Hussein could have allowed the ex order to expire, like he promised.

how would he do that?

it was part of the DEFENSE BUDGET that the congress had included

being reiterated by congress, kind of eliminates the ability to 'expire' unless one refuses to sign the bill at all,,,,which means refusing a lot of the very necessary components set for defense spending...

all or nothing doesn't work in politics, especially when bills have hundreds and thousands of pages and hundreds of different policies thrown in to them at once,,,

I think i am missing the point now..or ? I am more concerned about the human rights that are at stake then the budget. What i mean is that it is quite scary that someone can be arrested on suspicions of terrorism. Without actual proof that would stand up in court. And then to be transfered to a cel where he would remain the rest of his life.
Without any form of trial.

I am concerned about human rights too, no doubt

however, I also believe idealistic clich�s cant always work, and aren't always the best solution

I do believe drastic situations can require drastic solutions,,,

I understand the desire to have control over the defense policies that protect the citizens,,,its kind of like how a parent asserts a certain absolute authority over children,, it would never mean that they could ABUSE their children, but its best understood as an absolute even with those expectations that exceptions will be made


in the latter, NDAA, the president signed a BILL, that means there were hundreds of pages relating to many things, primarily things that fund our military

in that BILL, that CONGRESS presented him, CONGRESS included a clause to CONTINUE The previously stated authority from the 60 word AUMF that Bush signed into law,,,

they could have excluded it and let it 'expire',, or they could have included a clause to revise it or resign it,

but they chose to include it , again


, and being part of a hundred other things the bill needed to accomplish,,, the president signed it

So ehm. If i understand what you are writing now. Then you are saying it is sort of a "package deal" ( i am not trying to be sarcastic now )
So it means that apart of civilian rights to be violated. It included much more details about the military implications that all where in the same act. Is this what you mean ?

My point is that it is a violation of human rights. I do not know or think about any other consequenses it has.I just find it freaking scary that people can just dissapear of the face of the earth.


I am trying to learn from all of you.

yep michela

that is a problem with our system

you see, our 'bills' can be exceedingly lengthy and congress is permitted to insert any number of measures into those bills for their pet causes and base promotion,,,,

for these bills to pass , ALL of it must pass, so presidents and congressmen are often in the seat of extreme compromise,,


where in order for SOME progress on those issues of importance to them, they have to agree to things they may not necessarily agree upon,

Thank you for clearing that out

When a bill reaches the president, he has four options...

1. He can immediately sign it into law or he can review it and suggest changes...

2. He can veto it in its entirety (line item veto was ruled unconstitutional in 1998) ...Even if the president vetoes a bill, it can still pass if both the House of Representatives and the Senate pass it with a two-thirds majority vote...

3. He can pocket veto a bill by holding it for 10 days after it reaches the Oval Office...If Congress adjourns its current session without receiving a response from the president, the bill is considered a pocket veto and cannot be overridden by Congress...

4. If the president receives a bill and holds it for 10 days while Congress is still in session, the bill becomes a law without his signature...

That's it, when it comes to signing a bill into law, the president has four choices....

Never, in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined, any fake or real profile validating the fact of double standard.

Wonder what would happen if all the non-negros up in heah wuz to say,"Negro, please."? Would there be mass banning?

Again, from the bottom of my heart, I thank the quoted profile for validating me.

@leigh2154

Thanks for the explanation :)

Her wisdom is astounding.
And, she's hotter than hell, don't you agree?

context is everything,,, as a negro, I can say when and how the word offends me


just like a woman may not imagine the context of another female referring to her as 'girl' as derogatory

while imagining a male calling her the same thing as CONDESCENDING

because, well, context matters


the word negro is fueled by 'legitimate' historical definition and less legitimate historical implications

using the term negro may or may not offend me, based upon CONTEXT


coming from another negro it would not

as I wouldn't imagine he was saying the word with a belief in negros being inferior



coming from someone like DODO, it would not

as I would imagine he was poking fun at vernacular, and not associating the word with some inferior status



coming from someone like YOU it would
as I would imagine it was another attempt to belittle others,, since that's what most previous posts indicated ,,,



,,,because,, the CONTEXT is important,,,,

@ willing2
Hmm i do not want to get lured into making sexual inuendo's. But i agree that her wisdom is astounding. Just like msharmony's. And your not too dumb either sir. Pity though that you cloak that wisdom of yours sometimes with these kind of statements. But it is definately present

Thank you again for validating the discrimination and double standards.

You a'int from around these parts, are ya.

Man to man, saying a woman is hotter than hell is a compliment.
That includes all of her. Even her brain.

( Offtopic )
In my country as a man you cannot even help a woman that has a flat tire without getting labeled as "he wants something more from me" put on you. But i know that one of my Spanish friends finds it normal to be called "hey beautifull". It is very ok to say that in Spain. And why not ? I mean..it is a nice compliment. It does not mean that you disrespect someone and will jump her bones after that..

I agree so much Michala,,,

every cause has its imperfections, and its hard sometimes when addressing sexism to allow for context

I can tell when a man means to compliment, even if his choice of words are not my favorite


kind of like holidays and religion,, I can tell that Salamma Laikum is well wishing

as much as happy Hanukkah
or happy presidents day for that matter

I don't need to personally believe in celebrating something to understand someone else might celebrate it and wish me well based upon their values,,,



,,but yeah,, we are going off topic,,lol