Politics & Current Events
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.
Re: 2nd Debate Thoughts?
The precise quote from Mitt was "be home by 5 PM to cook dinner for her kids..."
I don't think there would've been nearly as much backlash about this if he'd said "be home by 5:00 so she could spend more time with her family..."
So you don't think it should be an apple, but it should taste like one? Your analogy is useless. Just say that we should be more fiscally responsible - that does way more work than saying something frivolous that contradicts the other half of what you think.
are you saying i should give the IRS credit as well...come one! I'm guessing you have never owned your own business.
My point was when you said that "no one is helping" that isn't entirely true. The government is helping if you take tax deductions. You get money back because of your marital situation or if you have a house or if you have kids.
Would taking those deductions away make you more or less financially stable?
Good times.
The Native Americans thought so.
Trail of Tears of Joy, right?
They had packets of kleenex prepared by their BFFs the week before.
On several occasions, Obama has taken actions which have not be in accordance to the Constitution.
Obama violated the Constitution by making four appointments without the advice or consent of the U.S. Senate, even while the Senate was in session and available.
? Obama?s HHS violated the First Amendment by requiring employers to cover contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in the health insurance they provide their employees, despite their religious and moral objections. He later shifted the mandate to the insurance companies, requiring all plans to cover such services, thinking Americans would not understand that the mandate still requires faith-based groups to subsidize services to which they have sincere religious and moral objections.
? The Obama administration violated the First Amendment when it refused a grant to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for helping victims of human trafficking obtain food, clothing and access to medical care because of the Conference?s pro-life position. In fact, the Conference was refused the grant despite having received higher scores of effectiveness than the grant?s recipients.
? Obama told the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by a bipartisan Congress. Instead, the DOJ argued against the valid law (which has been upheld by multiple courts), forcing the House of Representatives to hire outside counsel to defend the law. This gross abrogation of a president?s constitutional duty to defend and protect the laws of the land was unprecedented.
? Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law, which allows the government?s seizure of property, violating the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and creating administrative positions that are not vetted by the Senate as required by the Appointments Clause.
? When the Democrat-led Congress would not pass net neutrality, Obama?s Federal Communications Commission violated the Constitution by contravening Congress to restrict the freedom of Internet service providers to manage their network transmissions.
? When the Democrat-led Congress could not pass cap and trade, Obama?s EPA decided to auction greenhouse gas allowances, essentially imposing a tax on emissions, which, according to the Constitution, can only be done by Congress. You will also recall Congress having to act to halt the EPA?s ban on incandescent light bulbs.
? When the Democrat-led Congress did not pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama contravened Congress by pushing the NLRB to pass regulations that allowed for ?ambush elections? and required employers to provide employee e-mail addresses and phone numbers to union organizers.
? When the Democrat-led Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, the Obama White House and DHS decided to implement a policy of granting illegal aliens stays of refusal, which is essentially amnesty by fiat. The Obama policy even gives local immigration officials the authority to dismiss deportation cases against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes.
? Without the approval of Congress, as required by the Constitution, Obama ordered the U.S. military to attack Libya.
Sorry, for some reason it won't let me bold but yes you said I should just say I want the Government to be more fiscally responsible. That is what I mean in a nutshell. I apologize my previous remarks were "inelegantly stated".
Sure, no prob
http://www.redstate.com/rep_michele_bachmann/2012/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-blatant-disregard-for-the-constitution-is-appalling/
Did anyone read that crap? It includes stuff like not defending the defense of marriage act.
I thought the president could issue individual military strikes without congressional approval but he couldn't declare war without congressional approval.
At least that's what The West Wing taught me.
I too would like to see that source, Cincy.
As for the ordering military force, Presidents do that b/c they are commander in chief. It's an executive order. War hasn't been declared by Congress since WWII. So that leaves what...Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 and various other military actions that according to you are unconstitutional? I don't think so.
my read shelf:
Interesting, especially the last one. Hmmmm.... sounds like something Bush did.
I think what bothers me most about the last one is that the President made this comment during his presidential campaign.
?The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,? Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.
Yes, I believe Bush invaded Iraq without congressional approval, however I would posit considering the Terrorist Attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon could be considered "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Aren't embassies considered US territory, though?
http://libertycounselaction.org/content/home/33141/obama_s_doormat_the_u_s_constitution
This link says that the list was by the director of Liberty Counsel Action and originally published in the Daily Caller.
Yes, and flights home from US embassies are considered domestic travel.
ETA: I might be wrong. Off to research!
Thanks! I am fearful of the future. I feel we are on a downhill spiral and I want my kids to have a better life with rich opportunities. I feel we need a President who understands economics, who has balanced budgets and who can turn things around.
I voted for Obama in 08, I just don't feel he has done right by "we the people", I would like to take a different direction.
Yes, the same info was here and in redstate.com
I'm sorry that you're fearful. I agree that Obama is not the ideal president. But I'm much more afraid of what Romney would do to this country. He may have balanced budgets in the past, but I encourage you to consider who his policies directly benefit. Take a look at what the CBO has to say about both of their plans. And don't fall for something that sounds too good to be true.
So do you want the President to defend our nation after a terror attack or not? You can't have it both ways. If the embassy attack = terror, then it's the same situation, isn't it?
my read shelf:
I am, quite frankly, more fearful of my daughters futures if Romney wins. There may be SCOTUS appointments in the next 4 years and Roe v. Wade may come before the court after those appointments are made.
The idea of my daughters not having autonomy over their own bodies because the government dictates it scares the crap out of me.
Absolutely! Now, after the attack to our embassy in Benghazi I would say he does have authority for a military strike.
But he went ahead with military operations in March of 2011 and got involved in what seemed to be a Libyan civil war which ended in the capture and killing of Gadaffi. Maybe I missed something but what was the catalyst for the US to be involved in a Libyan civil war?
I'm going take a page from parenting to answer that one.
When you're pregnant with your first kid, you have a laundry list of things you "will NEVER" do because that would make you a "bad" parent.
Fast forward two years.
It's entirely possible that you've done at lest 90% of those "will NEVER" things because you were actually in the thick of it and realized that your previous statement was naive.
I see Obama's 2007 statement and his 3/2011 actions as being in that group.
Whoops, that's right, we're talking about last year's military action. Sorry, don't know where my mind was.
But, I am curious about how you think of the war in Iraq, then? They didn't attack the U.S. either.my read shelf: