Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

Interesting assumption of the nature of words.

Define 'proof', define 'hearsay'!?

Proof seems to be anything you will accept as 'reasonable' within your system of belief/s.

While we're at it, define 'reasonable'!

Define any clever (but transparent) definition of any reason given for invading any country, at any time in history.

Actions speak louder than words, but when mere 'words' are 'enacted', and sanctioned by isolated incidents (incidents which, by the way, were not spontaneous and unprovoked), we have a dangerous situation on the planet where, verily, anything can be justified. Even the contravention of a Commandment - thou shalt not kill; commandments which these leaders are trying to make the world believe they actually follow. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Talk the talk...and...who cares about the walk!
Anger, frustration and grief, caused by anything will always produce division. This can be a powerful tool used in the wrong way. Everyone needs to understand that, human nature, has, can and does, justify anything, in the name of anything. Create the rules of the game, and if someone doesn't follow "...you're against 'US'!". Change the rules and you're not paying attention! You need a smack on the bottom, go to your corner, no dinner tonite.

Get Real

Please go see the video by the artist: Pink- Dear Mr President!

Dear Mr. President
Come take a walk with me
Let's pretend we're just two people and
You're not better than me
I'd like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep
What do you feel when you look in the mirror
Are you proud

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why

Dear Mr. President
Were you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
Are you a lonely boy
How can you say
No child is left behind
We're not dumb and we're not blind
They're all sitting in your cells
While you pave the road to hell

What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
[these lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com]
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye

Let me tell you bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
You don't know nothin bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
Ohhh

How do you sleep at night
How do you walk with your head held high
Dear Mr. President
You'd never take a walk with me
Would you

It is so funny to me that people think they know the whole story from watching and listening to the Media and Internet, Yet highly educated Lawyers and Judges as well as all the Bush hating Lawyers in Congress can't seem to find enough evidence to not only not be able to convict, but even charge these people with any crime. What are all you LAZY people doing with your lives? Y'all should be out there running for office and evicting your apathetic Congressmen and make this world a better place. Like the person that doesn't vote, if you choose not to do anything about it, whining just makes you look like a six year old lil girl.

Zee

ps. I am not a Republican nor am I a Democrat. I am a God Fearing, Gun Hugging American, so put that in your Bong and smoke it.

It's simple really. They can't and wont find evidence because even if it were there it's much easier for them to tout this stuff on the internet than to actually do something about it. They have proved this themselves by their failure and re/or refusal to start impeachments hearings. This is all nothing more than a political tool or game for the Dems to subversively attack the Reps. If taken to impeachment hearings it would expose it for what it is and put an end to it. I guess it can be said that there are some stupid people in DC but even they are not stupid enough to risk the loss of their biggest dis-information piece.

Of course the Reps have done similar things. and the results are always the same.

God forbid these circus performers actually do some honest work. But as long as they have audience, the "Greatest show on earth" will continue

It's amazing how people can see the same thing and come up with totally different conclusions.

Impeach?? seems like it is time for something new, hey!! BTW,,,you ever see any of those Gators?? Aligators is it??

With Congresses approval ratings at 12%, I don't think they really could lead the charge on impeachement. Hell, they might drop to 5% approval.

Leave good old George and the gang alone. They do not mean harm and are making this world so so wonderful that I have started believing all that Western crap of progress and democracy....

by Ron Paul, Dr. December 26, 2005

December 26, 2005

Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.

Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.



Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?



We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.



The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.



Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.

Keywords: Government Surveillance, Terrorism

Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

by Ron Paul, Dr. March 4, 2002


With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.

Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.

First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.

The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.

Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.

Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.

Holy Shit,would you make a Good Politician

Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Oct. 12, 2002
In the U.S. House of Representatives six Republicans broke ranks and voted nay on the Iraq resolution. They were: Ron Paul of Texas, James A. Leach of Iowa, John N. Hostettler of Indiana, Constance A. Morella of Maryland, Amo Houghton of New York, and John J. Duncan of Tennessee.
Here are some of their reasons:


Rep. Ron Paul: "An important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the pre-emption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will pre-emptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy …
"For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores …

"My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously …

"Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression; there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy …

"There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.”



Rep. James A. Leach: "When a cornered tyrant is confronted with the use or lose option with his weapons of mass destruction and is isolated in the Arab world unless he launches a jihad against Israel, it is not hard to imagine what he will choose …
"Israel has never faced a graver challenge to its survival. The likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents, will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq. In the Gulf War, Saddam launched some 40 Scud missiles against Israel, none with biological agents. Today, he has mobile labs, tons of such agents and an assortment of means to deliver them …

"Over the last half century America's led the world in approaches expanding international law and building up international institutions. The best chance we have to defeat terrorism and the anarchy it seeks is to widen the application of law and the institutions, including international ones that make law more plausible, acceptable and, in the end, enforceable …

"Today, for the first time in human history, we have a doctrine of mutually assured destruction between two smaller countries, Iraq and Israel, one with biological weapons, the other nuclear. The problem is that an American intervention could easily trigger an Iraqi biological attack on Israel, which could be met by a nuclear response. Not only would we be the potential precipitating actor but our troops would be caught in crosswinds and crossfire.”

Rep. John H. Hostettler: "A novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression?
"‘Don't fire unless fired upon.’ It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the minutemen and framers of the Constitution …

"We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be.

"I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a pre-emptive military strike at this time.


Rep. Constance A. Morella: "As a mother who has raised nine children, I cannot help but think about this issue on a personal basis. Can I or can any parent look into the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending him into the perils of conflict?
"The world is watching us today as we show how the world's last remaining superpower sees fit to use its great influence. We are looked to as we set an example for the world.

"As the world's last superpower, I believe that we must have a better plan for our Nation and for the world for a post-war Iraq. We must reassure those neighbors in the Middle East that we are committed first to peace and stability and second to regime change. And we must not give our friends and foes in the region more reason to distrust our sincerity and desire for peace by ignoring the world community's role in addressing this problem.”


Rep. Amo Houghton: "In 1944 I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I voted for Desert Storm. I have always felt that the first dollar of federal money should go into defense, to be able to protect our country. But I am prepared to vote against this resolution. This is a sad day for me, because I want to support my president …
"I admire him greatly. But I guess, with thousands of votes which we make over the years, I have found that conscience is probably the best thing to follow and is most honest if one is going to be true to one's self, if not always politically popular …

"Following September 11 of last year, we were told that terrorism is the enemy. We have to get rid of al-Qaeda. We have to take out Osama bin Laden. We have to eliminate the pockets who hate Americans. We have to rebuild Afghanistan. Secondly, we were told that to win the war against terrorism, our main objective, it required the cooperation of our allies around the world. And I bought that, and the president spelled it out very clearly and very eloquently.

"Saddam Hussein is bad, and some day we should deal with him. But, right now, the security of the American people is at stake, and I believe we must fight terrorism in its emerging and subtle forms…

"I met with some Arabs the other day, with a group of Israelis and Arabs who were talking about the Middle East, and they said, the Iraqis in general hate Saddam Hussein, but they hate the United States even more.

"So Iraq is now one of the only secular countries in that region. And the Sunnis and the Shiites could create such a mess following a war that we could find ourselves against a religious fundamentalist state that could develop, where that is not the case now.

"The bill says that the president ‘is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.’ Now, I have great respect for this president. He is an unusual man. And he may be right. We do not know. This is all the future that we are dealing with …

"I think we have the cart before the horse. I think the U.N. ought to do its will first. Frankly, I feel that a right decision at the wrong time is a wrong decision; and somehow we must finish our war on terrorism before we take on another fight.”

Rep. John J. Duncan: "Ever since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the U.S. has been spending about $4 million a day enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq, $4 million a day. This has been a tremendous waste of money and manpower.
"I believe almost all Americans would have preferred that this $12 or $13 billion that has been spent over these years would have been spent in almost any other good way. Most Americans have not even noticed that we have been dropping bombs and still shooting at missile sites all these years in Iraq. I remember reading a front page lengthy story about a group of Iraqi boys we accidentally killed there …

"Now there are some people here in Washington who seem to be clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq. I represent a very patriotic pro-military district in Tennessee. My people will strongly support our troops if we go to war. But I can assure you that as I go around my district I hear no clamor or even a weak desire to go to war against Iraq …

"We have been too quick to get involved in ethnic or religious disputes around the world. We have been too quick to drop bombs on people who want to be our friends. We turned NATO from a defensive organization into an offensive one in Bosnia.”


Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:


Bush Administration


RNC

Don't Think!!!!

PASTE!!!!!!!

Think that may be due to the war?

Figuring this is being flamed like hell - just throwing in my concurrence.

Actually, I don' t think it is.

People want CHANGE.

If that's the case, good-bye Congress, which wouldn't be all bad. However, I would contend that the country is ideologically still split 50/50.