president veto

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Obama will veto anything he wants and the Democrats will rally to support him and filibuster the Republicans. If the Republicans work to circumvent his veto and negotiate, Obama will dig his heels in and get the media to blame the Republicans for a shutdown. You've fallen for it many times.

This is Obama's 5th veto ever.

It sounds like Obama got congress to negotiate...what say you Mr gnadfly?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You do understand that Obama has used the veto pen less than any President ever.

No, you are a partisan hack, not capable of a rational discussion.

You're the partisan hack, fagboy. If you want to compare Odumbo with his predecessors, then do it appropriately. He is the first POTUS ever to veto this specific bill for reasons that have nothing to do with its contents.

Why is your reading comprehension so abysmal? John McCain already explained it to you in post #106 of this thread. For your benefit, I will repeat what he explained:

"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."

This thread wasn't started to complain that Odumbo vetoes too many bills - that's just another strawman tossed out by a partisan hack who can't debate any topic head-on.
.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

+1

Why lookee at that, folks - here we see one partisan hack saluting another partisan hack for a strawman post that demonstrates again what a partisan hack he is!

.

[Yssup Rider]

Bush league hack offering no substance, just shit.

What a pissant!

[lustylad]

Go ahead and show everyone you're not a "bush league hack offering no substance" by substantively refuting what I just posted at #152 above, you fucking worthless dipshit.

Or are you just here to spam the board and pad your post count again?
.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're the partisan hack, fagboy. If you want to compare Odumbo with his predecessors, then do it appropriately. He is the first POTUS ever to veto this specific bill for reasons that have nothing to do with its contents.

Why is your reading comprehension so abysmal? John McCain already explained it to you in post #106 of this thread. For your benefit, I will repeat what he explained:

"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."

This thread wasn't started to complain that Odumbo vetoes too many bills - that's just another strawman tossed out by a partisan hack who can't debate any topic head-on.
.

He projected to the gitmo provision. And you know as well as I do that he didn't sacrifice national security or benefits or pay. That's all partisan bullshit. Who's the partisan hack now?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

He projected to the gitmo provision. And you know as well as I do that he didn't sacrifice national security or benefits or pay. That's all partisan bullshit. Who's the partisan hack now?

"Projected"? Are you stupid or just too lazy to proofread your posts? Odumbo already signed 6 prior bills with the Gitmo provision in them, you ignorant jackass. His stated reason for vetoing the NDAA this time around is to coerce more non-military spending. His actions clearly show a reckless WILLINGNESS to sacrifice national security (whatever the ultimate outcome) and an obvious unfitness to be Commander-in-Chief.

And if you think that's "partisan bullshit" go ask the folks in the military what THEY think of Odumbo's veto. Maybe "Big Sir" can straighten out your Grubered lib-retarded ass.
.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're the partisan hack, fagboy. If you want to compare Odumbo with his predecessors, then do it appropriately. He is the first POTUS ever to veto this specific bill for reasons that have nothing to do with its contents.

Why is your reading comprehension so abysmal? John McCain already explained it to you in post #106 of this thread. For your benefit, I will repeat what he explained:

"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."

.
.

He vetoed the Bill and threw the ball in Congresses court to see if they were willing to sacrifice national security.


They were not and everyone except Budget Hawk got what they wanted. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Fuckfaces like yourself cry about National security not being enough (even though we spend more than any number of nations combined) and by doing so , wind up blowing up the national debt and then you bitch about it!
If you are not willing to cut Defense spending , then quit bitching about the debt.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

"

And if you think that's "partisan bullshit" go ask the folks in the military what THEY think of Odumbo's veto. Maybe "Big Sir" can straighten out your Grubered lib-retarded ass.
.

Of course folks in the military want more money....just like working class folks want to pay less taxes....at some point that equation does not work.


IMHO we spend to damn much money policing the world and obviously not getting enough back in return , or we would not have this huge debt.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

He vetoed the Bill and threw the ball in Congresses court to see if they were willing to sacrifice national security.

So fagboy, I assume you applied the same logic during the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations, right?

The House Republicans threw the ball in Obama's court to see if he was willing to default on our debt and sacrifice the full faith and credit of the United States.

You were cool with that too, right?
.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So fagboy, I assume you applied the same logic during the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations, right?

The House Republicans threw the ball in Obama's court to see if he was willing to default on our debt and sacrifice the full faith and credit of the United States.

You were cool with that too, right?
.

Did we default? No. So yes , I'm cool with that.

It led to Obama sequestration...now to the present discussion. Congress threw the ball to Obama. He threw it back and put the ball in their court. They then sent him a bill he could sign. Those are just the political facts.

This thread has been a blame game thread in which I said we are all to blame. You seem to think it is Obama's fault for something that did not actually happen. 1) We did not default on our debt in 2011 and 2) The military got what they wanted in this new bill. WTF is wrong with you? You can not blame him for something that did not happen.

Yet you have not addressed the real problem imho....which is debt and the fact that both parties basically are scared to be blamed for cutting Defense spending. Without cutting that , the budget will never shrink. Remember the nineties?

So like I said, fuckfaces like you scream both about the debt and how much more the Defense Department needs. Without the balls to rein in the Defense Budget, you will never be able to rein in the federal Deficit.



.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by lustylad

"Projected"? Are you stupid or just too lazy to proofread your posts? Odumbo already signed 6 prior bills with the Gitmo provision in them, you ignorant jackass. His stated reason for vetoing the NDAA this time around is to coerce more non-military spending. His actions clearly show a reckless WILLINGNESS to sacrifice national security (whatever the ultimate outcome) and an obvious unfitness to be Commander-in-Chief.

And if you think that's "partisan bullshit" go ask the folks in the military what THEY think of Odumbo's veto. Maybe "Big Sir" can straighten out your Grubered lib-retarded ass.
.

But...but...but woomby is a " freelance writer for travel brochures " ! How DARE you question his spelling or grammar in a post ! Him being the PERFECT ( well abused ) asshole, you KNOW he'll deny it !

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

"Projected"? Are you stupid or just too lazy to proofread your posts? Odumbo already signed 6 prior bills with the Gitmo provision in them, you ignorant jackass. His stated reason for vetoing the NDAA this time around is to coerce more non-military spending. His actions clearly show a reckless WILLINGNESS to sacrifice national security (whatever the ultimate outcome) and an obvious unfitness to be Commander-in-Chief.

And if you think that's "partisan bullshit" go ask the folks in the military what THEY think of Odumbo's veto. Maybe "Big Sir" can straighten out your Grubered lib-retarded ass.
.

Absolute drivel. He did not sacrifice national security. That's what you and the rest of your ilk love to scream from the rooftops, but that doesn't make it so.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

But...but...but woomby is a " freelance writer for travel brochures " ! How DARE you question his spelling or grammar in a post ! Him being the PERFECT ( well abused ) asshole, you KNOW he'll deny it !

I meant objected. LustyTard knew what I meant. As for you, you don't need to be calling anyone out on anything regarding language, you retarded cocksucker.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You seem to think it is Obama's fault for something that did not actually happen.... You can not blame him for something that did not happen.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Absolute drivel. He did not sacrifice national security. That's what you and the rest of your ilk love to scream from the rooftops, but that doesn't make it so.

So if I handcuff WTFagboy to a railroad track and "negotiate" with him to hire me as a subcontractor at 3x the normal rate while a speeding train approaches, that's all cool and perfectly acceptable behavior as long as I uncuff him at the last second after he caves in to all of my demands?

Where I come from, it's called extortion. Fucking idiots.
.