Called upon to do the impossible for the ungrateful...

I don't know what Obamacare has to do with Obama not funding the military....I guess it is your weak attempt to change and deflect from the thread topic. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

chirps the King of Weak

I don't know what Obamacare has to do with Obama not funding the military....I guess it is your weak attempt to change and deflect from the thread topic. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

it doesn't... it has to do with your silly assumption Obie has control over the republican mouse house

The president's power over the Congress isn't the issue; you deny that the military cuts are Obama's.

The facts are clear. The military sequestration cuts were Obama's idea; he lobbied for them, he demanded them, he schemed for them. And after Congress adopted Obama's cuts, Obama defended them with threats of veto.

FACTS JACK !

The president's power over the Congress isn't the issue; you deny that the military cuts are Obama's.

The facts are clear. The military sequestration cuts were Obama's idea; he lobbied for them, he demanded them, he schemed for them. And after Congress adopted Obama's cuts, Obama defended them with threats of veto.

FACTS JACK ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Please refer to Post #11, "factboy" (haw haw haw)

There is nothing (bad) that happens on this earth that is not Obie's fault..Fact Jack

Try to spin it; but the military cuts were Obama's idea. After Congress approved Obama's military cuts (sequestration), Congress tried to restore the cuts, but Obama threatened to veto any restoration of the cuts.

FACT JACK !

Trendaway (a justly earned handle if there ever was one), not fact - your delusion, OFF.

You don't have to believe Politifact, how about Bob Woodward. He says that Obama proposed the sequestration and the White House failed to rebutt that. Obama is Sequestration.

The OP is that Obama is demanding that the men and women of the military protect his honor but he won't even give them a proper pay raise that he has given government workers.

As for the entirely stupid comment about armor on HumVees, you go to war with the weapons you have. It was the Congress who would be called upon to fund armoring fighting vehicles and not the president. Ask the democrats why they, who controlled congress, did not armor the HumVees, did not overhaul the ships, replenished the missiles, mothballed working weapons platforms, or fund the developement of a new main battle tank before we went to war? When Obama controlled all three legislative bodies why did the democratic party FAIL to act even then.

I am navy so tell me why the democrats have:
decommissioned the Ticonderoga class cruisers
decommissioned the Wichita class oilers
decommissioned and sold the Osprey class minehunting ships
decommissioned and sold the Kidd class destroyers

Possible early retirement (Ticonderoga class Cruisers)

Due to Budget Control Act of 2011 requirements to cut the Defense Budget for FY2013 and subsequent years, plans are being considered to decommission some of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers.[8] For the U.S. Defense 2013 Budget Proposal, the U.S. Navy is to decommission seven cruisers early in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.[9]
Because of these retirements, the U.S. Navy is expected to fall short of its requirement for 94 missile defense cruisers and destroyers beginning in FY 2025 and continuing past the end of the 30-year planning period. While this is a new requirement as of 2011, and the U.S. Navy has historically never had so many large missile-armed surface combatants, the relative success of the AEGIS ballistic missile defense system has shifted this national security requirement onto the U.S. Navy.[10] Critics have charged that the early retirement of these cruisers will leave the Navy's ship fleet too small for the nation's defense tasks as the U.S. enacts a policy of "pivot" to the Western Pacific, a predominantly maritime theater. The U.S. House has passed a budget bill to require that these cruisers instead be refitted to handle the missile defense role.[11]

Wichita-class replenishment oilers
comprised a class of seven replenishment oilers used by the United States Navy from the late 1960s to the mid-1990s. During this time the ships were commissioned naval auxiliaries with the hull classification AOR. The ships were designed for rapid underway replenishment using both connected replenishment and vertical replenishment. The ships could carry 160,000 barrels of petroleum fuel, 600 tons of munitions, 200 tons of dry stores and 100 tons of refrigerated stores. The original concept was that the AORs would serve the same function for the anti-submarine carrier (CVS) groups that the larger, faster Sacramento-class AOEs did for the attack carrier (CVA) groups.
With the reduction in the U.S. Navy fleet, these ships were all decommissioned and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR) in the 1990s.
Decommissioning (Osprey class Minehunting vessels)

All of these ships were decommissioned in 2006–07. The Hellenic Navy received two of the Osprey-class from the US Navy: MHC-52 Heron, renamed Calypso and MHC-53 Pelican, renamed Euniki. Two more were transferred to the Egyptian Navy: MHC-60 Cardinal, renamed al Sedeeq (MHC-521) and MHC-61 Raven, renamed al Farouk (MHC-524). On April 29, 2008 the President of the United States was authorized by the United States Congress (in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) to transfer by grant MHC-58 Black Hawk to Turkey. The sale of MHC-55 Oriole and MHC-59 Falcon to Republic of China (aka Taiwan) as well as MHC-62 Shrike to Turkey was also authorized as part of a supply package including F-16 multirole combat jet upgrade kits, Patriot missiles and Black Hawk helicopters.[2]
The Congress of the USA approved the transfer on September 10, 2008, of the MHC-51 Osprey and MHC-54 Robin to the Hellenic Navy.[3]
It was reported on 29 September 2010 in Indian Media that the US Senate has approved the sale of MHC-56 Kingfisher & MHC-57 Cormorant to the Indian Navy.[4][5]

History (Kidd (Ayatollah) class destroyers)

Originally built for the former Imperial Iranian Navy, the contracts were canceled when the 1979 Iranian Revolution began, and the ships were completed for the U.S. Navy. Because they were equipped with heavy-duty air conditioning and other features that made them suitable in hot climates, they tended to be used in the Middle East, specifically the Persian Gulf itself. During their service with the U.S. Navy, the ships were popularly known as the "Ayatollah" or "dead admiral" class.
All four ships were decommissioned from the U.S. Navy in the late 1990s, and were initially offered for sale to Australia in 1997 for A$30 million each.[1] In 1999, the offer was rejected, based on extensive problems the Royal Australian Navy had encountered during the acquisition of two surplus Newport class tank landing ships from the U.S. Navy in 1994.[1] After the Australian refusal, the four ships were offered to Greece, which also refused.[1]

The president's power over the Congress isn't the issue; you deny that the military cuts are Obama's.

The facts are clear. The military sequestration cuts were Obama's idea; he lobbied for them, he demanded them, he schemed for them. And after Congress adopted Obama's cuts, Obama defended them with threats of veto.

FACTS JACK ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

https://www.disabledveterans.org/201...lion-veterans/

trying to get the republicans to accept any responsibility is like trying to catch a fart in a wind tunnel

I guess these geniuses can't figure out what the phrase "across the board" means.

Across the board sequestration cuts - sequestration cuts were conceived by Obama, lobbied for by Obama, and ultimately Obama threatened veto of any rollback of his sequestration cuts.

What is so hard to understand about that ?

FACT JACK !

Across the board sequestration cuts - sequestration cuts were conceived by Obama, lobbied for by Obama, and ultimately Obama threatened veto of any rollback of his sequestration cuts.

What is so hard to understand about that ?

FACT JACK ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

nobody is saying otherwise ... but the FACT remains they were passed by congress and that includes the republican house


now remind everyone again how the POTUS controls the house and MADE them pass the sequester

And don't forget. The republicans tried to avoid across the board cuts with the Toomey-Inhofe bill, giving Obama flexibility in spending cuts. The Toomey-Inhofe Bill was approved in the Senate with limited bi-partisan support. But Obama opposed the bill. Obama wanted the cuts to go through so he could try to use it as a wedge issue against the Republicans ! Obama issued his threat to veto Toomey-Inhofe !

Obama would rather see vets suffer under his sequestration cuts than have the flexibility to fully fund the military.

Why did Obama oppose Toomey-Inhofe ?