Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)


 

Poll

Question: Do think Obama has fulfilled his oath of office?

Options:

Yes (Provide examples)

No (Provide examples)

I don't know

other (please explain)


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 113

View Results


Quote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


..... Tell us what good Obama has done and how he is fulfilled him oath of office. If there is so much good out there, and we "Obama-bashers" are so off base, then please share with us what good Obama is doing.


  • Help keep an eye on what Congress is doing. Stay informed and spread


    the message by posting Bills that need the People's attention - either


    positive or negative. This forum is open to ALL Cafemom Members.
by on Apr. 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Replies (191-194):
Gretchen2876
by Silver Member on Jul. 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM


Quoting realPatientMama:

 

Won't unemployment rise after all the troops come home? Should we blame Obama?  I read an article about how our Troops are coming home to no jobs.  So who's fault is it? Obama for bringing them home?  Bush for putting them there in the first place?  Or No one?

Well, if they came home and actually stayed in the Military, they wouldn't have to worry about it. That's one of the very few totally secure jobs there are right now. That's why my brother isn't leaving anytime soon. Well that, and he actually kinda enjoys it, and is good at his job.

The way I see it, isn't necessarily the way you see it. Or the way it is, or ought to be. What's more important, is that we're all looking for it, and a way to see it.


Desi DeNardo (via Starbucks coffee cup)

iluvmommyhood58
by Bronze Member on Jul. 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Quoting PurdueMom:



Let's give more credit to those of us who get it now and got it back in April when this was originally posted.

I have to ask: why even respond to those whom you ridicule now? If you want serious debate, only debate those who are serious. If someone is misunderstanding your point, even after multiple attempts to clear it up, why bother to continue responding to or debating her?

Debate those of us who "get it". Plus, (I can't recall if it's this post or the 'other' Obama post, but...) calling each other 'ignorant' serves no purpose in a serious, intelligent debate. If I believe someone is 'ignorant' regarding a certain subject, I try to educate her in a non-condescending way. If that doesn't work, I ignore that responder and move on to the next.

This post had me cracking up. I seriously believe some of the posters here were probably even sticking their tongues out at each other through their computer screens. lol This debate may not have remained on topic at times, but it's been entertaining, to say the least. ; )





I wasn't a participant of the debate. That was my point... it's ridiculous.


Call me a conspiracy theorist
PurdueMom
by Sherri on Jul. 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM


Quoting iluvmommyhood58:

Quoting PurdueMom:



Let's give more credit to those of us who get it now and got it back in April when this was originally posted.

I have to ask: why even respond to those whom you ridicule now? If you want serious debate, only debate those who are serious. If someone is misunderstanding your point, even after multiple attempts to clear it up, why bother to continue responding to or debating her?

Debate those of us who "get it". Plus, (I can't recall if it's this post or the 'other' Obama post, but...) calling each other 'ignorant' serves no purpose in a serious, intelligent debate. If I believe someone is 'ignorant' regarding a certain subject, I try to educate her in a non-condescending way. If that doesn't work, I ignore that responder and move on to the next.

This post had me cracking up. I seriously believe some of the posters here were probably even sticking their tongues out at each other through their computer screens. lol This debate may not have remained on topic at times, but it's been entertaining, to say the least. ; )





I wasn't a participant of the debate. That was my point... it's ridiculous.


Some of it, yes.  However, if you had read all the responses, some of them were very spot on and interesting enough to spark further debate.

The 'ridiculous' goes with just about every debate in this group.  Sometimes I read and laugh, other times I skip and debate.  I use this forum solely for entertainment, and I can usually find it.  lol  

Sherri


"There is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed with what is right in America." -- Bill Clinton

PurdueMom
by Sherri on Jul. 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM


Quoting awooding:

(Edited for space) ....

Read the Constitution. You will find NOTHING and I mean NOTHING in there about bailouts or social security or most of the numerous other actions the government has taken since its inception. That means they aren't supposed to do it. 

Again, the Constitution is the rule book for the government. It states, very plainly, what the government is allowed and NOT allowed to do. It is clearly outlined what the SCOPE of the different branches of government is, leaving the rest up to the states and the people. ....


You are misunderstanding the US Constitution.  I responsed to a similar response on page 16 of this post.   I'll re-post part of my response (to save from retyping it...): 

(Note: My response is in black.  I am responding to another poster's question in brown)


Quoting PurdueMom:

"Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal Government can loan or give money to Private Corporations ?  I don't see where the Feds have that power, and therefore taking that power would be unconstitutional.  Unless you show me otherwise."

Article II, Section 3 (Regarding the President and edited for space):

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

 

Article I, Section 8 (Regarding Congress and edited for space):

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; ...

. . .To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.*

*This is called the "Elastic Clause" which allows Congress to pass any law necessary for carrying out the listed powers.

 

It doesn't say specifically anywhere in the Constitution that Congress or the President can or cannot loan or give money to private corporations.  Read on and I'll explain why they can.  The President recommends to Congress legislative measures he believes are necessary and he can sign or veto bills coming from Congress.   Congress can pass bills that provide for the general welfare of the U.S., plus with the Elastic Clause, they can make up laws as they go along.  

The Constitution, in defining the executive and legislative powers, is very brief and general.  The writers, our founding fathers, intended it that way to allow for flexibility as the nation grew.  They could not think of every single incident or situation which would or could arise.  This flexibility leaves the Constitution open to interpretation, especially with Presidential powers.  The Office of the President comes with inherent powers, like signing Executive Orders or Presidential Proclamations.  If Congress or the Justices feel a President is overstepping his powers, there are checks and balances for that. 

In the case of the bailouts, President Obama, his advisors, and the Democrats came up the Stimulus Bill, and Congress, paying for debts and providing for the general welfare of the U.S. and with the majority being Dems, agreed and passed the stimulus bill.  They believed that if they let the banks, AIG, the automakers etc. fail, it would be too detrimental to our nation.   So far as I know, no one has questioned its constitutionality with the Supreme Court.  If we had a Republican president and congress, what would have been passed, I'm sure, would have been something different.  


My source:  http://www.usconstitution.net/

Sherri


"There is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed with what is right in America." -- Bill Clinton

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured