Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

didn't a bunch of R senators vote to repeal?

Some of them voted against cloture and then for repeal.

[Adder]

So the (CYA) story of the day is that the R leadership, which previously was against start unless they could get enough defense spending to satisfy themselves, is now opposed to New START because it it doesn't go far enough and they worry it might undermine their favoritest of defense pork (missile defense shield).

The first makes literally zero sense, but I'll let someone else explain.

Leaving us with two possible explanations: (1) these Rs really think that missile defense is so massively important that it outweighs the immediate value of resuming verifications now by entering a treaty that is silent on missile defense, from which we could withdraw in the future, and the potential for futher negotiations on tactical nukes, or (2) these Rs are worried about giving Obama too many "wins."

Which do you think?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some of them voted against cloture and then for repeal.

2 did. Burr (NC) and Ensign (NV).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

So the (CYA) story of the day is that the R leadership, which previously was against start unless they could get enough defense spending to satisfy themselves, is now opposed to New START because it it doesn't go far enough and they worry it might undermine their favoritest of defense pork (missile defense shield).

The first makes literally zero sense, but I'll let someone else explain.

Leaving us with two possible explanations: (1) these Rs really think that missile defense is so massively important that it outweighs the immediate value of resuming verifications now by entering a treaty that is silent on missile defense, from which we could withdraw in the future, and the potential for futher negotiations on tactical nukes, or (2) these Rs are worried about giving Obama too many "wins."

Which do you think?

You forgot 3--that they like Putin so much, they prefer him to the liberal/commie/fascist dystopia that is Obama's America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

So the (CYA) story of the day is that the R leadership, which previously was against start unless they could get enough defense spending to satisfy themselves, is now opposed to New START because it it doesn't go far enough and they worry it might undermine their favoritest of defense pork (missile defense shield).

The first makes literally zero sense, but I'll let someone else explain.

Leaving us with two possible explanations: (1) these Rs really think that missile defense is so massively important that it outweighs the immediate value of resuming verifications now by entering a treaty that is silent on missile defense, from which we could withdraw in the future, and the potential for futher negotiations on tactical nukes, or (2) these Rs are worried about giving Obama too many "wins."

Which do you think?

Obviously, there's another reason here. By voting now, the Dems are looking to subvert Christmas.

Are the Rs going to budge on first responder healthcare?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Are the Rs going to budge on first responder healthcare?

For some reason I thought they already did. I guess not, but Chuck and Kristen say they have the votes.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

For some reason I thought they already did. I guess not, but Chuck and Kristen say they have the votes.

I would like there someday to be a political party that does not resort to saying that a "no" vote on its legislation is un-American, but it looks like both parties are not going to achieve this in my lifetime.

You know what's un-American? Pretending that there is only one possible way to see an issue.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I would like there someday to be a political party that does not resort to saying that a "no" vote on its legislation is un-American, but it looks like both parties are not going to achieve this in my lifetime.

You know what's un-American? Pretending that there is only one possible way to see an issue.

Believing that there is more than one way to see an issue is un-American.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I would like there someday to be a political party that does not resort to saying that a "no" vote on its legislation is un-American, but it looks like both parties are not going to achieve this in my lifetime.

You know what's un-American? Pretending that there is only one possible way to see an issue.

I like how educated socks here attack a person's stance on a proposed bill by stating the title as if that was the entirety of the bill.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I like how educated socks here attack a person's stance on a proposed bill by stating the title as if that was the entirety of the bill.

Hank has a point--look what happens when the Ds propose a bill that does *only* what it says it does-->DADT got 9 R votes, even tho it's one more link in the chain tehgays are using to choke the christ out of Christmas.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Hank has a point--look what happens when the Ds propose a bill that does *only* what it says it does-->DADT got 9 R votes, even tho it's one more link in the chain tehgays are using to choke the christ out of Christmas.

That's why they're all voting to ratify New START, right? Only one thing in there.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's why they're all voting to ratify New START, right? Only one thing in there.

Did you miss the part where they want the USA to become part of post-communist Russia? Because Putin's such a likable dude?

And, because the treaty doesn't *specifically* provide that we can continue to use our fully-operational missile defense system, it might be interpreted by a tortoise to mean that we can't continue to work on developing it.

Also, since you didn't notice, *Reagan* supported the earlier version, and we all know he was a big wimp who just gave everything away to the commies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Hank has a point--look what happens when the Ds propose a bill that does *only* what it says it does-->DADT got 9 R votes, even tho it's one more link in the chain tehgays are using to choke the christ out of Christmas.

I don't think you do this style satire very well. Keep working if you would like, but I think you hurt yourself.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't think you do this style satire very well. Keep working if you would like, but I think you hurt yourself.

I wasn't attempting to satirize you, or your point.

But I've been very negative on the Ds weakness on DADT repeal, and their prior refusal to attempt passage of a stand alone, for a long time.

btw, serious question--what's attached to the first responders health care bill that is unrelated? I hadn't seen/heard anything about that and, assuming you weren't just playing the odds, if the Ds are trying to pass other stuff, too, they're just as bad as the Rs on the Bill.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I wasn't attempting to satirize you, or your point.

But I've been very negative on the Ds weakness on DADT repeal, and their prior refusal to attempt passage of a stand alone, for a long time.

btw, serious question--what's attached to the first responders health care bill that is unrelated? I hadn't seen/heard anything about that and, assuming you weren't just playing the odds, if the Ds are trying to pass other stuff, too, they're just as bad as the Rs on the Bill.

I will wager that Hank has no idea and was just playing the odds.