why the right wing base hates Obama so much they are willing to lie nonstop about him

hazlnut said:
The GOP TeaBags in congress pulled that trigger.

Where have you been?
Click to expand...

Again, a "cut" that never took place (actually a plan not to increase), is not something that caused the problem in Libya, that is the Administration's choice to ignore requests for more security in Libya. They had all the money they needed to get it done, no "cut" ever went into effect.
 
Damocles said:
Again, a "cut" that never took place (actually a plan not to increase), is not something that caused the problem in Libya, that is the Administration's choice to ignore requests for more security in Libya. They had all the money they needed to get it done, no "cut" ever went into effect.
Click to expand...

They wanted to cut it, and when the events in Libya happened, they convened a witch hunt to blame the administration, even though they'd voted to cut security themselves.

Hypocrites?
 
\\((|))// said:
They wanted to cut it, and when the events in Libya happened, they convened a witch hunt to blame the administration, even though they'd voted to cut security themselves.

Hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they didn't cut it, and when shit went down in Libya, instead of accepting responsibility, the administration tried to spin it into the fault of republicans who didn't cut funding, even though they dishonestly claimed they did.

Bald-faced Liars?
 
Dixie said:
The same reason a little kid prefers the aunt who gives them candy each visit over the aunt who doesn't. It's really no different than the days of slavery...
Click to expand...

So The Dix thinks Blacks are like children who are enslaved....
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, but they didn't cut it, and when shit went down in Libya, instead of accepting responsibility, the administration tried to spin it into the fault of republicans who didn't cut funding, even though they dishonestly claimed they did. Bald-faced Liars?
Click to expand...

So you agree it was hypocritical.

Now, post evidence that "the administration tried to spin it into the fault of republicans who didn't cut funding, even though they dishonestly claimed they did".
 
\\((|))// said:
They wanted to cut it, and when the events in Libya happened, they convened a witch hunt to blame the administration, even though they'd voted to cut security themselves.

Hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Nope. And again, a plan not to increase something is not a cut.
 
Damocles said:
Nope. And again, a plan not to increase something is not a cut.
Click to expand...

Yep.

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.


Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.


Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.


Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
 
\\((|))// said:
Yep.

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.


Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.


Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.


Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
Click to expand...
First making up stuff that isn't in there by simply presuming that the cut may happen isn't the same thing as something Romney has presented.

This entire story is predicated on this line (from the story): "unseen cuts he has yet to identify." They just make up whatever they want and then try to scare people who wear Charlie Brown shirts.

And again, a vote not to increase something that didn't even pass isn't a cut, and has nothing to do with the decision not to send security to Benghazi. The reality is, they just had no priority on the security there, it was asked for and ignored several times. Then when the poop hit the electrical convenience they actually say they never heard that it was requested. Likely because he just skipped that Security briefing...

The reality is, even with less funding (had it actually passed), if Libya was a priority they would have had security. This Administration simply rejected the idea that it was even necessary.
 
\\((|))// said:
I thought you were a vocal critic of the Bush Admin...maybe not.
Click to expand...

I was and am, and yet I still haven't seen an Administration who is so invested in blaming anybody except themselves for the very departments they are responsible for... Truman's sign would have no place in this Administration, the buck never stops at the boss's desk. This Administration displays all the courage and decision making of an Italian Captain taking the first lifeboat to shore and leaving a sinking ship and while they're doing it they'd be pointing out he was at dinner and couldn't be held responsible...
 
Damocles said:
First making up stuff that isn't in there by simply presuming that the cut may happen isn't the same thing as something Romney has presented.
Click to expand...

Who said it was?

Damocles said:
This entire story is predicated on this line (from the story): "unseen cuts he has yet to identify."
Click to expand...

It is?

How?

Damocles said:
They just make up whatever they want and then try to scare people who wear Charlie Brown shirts.
Click to expand...

What was "made up"?

Who's "scared"?

Damocles said:
And again, a vote not to increase something that didn't even pass isn't a cut, and has nothing to do with the decision not to send security to Benghazi.
Click to expand...

The GOP congressman who said he voted to cut the funding was lying?

Who refused to "send security to Benghazi"?

Specifically.

Damocles said:
The reality is, they just had no priority on the security there, it was asked for and ignored several times. Then when the poop hit the electrical convenience they actually say they never heard that it was requested. Likely because he just skipped that Security briefing...The reality is, even with less funding (had it actually passed), if Libya was a priority they would have had security. This Administration simply rejected the idea that it was even necessary.
Click to expand...


What "requests for extra security" did "they" ignore?


Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.


Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2a7_story.html
 
Damocles said:
I was and am, and yet I still haven't seen an Administration who is so invested in blaming anybody except themselves for the very departments they are responsible for... Truman's sign would have no place in this Administration, the buck never stops at the boss's desk. This Administration displays all the courage and decision making of an Italian Captain taking the first lifeboat to shore and leaving a sinking ship and while they're doing it they'd be pointing out he was at dinner and couldn't be held responsible...
Click to expand...

The Italian cruise ship captain analogy?

Seriously?

Was Bush "like an Italian captain" because 9/11 happened on his watch?

Did Bush take responsibility for "ignoring" requests for heightened airport security?
 
\\((|))// said:
Who said it was?



It is?

How?
Click to expand...
Well, considering it is right up there and that the cuts that "could" happen are the actual subject of the story...

What was "made up"?

Who's "scared"?
Click to expand...
Whatever cut that "may" happen that was convenient for the author. And you.

The GOP congressman who said he voted to cut the funding was lying?

Who refused to "send security to Benghazi"?

Specifically.
Click to expand...
Again, voting not to increase something isn't a cut.


What "requests for extra security" did "they" ignore?
Click to expand...
The ones that have been presented into evidence during the Congressional hearings.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.
Click to expand...
Again, what they voted for was simply a vote not to increase the spending.

Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
Click to expand...
And, if they prioritize correctly there would still be no danger to the Embassy in Libya in 2012 from a cut that could have taken place in 2014. Using future cuts that aren't happening because reconciliation put back in 88% of the requested increase in funding as an excuse for not doing your job now is a preposterous excuse. It's just stupid. This was the Administration that rejected the requests for additional security in Benghazi, not some future cut that could have happened in 2014. This is even weak for you.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2a7_story.html
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the story that just makes up whatever they want again... It's awesome.
 
I noticed you dodged my questions and failed to demonstrate that anything in the story was "just made up".

How come?
 
\\((|))// said:
I noticed you dodged my questions and failed to demonstrate that anything in the story was "just made up".

How come?
Click to expand...

Interesting. The entire story is predicated on cuts that "could" happen and aren't even suggested. That's just made up. You could actually post on your opinion, but you won't. So I can just make one up for you because you could believe it?

How come?
 
Damocles said:
Interesting. The entire story is predicated on cuts that "could" happen and aren't even suggested. That's just made up. You could actually post on your opinion, but you won't. So I can just make one up for you because you could believe it? How come?
Click to expand...

Still dodging my questions, I see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top