treaties with Russia.

Reagan knew they were a joke and would walk away from the table.

And THE LIBERALS WOULD WHINE AND WRING THEIR HANDS. Oh!!!!! Reagan is going to get us into a war. Oh nuclear war is just a count down a way.

The liberal media had movie after movie about what this country would look like after a nuclear war. We had "Threads." And we had "The Day After." (I think that was it's name).

DIDN'T HAPPEN. Instead, Reagan stayed firm and the Soviet Union fell.

Now, HERE WE GO AGAIN. Another liberal president wants to sign a treaty with Russia, WHICH THEY WILL NEVER OBEY, but it's PEACE IN OUR TIME if it's signed.

But if it isn't, we are all heading for war. Boooooooooooo!

Never changes. You libs always think the answer is the next stupid treaty.

Did Neville Chamberlain never teach you liberals anything?????

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls[/ame]

This post above is total revisionist bullshit. Yep, I'm calling you on it. The Gipper wasn't some badass who was better than his legislature. Sometimes you talk things out...sometimes you dont. Even Congressional liberals have done that. To inflate Ronnie to some demi-god status makes you sound imbecilic.

What you're failing to grasp is that the irony that what Reagan fought for is being trampled simply because it's got Obama's name attached to it. Conservatives tried to stonewall healthcare and make it Obama's Waterloo. Now you're trying to stonewall everything else that is even close to being tied to him. Even when YOUR OWN party member says it's important.

Stop playing politics and do what's right for the country.

Called me on what?

You simply claim Obama is doing what Reagan wanted WITH NO EVIDENCE.

WHO'S DOING REVISIONISM?????????

You obviously read nothing of what I said. WE HAVE DONE PLENTY OF TREATIES!!!!

Each time liberals cry "peace in our time." Each time THE RUSSIANS/SOVIETS BROKE IT. Only we obeyed the treaties.

The only one that stood up and said NO to the Soviets was Reagan, while liberals wailed it would send us into war. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

INSTEAD THE SOVIET UNION FAILED.

You haven't refuted any of that. You simply claimed it didn't happen, because you say so.

With all due respect, this statement was misleading and disingenuous. Ronald Reagan’s long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons presupposed a robust missile defense—the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—that would render offensive nuclear weapons directed at the U.S. obsolete. Reagan’s world view was buttressed by confidence in America’s leading role in the world. As such, Reagan always dealt with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. This included a robust nuclear modernization program, including the B-1 and B-2 bombers, filling out the Trident submarine fleet and its Submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBMs) and the MX or Peacekeeper missile.

The Obama Administration, in contrast, has taken a different approach. Amidst a constant barrage of Russian demands, it canceled the Bush-era European missile defense and has sought to reduce total missile defense funding by $1.62 billion in its FY 2010 Budget Request. In December 2009, the Administration acquiesced to the reduction in missile defense spending—nearly a 15 percent decline from the FY 2009 appropriation of $10.92 billion.)

After the cancellation of the Bush-era missile defense system, both President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pocketed the concessions, smiled, and demanded new ones. Russian president Dmitri Medvedev praised the decision saying, “We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement…I am prepared to continue the dialogue.” Prime Minister Putin said that other US concessions should ensue: “I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow…”

Missle Defense Crucial to Arms Reduction | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

How do I know that (in bold) to be true. Because my Dad worked on the B-1A, B1-B, AND the Trident. He even once took a personal phone call from Reagan on bringing the FIF in under budget.

The Russians kept demanding Reagan cancel SDI and Reagan would NOT do it.

The liberal media derisively called it "Star Wars" and said SDI would never work.

Well, guess what? ANOTHER ONE ON WHICH LIBERALS WERE WRONG!

More than 25 years ago, President Ronald Reagan challenged the U.S. scientific community to develop antiballistic missile technologies that would improve our national security and reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons. Today, the Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, is answering that challenge.

The Missile Defense Agency - U.S. Department of Defense

Liberals wailed and howled that it would bring us to nuclear war if Reagan didn't back down. REAGAN WOULDN'T BACK DOWN.

Compare that to Carter who cancelled B-1A to get the Russians to sign a treaty with him. AND WHAT DID THE RUSSIANS DO WITH THAT TREATY? INVADE AFGHANISTAN!

In Afghanistan, then went on to violate weapons treaty after weapons treaty on the Afghan populace..

YOU? Little ole YOU are calling me out on this? Be my guest. I'm real scared!

So far, what I see is you you bringing a knife to a gun fight. I suggest you bring better artillery, next time, if you want to continue this further.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And this ladies and germs is what you call kicking liberal ass.

 

[Vanquish]

You didnt kick my ass. You repeated your own bullshit. There's a difference. The fact that you quote sources that state facts is great. I like facts. It's your SPIN on the facts that is stupid as ****.

You make sweeping generalizations about liberals and stupid comments about the treaty itself. None of which are backed up by the stupid shit you copy and paste.

BTW...I'm not liberal. I'm a centrist. Might try reading.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You didnt kick my ass. You repeated your own bullshit. There's a difference. The fact that you quote sources that state facts is great. I like facts. It's your SPIN on the facts that is stupid as ****.

You make sweeping generalizations about liberals and stupid comments about the treaty itself. None of which are backed up by the stupid shit you copy and paste.

BTW...I'm not liberal. I'm a centrist. Might try reading.

A) Bwahahaaa! If I had a dime for every liberal who had some label for himself to deny he was liberal.

And then the EGO-CENTRISM of those who claim they are "centrist." They always expect that to stop ANYONE from calling them liberal, as if it wasn't ALL TOO OBVIOUS!

I don't care if you call yourself a moonie. It's your arguments that make it clear you are a liberal.

"Centrist!" What a joke!


B) Yeah, you claim you want facts, and you claim you don't like spin and sweeping generalizations, but then THAT'S ALL YOU GIVE ME.

Sweeping generalizations AND NO FACT.

Who's spinning???

When you have any facts of your own you wish to produce to REFUTE what I've said, be my guest.

Until then, you are still just bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Prove where I am wrong. You just saying I'm wrong, and engaging in spin and "sweeping generalizations" doesn't get the job done.

Produce your own FACTS.

Apparently, you aren't old enough to figure out on your own, that just because you say someone is wrong, doesn't make it so WITHOUT SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

You think you can produce some evidence now?

I won't hold my breath.


C) I can see now, this is going to disintegrate into you doing nothing but trying to get the last word, because you sure having nothing factual to contribute.

Too funny!