I don't know how much I support Chavez, but it's just an indication of how awful Bush is. I'm not fucking moving, I'm just going to vote Democratic.
i can think of a good reason, and that is the future. this planet has just so much natural resources and without a governing body we are left to slaughtering each other over them. to be frank i would like to see a world government. now that's HUGE
Churches, and notably the evangelical mega-churches that supported Bush don't pay taxes, that is plenty. The ACLU protects churches and the government by keeping them separate. Also, Bush's new church agency won't do anything to fight the ACLU. But there's a War on Christmas, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow! You really ARE behind the times, aren't you? ....LOL! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...se_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq Iraq Resolution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq) Jump to: navigation, search AUMF may refer to several authorizations to use military force granted by the United States Congress. In 2001 Congress issued another authorization, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists as a direct result of September 11, 2001. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002. The Resolution cited several factors to justify action: Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region" Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq" Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President determined that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions. Members of Senater who voted against: Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Robery Byrd (D-WV) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Mark Dayton (D-MN) Dick Durbin (D-IL) Russ Feingold (D-WI) Bob Graham (D-FL) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) John Redd (D-RI) Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Paul Wellstone (D-MN) Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Read our constitution, and learn something about how our 3 branches of government work, and yes every thing that the President has been doing is in accordance with our laws, and ruling as they come down from the courts.
Not violating the FISA. Not the torture. Besides, with the cons controlling congress, there are no checks and balances, but that is soon to change. It's funny that all you can brag about is that he allegedly didn't violate the law. He's still incompetent to lead the nation.
The first post illustrated just how idiotic the right is now. Neither Chavez nor Cindy Sheehan support terror. Somehow if you don't like Bush, you support terror? It's designed to make Bush look like he's doing a good job of fighting terrorism, which he is not. Where's the port protection or border security? Where are new codes for high-rise buildings? Why does the Taliban still exist? Why is Bin Laden free?
all one has to do is look at churchyards around christmas time. and yes, there may very well be a war on christmas. according to the constitution there is no 'seperation of church and state'.
A prosecution for violating our laws would be nice, but I'm not against Bush specifically for that. He's a bad president, even if he did act within the law, which a federal court recently determined that he didn't with respect to FISA.
And that is your opinion, it is not provable, and only history will be able to judge this period in time.
The geneva condition does not, by it's very fucking definition, apply to terrorist fucks. Read the damn thing. I don't understand why it's even brought up... well, I do, and it's because it's political ammunition. They don't wear uniforms, they aren't part of an army. They don't get geneva convention protection. That's it.
The Geneva convention isnt about the fucked up. Its about what we the "civilised" people hold ourselves up to. Or else where is the moral high ground?
A minority 40%. No, we have Bush, you support Bush. Why does one have to move if they may support Chavez? Chavez doesn't hate the United States, only it's government, like most Americans do. And hey, Bush supports Israel and also supports Kingdom of Saud. Government doesn't equal country. Governments hinder freedoms if anything. - N
