Politics & Current Events
justAphase
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
"What Romney doesn't understand about personal responsibility"
"The working poor haven?t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They?re drowning in it."
Maya Avery 3/2011
Re: "What Romney doesn't understand about personal responsibility"
He doesn't get it. How can he? He never had to work 2, 3, 4 jobs. He never had to wonder how he was going to afford medical care and heat, all the while keeping food on the table. He never had to find affordable daycare, or figure out public transportation. He never had to worry about how he's going to afford to go to college.
He is so far removed from the average American that what he says no longer surprises me.
The larger question is WHY are people in these dire straights and what can be done about it? THIS, Romney DOES understand and has a proven track record of successes behind him unlike Obama when he took office..
Obama stated that government needs to be changed from the outside - so let a successful businessman do the job - better. Obama is a supurb politician, great charisma and outstanding speaker --unlike Romney. However, IMO, Romney outshines Obama when it comes to substance and leadership. (Obama likes to "lead" from behind.) . Where is that hope and change now -- as Obama is busy going around lowering expectations.
You teach a man to fish - (not keep giving him fish) if you want to change his future. An improved economy with more and better paying jobs, a national budget that allows for repayment of our debt (which only drags down our future).
It took almost a week for Obama to realize that it was indeed a terror attack in the middle east --- and Romney was chastized for his comments when he had it right -- and right from the get-go .Our ambassador had so little security -- and Valerie Jarrett has 5 secret sevice agents for round the clock security?? This certainly does not inspire confidence in the security of our nation -- which is the #1 responsibility of the president.
The 47% tape has been misinterpreted and taken out of context -- and the whole tape not released. More of the tape has been reeased, but there are still considerable "gaps" that supposedly were never recorded. How convenient.
I disagree. He seems to think they're just all lazy, entitled dumbasses and little more.
If you are useng the 47%video clip as the basis for your opinion - please look again at Romney's history, both personal and professional. Both are impressive and show compassion and extending himself to help others.
THe clip was edited to make it appear as you state and the whole tape has yet to be released
Obama is the one who could truely care about others - he only cares when it means votes for him. Look at the univision interveiw from yesterday. It was the first time any interviewer called him on the carpet for his promises and lack of follow thru --- when he had the presidency, the house and the senate! There was NO WAY the Republicans could stop him even if they wanted to.
Obama has promised jobs for the past 3 1/2 years and has not delivered --- he has no clue. Money to Solyndra, Light Squared and other "shovel ready" jobs (which did not exist) only show how he will continue to govern.
If you cannot deal with congress now, what will change after an election --- where Dem control will not exist .
Will we see more executive orders bypassing congress (as is in the works for the president to have unprecident powers over the internet ) -- because congress would not pass what he wanted.
If he cannot submit a budget that will even get one vote, how is he going to solve the financial crisis that awaits us in 2013?
wow, i finally found someone on this board that has a lot of the same thoughts as i do:) it was taken out of context obviously, just like when obama said "you didn't build your business" was taken out of context apparently.
No- Romney was chastised for criticizing (and politicizing) a statement issued by the embassy in Cairo as though it came from the Obama administration, and calling it an apologetic pander towards violent protesters. Except that it was released before either protest turned violent, and it had nothing to do with Libya. And then he walked offstage, after addressing an issue concerning 4 dead personnel and others in danger abroad, smirking like an @$$hole.
Also, diplomatic protection is under the purview of the host nation, not the sending nation. The U.S. is responsible for protecting foreign ambassadors here and vice versa. Khartoum, for instance, refused to allow further U.S.-based protection (Marines), resulting in the evacuation of non-essential personnel. That isn't to say that the U.S. didn't drop the ball, but somebody else in Libya dropped it further.
Also, there is a single 2 minute gap of unknown content in the fundraiser tape. Suspicious? Sure. But unless in those two minutes he said 'So everything I just said- JUST KIDDING!' I really doubt it was going to be his saving grace. But at least we have (potentially) selective editing on both sides of the aisle to even things out.
Lastly- if national security is the #1 job of the president, why is it so important that a businessman who knows sh!t about the rest of the world apparently occupy a position that has no legal authority to create economic policy? And it is not a done deal by any means that Republicans will take the Senate majority, so I'm not sure what fairy-tale wet-dream of a Republican-controlled White House and Congress you're living in.
...can I have some?
[nausea reminds of of my inability to eat much of my delicious lunch]
Nevermind.
lol! the worst part of pregnancy
No kidding! It was really bad last week and tapered off this week, but still strikes at the most inconvenient times when I either want to eat or need to get some work done. Figures.
this is HILARIOUS. Extending himself to help who, exactly? When the hell has Romney ever shown compassion to ANYONE who doesn't make at least $500k a year?
Word. sorry you feel sick, Lex!
He has a long history of service thru his church as well as personally helping others - a few recipients were at the RNC and were highlighted - obviously you did not watch.
You don't give 4 Million in 2011 to charity and not help anyone.
Obama uses OUR tax dollars to "save" GM and touts his success -- forget about Solyndra, Light Squared and other failures.
He has a long history of service thru his church as well as personally helping others - a few recipients were at the RNC and were highlighted - obviously you did not watch.
You don't give 4 Million in 2011 to charity and not help anyone.
Obama uses OUR tax dollars to "save" GM and touts his success -- forget about Solyndra, Light Squared and other failures.
Forget the Fast & Furious debacle, the promised Immigration reform, closing Gitmo, reducing the unemployment rate and improving the economy (or it would be a 1 term presidency) , and now the middle east crisis.
Another plus is Romney's ability to work with the opposition party as he had a Dem legistlature while being a Gov. Obama had his 18 months as a Senator during which he build no relationship.
Univision has the first to press him during an interview yesterday -- about time.
Sis...I don't know you...but I love ya! I agree with you 100%
Sending missionaries to Paris to convert people and building new churches is not charity. It doesn't help anyone except the Mormon church.
And no, I didn't see any examples of Romney's generosity at the RNC. Perhaps you can share some of these examples?
Don't forget the posthumous baptisms!
So by working with the opposition party, do you mean changing his views and beliefs constantly depending on who his audience is?
Because, yeah, then I agree with you.
I had it for 8 of the 9 months of pregnancy. puked 1-2 times a day even with zofran and it resulted in acid erosion on the back of my front teeth. the dentist said if I get pregnant again with the same symptoms I will have to get fluoride treatments to save my teeth. yuck!
Why doesn't anyone ever respond to Sisu's point that Obama had control of the House and Senate his first two years of office and could not even get a basic budget passed?
How is that leadership? And how is it taking responsibility when he constantly blames that on the republicans?
Obama takes no personal responsibility for anything. And his care for other people only involves spending OUR money.
As governor, Romney was also a moderate, and not then right wing nut job he is currently. Its easier to reach across the aisle when you are near the aisle and not scootching as far into the opposite corner as you can get.
My money too, not just yours, so you can kinda suck it.
Also, just because it was a Democratic majority, there were other things that took priority at the time, such as the shithole mess from before his election that took almost a year to calm down. He has kept more of his promises than not kept, and he would have kept more if the asssholes across the aisle weren't refusing to go along with things just to be ornery, since most items require not just a majority, but a 2/3 majority, to get passed.
Because it not true. That is a lie that keeps going and going...first requirement to have ?complete, unadulterated control? of Congress is to command a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate, and the Democrats didn?t have that when Obama was sworn in.
First, I said OUR money, not just mine, so you can suck it.
Second, both Reagan and Bush had democratic controlled house and senate situations and still managed to pass budgets. I guess they just knew how to work better with people.
Does that website also talk about the Black priesthood ban? Or that the founder belived Black people were cursed? Yes let's talk about the History of the Mormon church and how humanitarian there were....lets!!!
Or that Democratic senators and congressmen knew that compromising to get something done for the good of the country was worth more than making the other guy a one-term president (ahem, Cantor, McConnell).
I didn't like Reagan, 41, or 43. But I will concede that there were a few things each managed to do that I appreciated (in hindsight, 41 especially). I have yet to hear from any R that Obama isn't the anti-christ. It's this kind of "my way or the highway" that I find so infuriating (see $1/$10 tax raise to spending cuts).
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/#.UF1HJhiESV8
We?ve heard it over and over and over again. Mitch McConnell has gleefully used it as a cudgel. Congressional Republicans typically can?t wait to get their mugs on camera to tell America just how inept Congressional Democrats are in order to aid their case that they should be put back in power. After all, Democrats couldn?t get anything done even with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate during the first two years of the Obama administration. Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress to go with the newly inaugurated Democrat to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and they couldn?t manage to address the major issues of the day.
Democrats are just plain horrible at their jobs. To hear the Republicans tell it, absolutely nothing got done between January 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections. And they blame the Democrats, because after all, the Democrats were in control.
Don?t believe it.
It sounds good and it surely gets the far right wing base riled up. But it has very little basis in reality. That hasn?t stopped Republicans and their official media apparatus, Fox News, from repeating the nonsense.
As recently as September 2nd, less than two weeks ago, Fox News? Chris Wallace, conducting an interview with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, stated matter of factly in response to Villaraigosa?s comment on the deliberate Republican obstructionism that Obama and the Democrats had almost complete control of the Congress. ?But in fairness,? Wallace pointed out, ?the first two years, he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a big majority in the House.?
Illinois Republican Congressman Aaron Schock earlier in 2012 went on MSNBC?s ?Morning Joe? and perpetuated the lie. ?For two years,? he told the ?Morning Joe? crew, ?he (Obama) had complete, unadulterated control of the federal government, a 60 seat majority in the Senate, an 60 plus seat majority in the House. He got every?literally every?piece of legislation he wanted to try and quote turn around the economy??
That?s right folks, for the first two full years of his presidency, Barack Obama had the benefit of a large majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate to work with in order to get whatever legislation passed that he wanted. Whatever his whimsy, he could get it passed at any time during the first two years of his first term. Full and complete, total control for two full years, if by two full years you mean 72 days.
Here?s what really happened: Yes, in the 2008 election, Democrats managed to widen their majorities in both houses of Congress. In the 110th Congress that served from January 2007 through January 2009, Democrats held a 35 seat majority in the House and a single seat advantage in the Senate, which included ?independent? Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom caucused with the Democrats. The 2008 election saw that majority swell to 78 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.
How is that possible, you ask? Everybody says that the Democrats had a full filibuster-proof majority? The math doesn?t add up, you say. If there are 100 seats in the Senate, and Republicans, as of January 2009 had only 40 of them (technically the Republicans had 41 of them initially, but we?ll get to that), doesn?t that mean that the Democrats had the remaining 60, giving them the supermajority in the Senate?
No, not necessarily, because it was a very odd year in Congressional politics.
Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008? The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman? That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner. Franken wasn?t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.
And it wasn?t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn?t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.
But even that?s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn?t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn?t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.
And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.
In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy?s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy?s ?permanent? replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn?t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).
During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There?s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. ?Even in this window Obama?s ?control? of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.?
Zorn continues:
Seventy-two days. That?s it. That?s the entirety of absolute Democratic control of the United States Senate in 2009 and 2010. And yet Republicans want America to believe that Obama and the Democrats ruled with a tyrannical zeal to pass every piece of frivolous legislation they could conjure up. They think that the voters are dumb enough to believe it.
Given the mendacity of the Republican presidential ticket this year, it appears that they think very little of the intelligence of the American electorate, and are merely perpetuating a disturbing pattern of behavior on the part of Republican lawmakers, who have a very loose relationship with truth and the real world. And that includes their official PR apparatus, Fox News. We?ll find out on November 6th if they?re right.
All of this and we didn?t even talk about the unprecedented, deliberate, methodical obstructionism on the part of Republicans via the filibuster. Tsk, tsk, tsk?..
Thnk you for all of this.
What a load of crap. Whine, whine, whine. Excuse after excuse.
A good or even just competent president should be able to work with any congress to get a basic budget passed. I am not talking about world peace here, just a budget.
I gave examples of republicans who were capable of this with an opposing congress. I will even give you a democrat who could do it---Clinton.
But Obama is just incapable. Not good leadership or a responsible president.
And all you followers can say is that it is all the republicans' fault. You can't accept any responsibility either.