haha, some MSNBC tech is gonna get fired for accidentaly putting up the "Fox News" bug during that 9/11 rant. Wonder where he even got it from.

haha even the fox news people are turning on the republicans for this. itd be hilarious if it werent so disgraceful.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's really no excuse for blocking START. I suppose some may consider this a meaningless social issue along with DADT, but I kinda think nuclear proliferation is a bigger deal than tax cuts.

I don't think it's more important than the tax cut bill because I don't know how much it will actually do to prevent nuclear proliferation, but the concerns with passing the treaty seem to be more procedural than substantial, which I don't really get.

How exactly do you not understand it? The more active nuclear warheads Russia holds the higher the probability that one of them falls into the hands of a rogue nation or organization. Pretty basic concept I'd think.

And why are the Republicans are fighting this? For what reason?

Do they just really like nuclear bombs? Are they trying to deny Obama a foreign policy victory?

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's really no excuse for blocking START. I suppose some may consider this a meaningless social issue along with DADT, but I kinda think nuclear proliferation is a bigger deal than tax cuts.

I don't think it's more important than the tax cut bill because I don't know how much it will actually do to prevent nuclear proliferation, but the concerns with passing the treaty seem to be more procedural than substantial, which I don't really get.

How exactly do you not understand it? The more active nuclear warheads Russia holds the higher the probability that one of them falls into the hands of a rogue nation or organization. Pretty basic concept I'd think.

Phan In Phlorida, in this thread on Dec 3 wrote:BTW, in case anyone missed it...

Putin said on the Larry King Live yesterday that with no New START, Russia will "have to react somehow" (meaning building up and stockpiling more nukes). "Russia will be simply obligated to ensure its security with different means, including the deployment of new strategic complexes, new nuclear missiles," Putin said. "That's not our choice. We don't want that to happen. But this is not a threat on our part. We simply want to say that this is all we expect if we don't come to an agreement."

And Medvedev said tuesday in his annual address to both houses of parliament "Either we reach agreement on missile defense and create a full joint cooperation mechanism, or, if we don’t go into a constructive agreement, a new phase of the arms race will begin. And we will have to make a decision on deploying new means of attack."

kopphanatic wrote:And why are the Republicans are fighting this? For what reason?

Do they just really like nuclear bombs? Are they trying to deny Obama a foreign policy victory?

Phan In Phlorida, in this thread on Dec 3 wrote:Maybe the plan to stimulate the economy is a new arms race with the Ruskies?

Wasn't sure if the color tag would work inside a quote tag. Went with green for a Christmasee theme

65-31!!!! DADT repeal officially passes

Really should have been done a long time ago.

ok, let's pass some more legislation here people

Damn. I've been reading about Daniel Inouye for the past 45 minutes. This guy's led an interesting life.

pacino wrote:<embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:368898' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNnG-x1pnj0[/youtube]

Congratulations Sheperd Smith, you have a soul - I LOVE the gratuitous criticism of the tax cut for rich people!

pacino wrote:65-31!!!! DADT repeal officially passes

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's really no excuse for blocking START. I suppose some may consider this a meaningless social issue along with DADT, but I kinda think nuclear proliferation is a bigger deal than tax cuts.

I don't think it's more important than the tax cut bill because I don't know how much it will actually do to prevent nuclear proliferation, but the concerns with passing the treaty seem to be more procedural than substantial, which I don't really get.

How exactly do you not understand it? The more active nuclear warheads Russia holds the higher the probability that one of them falls into the hands of a rogue nation or organization. Pretty basic concept I'd think.

The part I said I didn't understand is that concerns with passing the treaty seems to be more procedural than substantial. The substantive complaint is a concern that the treaty will limit our missile defense capabilities. The procedural complaints are whining about there not being enough time to pass it because Reid is pushing the DREAM and DADT stuff, and that the newly elected senators should be allowed to have a say on the treaty. I don't get why senators think either of those things are important, especially the second one. I guess the amount of time thing is more valid if they want to have a few days of floor debate to argue about the details where there is disagreement, but there's still two weeks left before the new Congress, and this is the only big ticket item left on the agenda.

If they get the nuke treaty and 9/11 responders done--both things that should be fully bipartisan, but aren't because nothing is anymore--it'll be tough to argue this hasn't been a productive session.

Not just the lame-duck either; the whole 111th. But now that we see so much more how the sausage is made, even if it's delicious and there's a lot of it, we're still disgusted.

I'd say it's more like scrapple than sausage.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'd say it's more like scrapple than sausage.

head cheese, verily

kopphanatic wrote:McCain is a piece of crap.

Speaking of McCain being a piece of crap, I wonder what LAExile is doing these days.

Wow, just wow. Like the first responders thing wasn't bad enough, now the Republicans (and pro-life Democrats) in the House are cool with child marriage. (Note: the Senate Bill passed unanimously).

Awesome work there guys.

wait, what bill is this?

CalvinBall wrote:wait, what bill is this?

House republicans block bill aiming to prevent child marriage

I was going to comment "amazing", but it's not amazing at all, more like expected.

swishnicholson wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:wait, what bill is this?

House republicans block bill aiming to prevent child marriage

I was going to comment "amazing", but it's not amazing at all, more like expected.

to be fair, the republicans objection seems to be more about unconsidered spending in general than principled rejection of moral relativism in this specific case

of course with respect to the former, there are no end of republican sponsored "unconsidered spending" precedents that could be pointed to (many if not most military) to suggest their current objections are spurious