Biden

[Mavric]

I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

not sure about this, but then there is this:

 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program —

well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration

. 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.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] 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.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

link

Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

[sd'sker]

I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

not sure about this, but then there is this:

 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program —

well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration

. 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.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] 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.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

link

Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl?

[carlfense]

1 - Prove that he wasn't talking about the two wars he referenced immediately prior.

False. "Immediately prior" to his statement about voting against Ryan you'll see references to the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

 

2 - If, perhaps, he wasn't talking about the wars, his statement was STILL a lie.

How so?

[carlfense]

why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl?

I think he's asking you to provide direct sources because I often ask him to provide direct sources. It wasn't well stated, but I think that's close to what he meant.

[sd'sker]

why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl?

I think he's asking you to provide direct sources because I often ask him to provide direct sources. It wasn't well stated, but I think that's close to what he meant.

i was not sure, but do not see the point in providing a direct link here. my point was that republicans made it harder to secure our embassies and now want to politicize the failure.

[Mavric]

I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

not sure about this, but then there is this:

 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program —

well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration

. 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.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] 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.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

link

Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl?

It seemed like you were inferring that the Republicans cut funding for security which could have led to less security in Libya.

 

If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

[carlfense]

If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

I think that carlfense wouldn't insist that sd'sker prove something that he didn't say . . . that the "cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested."

[carlfense]

my point was that republicans made it harder to secure our embassies and now want to politicize the failure.

True.

[sd'sker]

It seemed like you were inferring that the Republicans cut funding for security which could have led to less security in Libya.

 

If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

i understand that, but i was not implying it. the state department, in retrospect, appears to have mis-allocated the funds they were given (although i do not know enough to say that definitively). but my point was that the republicans made the choices seemingly unnecessarily more difficult.

[Mavric]

1 - Prove that he wasn't talking about the two wars he referenced immediately prior.

False. "Immediately prior" to his statement about voting against Ryan you'll see references to the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

So immediately prior to you does not include elements of the previous sentence? What in his statement indicates he was separating the two?

 

2 - If, perhaps, he wasn't talking about the wars, his statement was STILL a lie.

How so?

Because he also voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit.

[funhusker]

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

[Mavric]

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

[sd'sker]

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

good point, and i am going to point out how truly offensive the bold part is. i do not want anything to happen to obama because he is our president and a decent human being. also, i think biden would be a fine president. you do not like him because he can not refrain from laughing in the face of an absurd and blatant liar? what was he supposed to do, agreeably nod?

[sd'sker]

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

there was no argument to be had, it was just his response to a person's opinion.

[funhusker]

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

The "poster" didn't give me any self-derived numbers (it was word-for-word what the RNC chairman said after the debate without a source). That was my "argument"....