All categories - 23 July 2007

2007-07-23 13:27:50 · 3 answers · asked by jesseth3body2oo7 1 in Theater & Acting

I would say a homozygote and a heterozygote for one trait, right?

2007-07-23 13:27:43 · 2 answers · asked by swt16 1 in Biology

How come the Catholic Bible have more books than the Protestant Bible?Did the Catholics add more books in the Bible or did the Protestant take out some in books?I remember reading somewhere (Revelation I believe) that we should not add or take out God's word,are Catholics guilty of adding orare the Protestant guilty of taking out God word?

2007-07-23 13:27:39 · 13 answers · asked by Dee-Dee 1 in Religion & Spirituality

2007-07-23 13:27:35 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

2007-07-23 13:27:17 · 12 answers · asked by Lea 6 in Polls & Surveys

I am about to enter an acting school but do they help me to go to a show or anything? If not how may I find a producer or something?

2007-07-23 13:27:08 · 12 answers · asked by lm12123 1 in Theater & Acting

Joan originally had twice as many books as Emily. After she gave Emily 5 books, Joan still had 10 more than Emily. How many books did Joan have originally?

2007-07-23 13:27:05 · 7 answers · asked by wu_4533 2 in Mathematics

Im thinking about getting one but i dont know which.

2007-07-23 13:26:58 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Pets

We should direct our minds toward the enunciation of sound & correct judgements on all matters that come before it.....Rene Decartes (1596-1650)

2007-07-23 13:26:57 · 12 answers · asked by Rita 6 in Philosophy

I can't remember a better ending to a series/saga. WITHOUT SPOILING IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE, do you agree or disagree?

2007-07-23 13:26:54 · 16 answers · asked by Already Saved 4 in Books & Authors

The longest I have been on was from L.A. to Tel Aviv, Israel (15 hours)

2007-07-23 13:26:51 · 6 answers · asked by livin'inhawaii 1 in Air Travel

When I was little

-I live on a beach or something like that
-I wanted five kids either 2 or 3 adopted
- a big land where horses could roam free because when I was little I hated how pets would be cooped up in cages and how wild horses would be captured against their will lol.
-Then a little house where my friends would be able to live. Then we could throw backyard BBQ's and parties where random people would just come over and have a great time. But that was mainly for my friends because I dont' care for parties that much
-I would also have dogs there but i'd start out with two because you know..they mate
and stuff and have all them puppies
-and I'd have birds too but they wouldn't be in cages they'd just fly around and visit me when they want
-my husband was like a martial arts dude haha

anyway
that was a LONG while ago when I came up with this haha perhaps when I was 8 seriously

2007-07-23 13:26:40 · 16 answers · asked by Yuri ^_^ 5 in Polls & Surveys

I would say so after watching this video:
http://www.funnyjunk.com/movies/117/Baby+Got+Bible/

2007-07-23 13:26:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

2007-07-23 13:26:20 · 2 answers · asked by Davidson 1 in Botany

2007-07-23 13:26:19 · 7 answers · asked by Karen L 2 in Baseball

A. Sedimentary formations may be in contact with other sedimentary formations, but not with igneous rocks. TRUE?

B. Two half-lives equals a whole life in radioactive decay. TRUE?

C. A given rock may contain more than one type of radioactive element, permitting independent age estimates to be obtained. TRUE?

D. A formation containing a particular set of index fossils is assumed by geologists to be the same age as any other formation containing the same set of index fossils. FALSE?

E. The rate of radioactive decay of a given element varies with changes in Earth's gravity and magnetic fields. TRUE?

-THANKS

2007-07-23 13:26:11 · 3 answers · asked by noname 3 in Earth Sciences & Geology

2007-07-23 13:25:51 · 11 answers · asked by the d 6 in Politics

2007-07-23 13:25:40 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

Will the Game be televised live in the United States?

2007-07-23 13:25:36 · 4 answers · asked by Dave-O Tacoboy 4 in Football (American)

one she was kinda abused i think shes skitish and a few of her claws a gone. she is about 2' from head to tail tip and looks to have small features is she young. whats the best food and snacks for her. all and all i think she is very cool and want the best for her and want her to get big. and i heard i can leash walk her. any advice is welcome.

2007-07-23 13:25:34 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Reptiles

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

(For example, when George Bush felt like he was being led by Jesus to go to war with Iraq.)

- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -

2007-07-23 13:25:30 · 11 answers · asked by NHBaritone 7 in Religion & Spirituality

2007-07-23 13:25:29 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys

MiNE iS A PiANO..i GUESS BECAUSE THATS THE ONLY iNSTRUMENT i CAN PLAY..LOL BUT i LOVE LiSTENiN TO THE HARP..

2007-07-23 13:25:29 · 9 answers · asked by ♥That.One.Girl♥ 7 in Polls & Surveys

if he installs it and i do to is it illigal

2007-07-23 13:25:19 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Software

So for those that have been following what i've been going through with my ex...you know we broke up...and he got drunk and called me...he said that if somethingh happened to him or if he got locked up again it would be my fault...But i really do love him...nd we're tring to be friends...but its kinda hard...he tells me he loves me nd whants another chance...nd it hurts so much...What can i do...i miss him...i really do...he said he wished he was dead because i was the only one who keeped him out of trouble...i dont know what to do...Should i give him another chance?..What if he moved on already?..I can't stop thinking about him...what should i do?..♥♥♥



http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s229/chivasunshine/sal.jpg

2007-07-23 13:25:10 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Singles & Dating

childhood, but after that there is a gap of more than 20 years...
Where is the proof that evangelists didnt make it all up about his birth and childhood???
If they had accounts of his birth and part of childhood why didnt they have about his teenager time??

2007-07-23 13:25:02 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Religion & Spirituality

by polarizing our nation, ignoring the Constitution and making many of us give up hope of living in a nation based on the rule of law

2007-07-23 13:25:00 · 4 answers · asked by Ford Prefect 7 in Politics

The Democrats' attack on executive privilege shows blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Republicans aren't exactly racing to defend President Bush's assertion of executive privilege against Congress's investigation of his firing of nine U.S. attorneys. This leaves former political director Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, facing possible contempt sanctions. If this sword of Damocles drops, an important constitutional showdown between the branches might well reach the Supreme Court.
Rather than run from this fight, supporters of the constitutional system ought to stand firm with the president. Presidents, Congresses, and the courts have long accepted a president's right to keep internal executive discussions confidential. Even when the Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, it recognized "the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking."
Without secrecy, the government can't function. No one thinks conversations between federal judges and their clerks, or members of Congress and their staff, ought to be aired publicly without good reason. The same goes for presidents--even if their poll ratings are low.
Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower (whose administration invented the phrase "executive privilege") Kennedy and Reagan, among others, have kept executive deliberations secret from congressional inquiries, usually over matters of diplomacy, national security and law enforcement. Courts have recognized that discussions among their senior advisors, not just meetings when presidents are in the room, also receive protection. So why aren't Republicans fighting to defend executive privilege now?
Those who made their bones investigating the Clinton administration's misdeeds might squirm over Mr. Bush's assertion of privilege today. But then, Democrats who supported President Bill Clinton's assertions of executive privilege in the '90s are being hypocritical by jumping all over Mr. Bush now, too.
The issues at stake are light years from those of the Clinton years. Mr. Clinton was fighting claims of sexual harassment brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, an independent counsel corruption investigation into Whitewater, and his extracurricular relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton asserted executive secrecy to protect his personal affairs. This is legally important because the federal courts of appeals have held that the privilege only applies to communications between the president and his advisers on "official government matters."
Mr. Clinton's personal recklessness undermined executive privilege for all future presidents. At worst, today's flap might ultimately show some lax management, or partisanship, but the hiring or firing of U.S. attorneys for any or no reason is squarely within a president's constitutional prerogative. Mr. Clinton's groundless claims of privilege don't invalidate assertions of executive privilege for all time. Pundits who imply otherwise are just blowing partisan smoke.

Some Senate Democrats say Mr. Bush is just "stonewalling" and insinuate that he must be trying to hide something, as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) has darkly intoned. But as he well knows, executive privilege traces its lineage to George Washington. In 1796, the House of Representatives demanded all his papers related to the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Washington refused, saying that the Constitution barred the House from the making of treaties. Firing U.S. attorneys and any other executive officers, including those requiring Senate approval, rests beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, and totally within those of the presidency. This has been true since the first cabinet departments were established in 1789.
The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, "Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government." In the 1974 Watergate tapes case, the Supreme Court said that the president's right to protect information is strongest when law enforcement, national security or his other constitutional powers are involved. Under that rule, Mr. Leahy has no right to see the president's communications about the firing of federal attorneys, the nomination of John Roberts or Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court or the reduction of Scooter Libby's sentence.
That doesn't mean the president's power is limitless. Congress can conduct oversight needed to pass legislation. On the fig leaf that Congress is superintending the Justice Department's funding or statutory authorities, DOJ has accommodatingly turned over thousands of documents and made its senior staff available for testimony. Congress can always engage in good old-fashioned horse trading to get its way. If Senate Democrats really cared to see any of Mr. Bush's communications, as opposed to lobbing allegations of "scandal" endlessly on the front pages, they could refuse to confirm any new U.S. attorneys, high officials or judges until they got what they wanted. Not bothering suggests that there is no real wrongdoing here, just an intent to keep the scandal machine running.
Presidents can't invoke executive privilege to protect information needed for a criminal investigation, except perhaps if national security is at stake. Kenneth Starr pursued Mr. Clinton not for harassing Paula Jones, or having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but because Mr. Clinton apparently committed perjury and obstructed criminal investigations. Senate Democrats have yet to show that the firings have arguably violated a single law. Dumb and bad politics, maybe--criminal, no. If Senate Democrats really thought there was any crime here, then they ought to find somebody maliciously or politically prosecuted by a new U.S. attorney, or an FBI agent forced to drop a good case because of a new U.S. Attorney's partisan agenda. There is nothing criminal about a president's changing law-enforcement priorities, or replacing his political appointees with new blood.

Republicans unhappy with Mr. Bush for one reason or another don't care to use up their own political capital for an unpopular president. Others expect the administration to crumble at the end of the face-off, and who wants to be stuck defending a loser just because it's the principled thing to do?
But the odds are that Mr. Bush will win this fight. Even if a few Republicans defect, he has the Constitution on his side. His poll numbers may be low, but Congress's are even lower. Congressional Democrats have failed to follow through on the reforms promised in the 2006 campaign. They're too preoccupied with investigating rather than legislating. If the House or Senate vote contempt motions against Ms. Taylor or Ms. Miers, a U.S. Attorney must enforce them, and since they're all Bush appointees, nothing should come of it. The president has every right to order his prosecutors not to bring charges against officials who defend his legitimate constitutional claims. And what if the case gets to court? Vice President Dick Cheney prevailed in 2004 before the Supreme Court against efforts to learn the workings of his Energy Task Force.
With his domestic agenda exhausted, Mr. Bush has nothing to lose defending the rights of future presidents under the Constitution.

2007-07-23 13:24:55 · 7 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

Just wondering. Mine would have to be the 1 with the tongue ring :]

2007-07-23 13:24:47 · 3 answers · asked by Kodi [[RoX uR sOx]] 3 in Singles & Dating

here in new mexico our state question i sred or green (chile) if you have ever been here or eaten it which is your favorite and what restaurant.

2007-07-23 13:24:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Polls & Surveys