And you know ms. arabella, I'm in good shape so I have no shame about it. It's really sad that people have to run with the pack around here and jump in a wolf attack. Is it necessary? Does it make you feel better?
Why is Obama voting yes? I know it would pass without his yes vote and they would make him look very weak in the eyes of the fearful if he didn't. But I would like to believe if he was not the presidential canidate that he would vote on what I believed his principles were.
We do have to remember that republicans had control of both houses and if anyone spoke against the war they were unpatriotic. Who bought that BS....fear, fear, fear is all people heard on the media. Remeber what happened to Max Cleveland over one vote, the same vote other Republicans voted for. And Tom Daschel who dared to speak out.
The republican strategy now and has been character assasination and fear mongering.
And Karl Rove, the former political adviser to President Bush who is quietly consulting with McCain's top strategists, offered this piece of advice in his column in the Wall Street Journal.
"Mr. McCain will be helped if he uses Mr. Obama's actions to paint his opponent as someone driven by an all-powerful instinct to look out only for himself," Rove wrote Thursday. "In a contest over who is willing to put principle above personal ambition and self-interest, John McCain, a war hero and a former POW, wins hands down."
Mark Rozell, a professor of political science at George Mason University, said the similarity of the attacks suggests a concerted effort to "build a picture" about Obama's character before the political newcomer has a chance to convince people of the truth of his rhetoric.
"These things are always orchestrated," Rozell said. "I have no doubt there has been a running conversation within Republican circles about what the theme should be in going after Obama and how that theme could be reinforced."
Is the media in on it? Solitare, if you read this is just struck me how often you talk about the media's role in our Government....and you are so right.
Mon Jun 30, 9:03 AM Pacific What Wesley Clark Really Said About John McCain
Thank you BnaturAl, for expressing your opinion and anger at the garbage that started this thread. I swear people read stuff like that on the internet all the time and some cower down. I usually don't cower down from expressing my true feelings, even if I am angered but after a while of constantly being followed and insulted for everything I say, which is called bullying, it wears you down. And maybe I don't always express myself elequotely....one must always behave like a "lady" on CS
It is the same in politics. Kerry allowed them to define him as a flipflopper, then when he changed his stance they laughed even louder and called him a double flipflopper. They try to make their oppenents look bad to their own party. FLIPFLOP, could it be possible that people learn and still stand on the same prinicples. Could it be possible that they are going to corner you no matter what you do. McCain won't do it. He is just a gentle ole war hero who is completely opposite of Bush if you can buy that he didn't sell his soul or him self in 2003 when he gave Bush that big ole hug at their crazy revival, I mean convention.
Karl Rove is still out there campainging for McCain. Rove laughs at the Senate Judiciary's sophena. why? Because he knows he can. I am positive that they do not want another party to take power. I thought I saw the worst in Florida when they fought like a bunch of hungry wolves to keep them from counting the votes. But that was just the beginning.
This is anothter good link on how oil speculation has increased the cost of oil. If anyone is interested in how speculation is increasing oil there are many links as of today it is/has been exposed.
Yeah, I don't know if it would be THAT simple but I still put it out there and if people take the time to read it they will decide for themselves if there is any merit to it.
The Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs took it seriously enough and believe it to be true.
Big corporations and large oil stock holders. It would be quite simple to most Americans wondering where's the jobs? Why is the cost of everything rising so much?
Many people supporting Obama believe this will be the most important change he can make....to allow us us to keep our rights and liberties and make this country a nation of law again.
The following was posted above but it is so important it needs to be highlighted....
We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that’s not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?” It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that. Case closed.
No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities in participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.
None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.
I imagine you wouldn’t see much harm in voting to allow this practice to continue either.
But if you see a vast dragnet for millions of Americans’ private conversations, conducted by a government agency that acted without a warrant, acted outside of the rule of law—then, I believe, you’ll recognize what’s at stake here. You’ll see that what’s at stake is the sanctity of the law and the sanctity of our privacy. And you’ll probably come to a very different conclusion.
Maybe that sounds overdramatic. Perhaps some will ask, “What does it matter, at the end of the day, if a few corporations aren’t sued? These people sue each other all the time.”
Others may say, “This seems a small issue. Maybe the Administration went too far, but this seems like an isolated case.”
Indeed, Mr. President – as long as this case seems isolated and technical, they win. As long as it’s about another lawsuit buried in our legal system and nothing more, they win. The Administration is counting on the American people to see nothing bigger than that – “Nothing to see here.”
But there is plenty to see here, Mr. President – and it is so much more than a few phonecalls, a few companies, a few lawsuits.
What is at stake is nothing less than equal justice—justice that makes no exceptions. What is at stake is an open debate on security and liberty, and an end to warrantless, groundless spying.
This bill does not say, “Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions.” Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear:
“Trust me.”
And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. “Trust me.”
What is the basis for that trust? Classified documents, we are told, that prove the case for retroactive immunity beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But we’re not allowed to see them! I’ve served in this body for 27 years, and I’m not allowed to see them! Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.
I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take “trust me” for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a President on Mount Rushmore.
I can’t put it better than this:
“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.
Those words were not spoken by someone who took our nation’s security lightly, Mr. President. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan -- in 1980. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values. Even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.
Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that. Case closed.
No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities in participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.
None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.
What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness.
They see what I see in this debate – that by short-circuiting the judicial process we are sending a dangerous signal to future generations. They see us establishing a precedent that Congress can—and will—provide immunity to potential law breakers, if they are “important” enough.
Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence …that for year on end every e-mail, every text message, and every phone call carried over the massive fiber-optic links of sixteen separate companies routed through AT&T’s Internet hub in San Francisco—hundreds of millions of private, domestic communications—have been…copied in their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by means of multiple “splitters” into a secret room controlled exclusively by the NSA.
The phone calls and internet traffic of millions of Americans, diverted into a secret room controlled by the National Security Agency. That allegation still needs to be proven in a court of law. But it clearly needs to be determined in a court of law and not here in Senate.
I suppose if you only see cables and computers there, the whole thing seems almost harmless. Certainly nothing to get worked up about—a routine security sweep, and a routine piece of legislation blessing it.
If that’s all you imagine happened in the NSA’s secret room, I imagine you’ll vote for immunity.
I just listened to the first link you posted and all of these illegal acts are linked together....
Chris Dodd on Senate Floor on immunity of telecummunications...
I am here today to say that I will not and cannot support this legislation. It goes against everything I have stood for – everything this body ought to stand for.
There is no question some improvements have been made over the previous versions of this bill. Title I, which regulates the ability of the government to conduct electronic surveillance, has indeed been improved. Albeit modestly. In fact, it is my hope that a new Congress and a new President will work together to fix the problems with Title I should the Senate adopt this new legislation.
But in no way is this compromise acceptable, Mr. President. This legislation before us purports to give the courts more of a role in determining the legality of the telecommunications companies actions. But in my view the Title II provisions do little more than ensure without a doubt that the telecommunications companies will be granted retroactive immunity. We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that’s not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?” It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
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 …
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.”
I doubt if you make less than $2000 it will go up.
But my concern is that corporations are benefiting like this at our expense eveyday and Bush/ McCain want to give them more by decreasing their tax from 35% to 25%. It is evident that Bush creates policy to favor the rich because most Americans are not better off today.
Obama wants more education so we can compete with our technology jobs being shipped to India for people who are more advanced in technology. And he wants more research.
opalbeauty Forum Posts (851)
he must like all my knowledge. 
RE: Is this a Dating Site?
And you know ms. arabella, I'm in good shape so I have no shame about it. It's really sad that people have to run with the pack around here and jump in a wolf attack. Is it necessary? Does it make you feel better?