Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
That resolution is not a binding law. It's proposed legislation that is untenable. From the actual constitution.
The president does now, and always has had the authority to commit US troops to battle but not war.
The Congress has the exclusive authority to declare that the United States is at war.
This kind of argument is silly. Do you really want to have a military incapacitated by the type of partisan bickering in the houses of congress like what happened last summer over the debt ceiling? Really?
I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, this kind of rhetoric weakens our country. Making a command decision to support the US strategic position in a middle east country wasn't treason when Bush I did it, nor when Bush II did it, nor when Obama did it. Nor was it treason when Johnson and Nixon did it in Vietnam, nor Reagan in Guam, nor Clinton in Bosnia.
If a president knowingly acts against the interests of the United States to further the agenda of a foreign power, he is committing treason.
If you don't like the guy, work to defeat him by attacking his policies and expressing what others will do better. Show us the folly in his actions, but don't say he is unfit because he uses the authority of his office exactly like the last dozen presidents before him.
Just my two cents...
As to
Even according to the story you listed, he was born in Hawaii and his name was NOT Barry Soetoro until his adopted father registered him in a local school that way. More of a nick-name. And although you didn't implicitly imply that you buy into the birth controversy, I'll address that too. The constitution requires you to have been BORN IN THE USA; to be GREATER THAN 35 YEARS OLD; and to have LIVED IN THE USA FOR 14 YEARS. Nothing about dual citizenship. (even so, the link was a good explanation of why they call him Barry in the video, which was BMs question)
Amber Lee Ettinger, widely known as “Obama Girl” during the 2008 presidential campaign, told The Daily Caller she is “not as excited as I was the last time, that’s for sure.”
The model-actress became a nationally known celebrity after starring in the viral YouTube video “Crush on Obama.”
“Barack Obama was definitely the first ‘Internet President,’” she said, describing her experiences during the last cycle as “quite a roller coaster ride.”
This time, however, Ettinger won’t say if she still supports Obama.
“At this point I’m keeping that to myself,” she told TheDC. “If I’m not making videos, I’m not sure it’s anyone’s business who I’m voting for this time around.”
“I think in the next few months it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens,” Ettinger said. ”I’d like to get out there and see what the young voters think about both candidates… I might need to break out my flip cam and take a road trip.”
Outside of the realm of politics, the one-time “Obama girl” is ”going back to school full time, acting and developing [her] jewelry line.”
Combating rumors that she didn’t vote in the 2008 election, Ettinger told TheDC that she did indeed vote, in Pennsylvania.
