It would appear you need to read the constitution.

and that makes this election any different how?

I had a fearful dream last night and it spoilt my day. How much should christians believe in the efficacy of dreams. Who's the author of dreams, God or the devil?

oh, come on... even you have to admit this is pretty stupid... we need ID's for anything/everything else, but not to elect our public officials?

So, it's unethical/immoral to let people die...
..but it's ethical/moral to force them to live/suffer?

How's that work exactly?

the cheerleading squad in full action today... of course it is obama's doing, how else can he win without the illegal vote?

hmmm

theoretically, yes, because noone is perfect and I could build upon what was right with the relationship before it went sour


realistically, no, because Im just not interested in the potential waste of precious years of life on someone that already showed a propensity to be unfaithful (first husband) or insane (second husband)


id rather move FORWARD

I find so many of my friends can't find "a good man" but then you get into their requirements and it's ridiculous. I am 41.

At this age, almost all guys have kids who are single/divorced and my friends want to be their only baby momma or to be the focus of the guy's entire life or not have him talk to his ex.

A lot of the guys our age are broke from paying alimony and child support and they want the guys to be wealthy. Also the economy sucks right now and a lot of good men are underemployed.

They will not date a bald guy. Yet at this age, most of them have had their hair migrate off their head, down their back and to the azz.

They want the physically fit super built men. Most of those guys blew out knees, ankles, shoulders, elbows, by now playing sports

They don't want the guy with glasses.

Not all women are that way but I know so many and then they wonder why they are disappointed.

Any thoughts?

Again, you are absolutely incorrect. Here is the Wiki version and there is nothing ambiguous about it. Since you do not understand the part about "permission" I have highlighted it for you.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional."

Now look who's making the racist comment.

That is completely incorrect. Only congress has the power to declare war.

Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)).

The people he exposed all screwed up and did immoral and illegal things.

They have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide.

The difference between President Reagan and Obama is that Reagan was a great President.

Why do they hate us? Why are they upset at us for burning their Holy book? Why would they be mad at us for pissing on their dead countrymen? Why are they making a big deal about our soldiers collecting dead body parts? Why? Why? Why?

Here’s the latest:
A lone American serviceman slipped away from his base in southern Afghanistan before dawn Sunday and went on a methodical house-to-house shooting spree in a nearby village, killing 16 people, nearly all of them women and children, according to Afghan officials who visited the scene.

Read more here

I’m sure Rush Limbaugh, Pam Geller, Michelle Malkin and the other troop loving American patriots will have a handy excuse why this soldier lost it. “He was blowing off steam,” they’ll say. “He was reacting to the terrible violence he saw committed by the Taliban,” others will claim.

Of course the United States government will condemn the action, and claim that it is an isolated incident that does not reflect the high moral integrity of the U.S. military.

********!

While readers may rightly level contempt at the U.S. soldier who committed this atrocity, I would urge them to channel that anger towards the one’s who are truly responsible.

Last year, Der Spiegel published gruesome photographs showing American troops posing with the corpses of murdered and mutilated Afghan civilians. In the April, 11 2011 edition of American Free Press, I made this observation:

(Note: This is an unedited version from my own files)

In typical fashion, the U.S. government has distanced itself from the atrocities and laid the blame solely at the feet of the young men it trained to kill. The photographs depict “actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States Army”, said Army Col. Thomas Collins in an official statement from the Pentagon. “We apologize for the distress these photos cause.”

That statement is hauntingly reminiscent of so many others issued by the U.S. in the wake of similar tragedies. Following the Abu Ghraib scandal, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld offered up an almost identical apology when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said, “To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. Armed Forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was inconsistent with the values of our nation, it was inconsistent with the teachings of the military to the men and women of the armed forces, and it was certainly fundamentally un-American.”

Contrary to the claims made in these statements, such atrocities seem very consistent with the manner in which American troops conduct themselves in the foreign countries where they’ve been deployed. Aside from these latest incidents in Afghanistan and the well known atrocities that were carried out at Abu Ghraib—where prisoners were physically, psychologically and sexually tortured by their American captors—several other callous acts have been documented in recent years; suggesting that a sadistic culture of violence is epidemic within the ranks of our armed service personnel.

In 2007, U.S. soldiers aboard an Apache helicopter repeatedly opened fire on a group of unarmed civilians in Baghdad, leaving two men dead and several others severely injured, including two children. Leaked footage of the killings contained audio where the soldiers can be heard celebrating the deaths and laughing as a Bradley fighting vehicle runs over one of the dead. Then, in 2008, a Marine on patrol in Iraq was video taped throwing a puppy over a cliff while being cheered on by his fellow soldiers.

What is particularly disturbing about these acts is that they are not just carried out by one disturbed individual, but by groups of them, who all seem to share the same psychosis. This contradicts the claim by the U.S. that these are isolated incidents carried out by rogue elements. The only reason they appear isolated is because they have been made notorious by the video, audio and photographic evidence that has exposed them to the light of day.

Meanwhile, thousands more civilian deaths go unexplained. In Afghanistan alone, in excess of 2,700 civilians were killed in 2010—up 15% from 2009.

Many of these casualties cannot be blamed on young soldiers, but by the ruthless policies carried out under the direction of the highest-ranking military commanders. One of the most vicious and despised tactics currently employed by the U.S. are ‘night raids.’

Though the U.S. continues to fear-monger about the possible repercussions that the “Kill Team” photographs may spark, it is not likely to manifest itself inside Afghanistan. These people do not need photographs to remind them of the horrors of American occupation. They see these things with their own eyes, and the indelible image that it leaves on their minds.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2012/03/children-of-evil-empire.html

By comparison if you live in Desert Like surroundings then I definitely live in Leafy Suburbia.

Is that a Racist comment...lol