PDA

View Full Version : All that's left is to loathe them



Gerarddm
12-19-2010, 02:56 PM
Mitch McConnell came out today opposed to the new START treaty ( see story in today's NYTimes). Migod, migod.

'Obdurate' comes to mind, but I need a word that expresses my contempt more.

Broad strategic thinking is evidently extinct in today's Republican Party.

S.V. Airlie
12-19-2010, 03:09 PM
Mitch McConnell came out today opposed to the new START treaty ( see story in today's NYTimes). Migod, migod.

'Obdurate' comes to mind, but I need a word that expresses my contempt more.

Broad strategic thinking is evidently extinct in today's Republican Party.

Did he give any reasons? I didn't see any in the small NYTimes article I read.

So many of these treaties, bills and resolutions are such lawyer speak...it ends up confusing to say the least. Nothing is ever straight forward.

Not to try to defend him but I would like a reason he isn't voting on the bill.If nothing else the people should deserve a reason. There may be one I can't find or yes, understand.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2010, 03:53 PM
McConnell, interviewed on CNN, said that although the Senate foreign relations committee had studied the Strategic Arms Reduction treaty, other members of the Senate had not. "I don't think this is the best time to be doing this. Members are uneasy with it," McConnell said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/19/us-russian-nuclear-treaty-collaps

The START treaty was signed by the U.S. and Russian presidents in April. And Mitch protests that not enough members of the Senate have had an opportunity to study it? What a freaking joke.

Really, Jamie, what else can you expect from a guy who told the National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Isn't that reason enough for the GOP Senate Leader to attempt to kill the treaty?

Tristan
12-19-2010, 04:09 PM
McConnell doesn't have to do anything, just to look at him, self-satisfied fu-k-weasel, is enough to turn my stomach.

Ian McColgin
12-19-2010, 04:23 PM
The treaty is short - I posted the length in another thread a couple weeks agao and can't recall exactly but, perhaps, under twenty pages. There are a few more pages of protocols that are just normal diplo-process. Really, any Senator who has not read it is not performing even minimally in office.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2010, 04:51 PM
.
The press is not doing its job which is one reason sleazebags like Mitch McConnell get away with outrageous rationalizations for their behavior.

Why didn't the CNN interviewer challenge him? "The treaty was signed in April. It is only about twenty pages long. The text can be accessed on the internet. Why have GOP legislators not been able to find the time to study it?"

Really, the mainstream news media bears a large responsibility for the number of uniformed and misinformed Americans. And that is the kind of atmosphere in which irresponsible pols like Mitch McConnell thrive.

LeeG
12-19-2010, 04:56 PM
McConnell doesn't have to do anything, just to look at him, self-satisfied fu-k-weasel, is enough to turn my stomach.

ok, fu-weasel works

paul oman
12-19-2010, 07:01 PM
lots of us think it is too important to be addressed by a lame duck congress.
But that said, there must be both good and bad things in the treaty, and just because someone is either for or against it, is no reason for nasty personal attacks on that person. Especially at Christmas time! Cheer up, be happy! Your views are just as likely to be completely wrong as mine are, or as any member of congress.

Osborne Russell
12-19-2010, 07:29 PM
I got your Christmas Spirit right here, Chimpdoodle.


lots of us think it is too important to be addressed by a lame duck congress.

Imaginary friends. Who's us? Got a stool in your pocket? I mean besides McConnell.


But that said, there must be both good and bad things in the treaty

Gee whiz, Grandma Allen, how can we make up our minds? Aren't there people who like, that actually is their job? They were entrusted with it, they took an oath to do it, they are paid to do it? I don't know, I'm just a kindly Grandma duh by cracky tsk tsk tsk.


and just because someone is either for or against it, is no reason for nasty personal attacks on that person.

Yeah. Just because someone is for or against the final solution is no reason for nasty personal attacks on that person.



Especially at Christmas time! Cheer up, be happy! Your views are just as likely to be completely wrong as mine are, or as any member of congress.

Yes, we can't do anything because we could be wrong, you sappy twit. Bite me, for Christmas.

Glen Longino
12-19-2010, 07:51 PM
lots of us think it is too important to be addressed by a lame duck congress.
But that said, there must be both good and bad things in the treaty, and just because someone is either for or against it, is no reason for nasty personal attacks on that person. Especially at Christmas time! Cheer up, be happy! Your views are just as likely to be completely wrong as mine are, or as any member of congress.

..."lots of us think"...

There's your first problem. Trying to do a job without the proper equipment!;)
You and puff adder in tandem could not think your way out of a wet paper bag.
Your brains and your souls are contaminated with Bilge Water.:D

BrianW
12-19-2010, 08:03 PM
Some very ugly people on here these days.

LeeG
12-19-2010, 08:12 PM
Some very ugly people on here these days.

I showered and shaved

ccmanuals
12-19-2010, 08:21 PM
Who really expects McConnell to do the right thing? I just don't think it's in his DNA.

Rich Jones
12-19-2010, 08:24 PM
I also loath the GOP. But, it's possible that McConnel is holding off for a few months so as not to make it seem like Obama has three victories in a row. The tax deal was no victory, but Obama just might be able to spin it that way. The U.S. voter has a very short memory. DADT was a victory and McConnel might not like it to appear that Obama is getting too much too soon. Whether the nuke treaty is passed now or two months from now won't make much difference, but if McConnel votes against it then, well, yes he is a total jerk with nothing but dirty politics on his agenda.

Glen Longino
12-19-2010, 08:40 PM
Some very ugly people on here these days.

I assume you're Not talking about Oman and pefjr!;)

htom
12-19-2010, 09:18 PM
As I understood the complaint this morning, the State Department heads, National Security Advisors, and CJCSs are all agreed that there's one meaning to some paragraph, and at least some of their Russian contra-parts are agreed that it means something so different as to be contradictory to the American understanding. No meeting of minds, shouldn't sign contract, there are only going to be problems. c/sign contract/ratify treaty/.

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2010, 10:03 PM
What Tristan said; doubled.

Moby Nick

Ian McColgin
12-19-2010, 10:21 PM
I think htom is referring to the objection that Sen Graham raised on TV this morning. The Senator's issues were infact addressed some days ago on the senate floor. It's about changing ICBM silos to missle defense purposes. Silos already converted are grandfathered and in fact there are no plans or even thoughts of plans to change any others. Graham's objection is a hypothetical fantasy that he already knows is a non-issue. In other ways he was more candid, stating rather baldly that he's very unhappy with how much work it was to get the tax cuts for the richest and he's really ticked about the end of DADT. This is just Graham being a spoiled child.

elf
12-19-2010, 11:03 PM
That's the only way he knows to be. McConnell and DeMint are still two as well. For that matter, so is Palin and her tired Alaskan sidekick who won't concede.