Well I see the POS POTUS is taking good care of the ones that have kept this country safe but I'm sure the black lives matter more to Obama
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...05814755,d.eXY
- gary5912
- 10-22-2015, 06:40 PM
- WTF
- 10-22-2015, 07:47 PM
Nowhere in the link you provided did it mention black lives matter...it did mention that it prohibited closing Gitmo, not being able to close bases deemed unnecessary. ...
- WombRaider
- 10-22-2015, 07:50 PM
Did you not want to mention what was IN it that led to his veto? Of course not, that would mean telling the truth. He's actually doing better by the military but you would never admit that.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 10-22-2015, 08:08 PM
Did you not want to mention what was IN it that led to his veto? Of course not, that would mean telling the truth. He's actually doing better by the military but you would never admit that. Originally Posted by WombRaiderhow is this good for the us military? how? has the cum dripped up from your asshole into your brain? well we all knew that anyway. so you intellectual gnat, try once again to prove your point here?
- Rey Lengua
- 10-22-2015, 08:32 PM
how is this good for the us military? how? has the cum dripped up from your asshole into your brain? well we all knew that anyway. so you intellectual gnat, try once again to prove your point here? Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidReckon woomby's in "full on campaign mode" for that DOTY award ? He might not kiss too many babies, but he'll sure kiss a lot of ass ( if that's what it takes ! ) !
- The_Waco_Kid
- 10-22-2015, 09:20 PM
- gary5912
- 10-22-2015, 09:33 PM
Nowhere in the link you provided did it mention black lives matter...it did mention that it prohibited closing Gitmo, not being able to close bases deemed unnecessary. ... Originally Posted by WTF
Did you not want to mention what was IN it that led to his veto? Of course not, that would mean telling the truth. He's actually doing better by the military but you would never admit that. Originally Posted by WombRaideryes your right he did not say anything about blacks lives matter I did so fuck you, but it makes prefect since to cut the military budget because he want more money for domestic spending (hand outs ) and still worried about his legacy on his promise to close Gitmo and woomby-tunes how is he actually doing the military a favor when this bill increases pay for the troops and gives them the tools they need to keep your dumb ass safe fucking moron
- WombRaider
- 10-22-2015, 10:07 PM
yes your right he did not say anything about blacks lives matter I did so fuck you, but it makes prefect since to cut the military budget because he want more money for domestic spending (hand outs ) and still worried about his legacy on his promise to close Gitmo and woomby-tunes how is he actually doing the military a favor when this bill increases pay for the troops and gives them the tools they need to keep your dumb ass safe fucking moron Originally Posted by gary5912You are a simpleton, so of course it's going to be tough to explain the intricacies of a spending bill to you, but you need to look deeper than just 'increases pay for the troops'. The republicans, as they are wont to do, are using temporary war accounts to circumvent spending caps for next year.
Here's another thing you fail to mention; Obama has used a veto a total of five times in his presidency. That's one of the lowest numbers in history. He's not saying he doesn't want the troops to be paid, he's saying there are other things at play in the bill and he wants those addressed before he will sign the bill.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 10-22-2015, 10:13 PM
You are a simpleton, so of course it's going to be tough to explain the intricacies of a spending bill to you, but you need to look deeper than just 'increases pay for the troops'. The republicans, as they are wont to do, are using temporary war accounts to circumvent spending caps for next year.cite them cumbreath. enlighten us if you can puss in boots
Here's another thing you fail to mention; Obama has used a veto a total of five times in his presidency. That's one of the lowest numbers in history. He's not saying he doesn't want the troops to be paid, he's saying there are other things at play in the bill and he wants those addressed before he will sign the bill. Originally Posted by WombRaider
- RedLeg505
- 10-22-2015, 10:17 PM
The republicans, as they are wont to do, are using temporary war accounts to circumvent spending caps for next year. Originally Posted by WombRaiderSo, was Obama being a "Republican" when HE used the exact same OCO budget gimmick (what you call temporary war accounts) in the past two years to exceed the Sequester budget caps?? Any idea why Obama thought such gimmicks were a GOOD idea for the past 2 years and only now wants to veto the bi - partisan bill for doing the same thing he did happily for the past two years??
- WombRaider
- 10-22-2015, 10:18 PM
So, was Obama being a "Republican" when HE used the exact same OCO budget gimmick (what you call temporary war accounts) in the past two years to exceed the Sequester budget caps?? Any idea why Obama thought such gimmicks were a GOOD idea for the past 2 years and only now wants to veto the bi - partisan bill for doing the same thing he did happily for the past two years?? Originally Posted by RedLeg505You're going to need to cite an article for this. If you think I'm just going to take your word for it, you're fucking dumber than I already think you are.
- WombRaider
- 10-22-2015, 10:20 PM
cite them cumbreath. enlighten us if you can puss in bootshttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us...-with-gop.html
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
He's trying to sustain military spending over the long term, you fucking shortsighted idiot.
- RedLeg505
- 10-22-2015, 10:24 PM
You're going to need to cite an article for this. If you think I'm just going to take your word for it, you're fucking dumber than I already think you are. Originally Posted by WombRaiderWhat source will you accept. I've already seen you refuse to accept a WSJ article, so what source will you believe Woomby-tunes. Just want to make sure I get one you'll accept. Because there are a LOT of sources that show the past two Defense budgets used the same OCO. (Overseas Contingency Operations) accounting to exceed the Sequester caps. Gonna love pinning your ears back like your customers at the Truck stop showers do when they hold your head and fuck your throat.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 10-22-2015, 10:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us...-with-gop.html"The vetoed defense measure actually meets Mr. Obama’s overall funding request for defense programs because of an arcane budgeting mechanism lawmakers employed to avoid violating the spending caps. By shifting $38 billion to a special war funding account that does not count against those limits, Congress nudged military spending beyond the caps, while nondefense spending remains bound by them, something Mr. Obama has argued is unacceptable."
He's trying to sustain military spending over the long term, you fucking shortsighted idiot. Originally Posted by WombRaider
so his objection was .. what? cumsucker?
- lustylad
- 10-22-2015, 10:55 PM
Obama Vetoes His Own Military
A dubious distinction: The first president ever to stop a defense authorization bill as leverage to further his domestic spending agenda
By JOHN MCCAIN and MAC THORNBERRY
Oct. 22, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET
53 COMMENTS
President Obama is playing politics with national defense, and in the process he is taking down the military’s welfare. In an act of partisan gamesmanship, the president on Thursday vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that a bipartisan majority of Congress passed and that delivers the resources needed by troops to defend the nation.
For more than 50 years, Congress has fulfilled its highest constitutional duty to provide for the common defense by passing the National Defense Authorization Act, and year after year the NDAA has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Before Thursday, such bills had been vetoed by only four past presidents—in 1978, 1988, 1995 and 2007. In each case, the president objected to an actual provision in the bill, and each time Congress’s Armed Services committees were able to find a compromise that earned the presidential signature.
In vetoing this legislation, President Obama has made history, but for all the wrong reasons. He has become the first commander in chief willing to sacrifice national security by vetoing a bill that authorizes pay, benefits and training for U.S. troops, simply because he seeks leverage to pursue his domestic political agenda.
The president didn’t veto the bill because of any of its policies, which make some of the most significant reforms to the Pentagon in more than 30 years, while giving troops the vital capabilities necessary to combat today’s mounting threats.
Instead, President Obama’s veto was about broader spending issues that have absolutely nothing to do with defense. By vowing recently that he “will not fix defense without fixing nondefense spending,” the president is holding the military hostage to increase funding for Washington bureaucracies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.
Let’s be clear: This bill authorizes every dollar of the $612 billion that President Obama requested for national defense. His objection is over an obscure mechanism using the Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO account, to lift defense spending above the harmful caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011. If there is more money for U.S. troops, he demands more money for the EPA. It’s that simple.
But the president’s complaint misses a crucial point: The defense authorization bill cannot solve the spending fight happening in Washington, and it can’t stop budget sequestration. Believe us, if the NDAA were capable of ending sequestration and stopping the dangerous trend of cutting an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years with no military rationale whatsoever, we would have done everything in our power to make it happen.
Only a comprehensive agreement between the White House and Congress can stop budget sequestration, and the White House is unwilling to come to the table. The NDAA is a policy bill that doesn’t spend a dime. Congress can only adjust spending through the appropriations process—not a defense policy bill.
In vetoing this bill, the president imposes more harm and uncertainty on the military at a time when America faces dangerous and complex threats from around the world. He has prevented critical policies from taking effect that would immediately improve the lives of service members and military families while addressing needs of wounded, ill or injured service members. For example, President Obama has rejected measures that open service members’ access to medical care; enhance protections for military sexual-assault victims; extend retirement benefits to more than 80% of service members; make significant, long-overdue reforms to the defense acquisition system; and authorize hundreds of other measures that are critical to national security.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the president’s veto has sent a message to America’s enemies and allies alike that he is more concerned about funding broken Washington bureaucracies than he is about maintaining the nation’s distinction for being defended by the world’s greatest fighting force.
That is the wrong message to send when America faces an array of crises that demand a strong national defense, including war in Afghanistan, China’s illegal activities in the South China Sea, Islamic State’s terrorist reign across Iraq and Syria, Bashar Assad’s bombing campaign—now backed by Russia and Iran—against his own people in Syria, Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and dismemberment of Ukraine, and Iran’s malign activities propping up terrorist proxies destabilizing the Middle East.
These and other threats make it clear that the U.S. faces more national-security threats than at any time since the end of World War II. It is reckless, cynical and downright dangerous for the president to veto the NDAA, denying the American military the authorizations it desperately needs.
We have spoken personally with many of the men and women, here and abroad, who are training to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. They couldn’t care less which governmental spending account their support comes from. They simply want to know that their missions are resourced, their families are taken care of, and their country is behind them.
President Obama is picking the wrong fight when it comes to the defense budget, and he is using Americans who are willing to serve in harm’s way as bargaining chips in a battle he cannot win. On behalf of these men and women in the nation’s military, we urge Congress to do what the president did not: Put the best interests of U.S. troops and national security ahead of politics—and override the veto.
.
A dubious distinction: The first president ever to stop a defense authorization bill as leverage to further his domestic spending agenda
By JOHN MCCAIN and MAC THORNBERRY
Oct. 22, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET
53 COMMENTS
President Obama is playing politics with national defense, and in the process he is taking down the military’s welfare. In an act of partisan gamesmanship, the president on Thursday vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that a bipartisan majority of Congress passed and that delivers the resources needed by troops to defend the nation.
For more than 50 years, Congress has fulfilled its highest constitutional duty to provide for the common defense by passing the National Defense Authorization Act, and year after year the NDAA has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Before Thursday, such bills had been vetoed by only four past presidents—in 1978, 1988, 1995 and 2007. In each case, the president objected to an actual provision in the bill, and each time Congress’s Armed Services committees were able to find a compromise that earned the presidential signature.
In vetoing this legislation, President Obama has made history, but for all the wrong reasons. He has become the first commander in chief willing to sacrifice national security by vetoing a bill that authorizes pay, benefits and training for U.S. troops, simply because he seeks leverage to pursue his domestic political agenda.
The president didn’t veto the bill because of any of its policies, which make some of the most significant reforms to the Pentagon in more than 30 years, while giving troops the vital capabilities necessary to combat today’s mounting threats.
Instead, President Obama’s veto was about broader spending issues that have absolutely nothing to do with defense. By vowing recently that he “will not fix defense without fixing nondefense spending,” the president is holding the military hostage to increase funding for Washington bureaucracies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.
Let’s be clear: This bill authorizes every dollar of the $612 billion that President Obama requested for national defense. His objection is over an obscure mechanism using the Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO account, to lift defense spending above the harmful caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011. If there is more money for U.S. troops, he demands more money for the EPA. It’s that simple.
But the president’s complaint misses a crucial point: The defense authorization bill cannot solve the spending fight happening in Washington, and it can’t stop budget sequestration. Believe us, if the NDAA were capable of ending sequestration and stopping the dangerous trend of cutting an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years with no military rationale whatsoever, we would have done everything in our power to make it happen.
Only a comprehensive agreement between the White House and Congress can stop budget sequestration, and the White House is unwilling to come to the table. The NDAA is a policy bill that doesn’t spend a dime. Congress can only adjust spending through the appropriations process—not a defense policy bill.
In vetoing this bill, the president imposes more harm and uncertainty on the military at a time when America faces dangerous and complex threats from around the world. He has prevented critical policies from taking effect that would immediately improve the lives of service members and military families while addressing needs of wounded, ill or injured service members. For example, President Obama has rejected measures that open service members’ access to medical care; enhance protections for military sexual-assault victims; extend retirement benefits to more than 80% of service members; make significant, long-overdue reforms to the defense acquisition system; and authorize hundreds of other measures that are critical to national security.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the president’s veto has sent a message to America’s enemies and allies alike that he is more concerned about funding broken Washington bureaucracies than he is about maintaining the nation’s distinction for being defended by the world’s greatest fighting force.
That is the wrong message to send when America faces an array of crises that demand a strong national defense, including war in Afghanistan, China’s illegal activities in the South China Sea, Islamic State’s terrorist reign across Iraq and Syria, Bashar Assad’s bombing campaign—now backed by Russia and Iran—against his own people in Syria, Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and dismemberment of Ukraine, and Iran’s malign activities propping up terrorist proxies destabilizing the Middle East.
These and other threats make it clear that the U.S. faces more national-security threats than at any time since the end of World War II. It is reckless, cynical and downright dangerous for the president to veto the NDAA, denying the American military the authorizations it desperately needs.
We have spoken personally with many of the men and women, here and abroad, who are training to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. They couldn’t care less which governmental spending account their support comes from. They simply want to know that their missions are resourced, their families are taken care of, and their country is behind them.
President Obama is picking the wrong fight when it comes to the defense budget, and he is using Americans who are willing to serve in harm’s way as bargaining chips in a battle he cannot win. On behalf of these men and women in the nation’s military, we urge Congress to do what the president did not: Put the best interests of U.S. troops and national security ahead of politics—and override the veto.
.