Politics & Government - 14 August 2006

2006-08-14 12:04:16 · 20 answers · asked by Ownerz 2 in Politics

2006-08-14 12:03:55 · 10 answers · asked by yasszaa 1 in Politics

if you havent found the truth yet, go here: http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyer.pdf

read carefully and think of the possibility that the government was in charge of the demolishion of the world trade center, in an elaborate scheme to blame terrorists of the middle east, go to war and in turn raise oil and gas prices signifigantly.

think about it? a plane demoloshing 2 giant steel reinforced buldings? its impossible. go to that site and read the proof and how the gov, and femas explanations dont match up.

2006-08-14 12:03:45 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

how can you argue against a theory that you haven't researched for yourself? if you're only familiar with one or two pieces of the research, how can you effectively disprove it? for example- does proving that cell phones work on airplanes really disprove the theory (not that i've ever read anything that really used the "cell phones don't work on planes" argument to prove the theory)? how many people that don't believe that the US government played some sort of role in either perpetrating the attack, or allowing it to occur have actually read even 1 book about the subject? what was it?

2006-08-14 12:03:27 · 9 answers · asked by list 3 in Politics

Pro-Choice
Pro-Gay marrige
Pro-War
Against Illegai immigration
Help poor people but only to a minimum
I like rap music
I think that the president or Iran is a dumba*s
Will strongly defend the first Amendment
None of the ciminals convicted of sexual crimes(ex:rape, molestation) should ever be released on the streets
Hate it when liberals and conservatives argue about stupid s*it

2006-08-14 12:02:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2006-08-14 12:01:39 · 3 answers · asked by jaysluv 1 in Law & Ethics

Speaking as someone who grew up in Liberia, West Africa, Civil War survivor. And you can be sure of that.

2006-08-14 11:59:31 · 19 answers · asked by Perfect Specimen 2 in Other - Politics & Government

ok here goes there is a friend of mine whois 16 years old and he was just put onto probation for growing ... he missed his first 3 appts. but rescheduled each time.. ok so today he went to his "first probation appt. and when he got there there was an investigator there along with his probation officer ... the investigator wanted him to write a statement on an older woman that he had been "accused" of having sexual relations with.. this was the second time that he had been questioned by the investigator without his lawyer or his mother present and today when in the office the investigator threatened him with jailtime for messing up his investigation because he told his mom about being questioned and then she told the woman but the inv. told him he had a signed paper from the judge that said he would take him to jail if he didnt sing a statement.. the kid told them he wanted to see his lawyer but they denied his request and got up as if to take him into custody.. he got scared and he ...

2006-08-14 11:57:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

What do I do now? I need documents 5 years old or older but I never kept papers laying around for that long. If I'd have done something wrong they'd know exactly who I am and where to get me...bastards! Bush and his ******* war probably made it more difficult to get a goddamn passport!

2006-08-14 11:57:21 · 6 answers · asked by synchronicity915 6 in Embassies & Consulates

2006-08-14 11:57:03 · 12 answers · asked by gus ferns 1 in Military

Personally, I think it's silly that there are people that take the inscription on the Statue of Liberty literally.

It's a symbol. Not policy. If you want a symbol to show to illegal immigrants, I'd be happy to flip them the bird.

"Give us your illegal, uneducated masses yearning to pop out a few babies on US soil."

Humbug. Illegal is illegal.

2006-08-14 11:56:40 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

Most Democrats have no objection to the idea of spying but feel there must be oversite. How do you feel. Does this worry you and do you feel that when the founding fathers incorporated this into the constitution they wanted George Bush to do an end run around this important check and balance. In other words do the ends justify the means. If they do what other rights do you think we can give up.

2006-08-14 11:56:37 · 5 answers · asked by Britton J 2 in Government

What's the best way to get into serious politics in the UK, how do I go about running for office, and what can I do to have my issues taken seriously

2006-08-14 11:54:25 · 9 answers · asked by R Galley 2 in Politics

WHAT IS THAT ALL ABOUT? Protect the border, get thrown in jail - and the illegal who was trying to cross gets a free pass?

What is the world coming to? Why don't we just do away with our borders?

2006-08-14 11:52:07 · 5 answers · asked by ♥Saffire♥ 4 in Immigration

2006-08-14 11:51:12 · 12 answers · asked by ridcully69 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-08-14 11:49:32 · 7 answers · asked by ridcully69 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-08-14 11:48:21 · 19 answers · asked by A REAL American 3 in Other - Politics & Government

George Bush and Dick Cheney are on the record having aggressively lobbied the U.S. Congress for the right to use torture as a method of interrogation for anyone that they consider ‘Enemies’ of the state. Congress passed legislation confirming that it is illegal to use torture on anyone but after signing this bill into law, George Bush used ‘Signing Statements’ to alter this legislation. Signing statements are indeed the right of any U.S. President but George Bush has used more signing statements than all the previous U.S. Presidents combined. This particular signing statement gives the Bush Administration the right to circumvent the law and use torture as a means of interrogation when they see fit. I see this as a terrible abuse of the Presidents administrative powers. Where are you on this?

2006-08-14 11:46:45 · 13 answers · asked by Todd Maz 4 in Law & Ethics

President Bill Clinton, Democrat
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
Clinton did nothing.
In October 1993, eighteen American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The corpse of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News, "The youth . . . realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
In November 1995, five Americans were killed and thirty wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing.
In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
Clinton did nothing.
Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq, hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces. There is more

2006-08-14 11:46:00 · 15 answers · asked by AmericanSwede 2 in Politics

-notice liberals always side with them

2006-08-14 11:45:49 · 22 answers · asked by A REAL American 3 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-08-14 11:44:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

everyone always says that conspiricy theories are based on poor research, however, people who research them (or at least the ones I'M familiar with) know that they are subject to much more scrutiny than everyone else (like the news). wouldn't this generally mean that people who research conspiricy theories have to do far better and more complete research in order to be taken the least bit seriously?

2006-08-14 11:44:08 · 5 answers · asked by list 3 in Politics

http://geocities.com/squeakywheel4peace

2006-08-14 11:43:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Civic Participation

2006-08-14 11:43:04 · 21 answers · asked by Wise_guy 1 in Law & Ethics

Even liberal pussys(thought the won't admit it) because he is doing what we all secretly want
destroying the terroristic middle east so that we don't have to deal with those terroristic cowards anymore.
do you agree?

2006-08-14 11:42:41 · 12 answers · asked by dude 1 in Politics

they wanted to wipe Hezbollah but they didn't,they wanted to get back their soldiers but they couldn't.all they did was killing children!

2006-08-14 11:42:04 · 13 answers · asked by nicky 3 in Politics

This is totally untrue. In fact, researchers are looking into using marijuana to help crack addicts to quit. There are 40 million people in this country (U.S.) who have smoked marijuana for a period of their lives -- why aren't there tens of millions of heroin users, then? In Amsterdam, both marijuana use and heroin use went *down* after marijuana was decriminalized -- even though there was a short rise in cannabis use right after decriminalization. Unlike addictive drugs, marijuana causes almost no tolerance. Some people even report a reverse tolerance. That is, the longer they have used the less marijuana they need to get `high.' So users of marijuana do not usually get bored and `look for something more powerful'. If anything, marijuana keeps people from doing harder drugs.

The idea that using marijuana will lead you to use heroin or speed is called the `gateway theory' or the `stepping stone hypothesis. . . .

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml#3-10

2006-08-14 11:41:31 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Red used to = communist. Better dead than red. Why would Republicans want this color associated with their party?

2006-08-14 11:40:42 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Is this guy the husband of Edna Bambrick, or just another jerk on this site?

2006-08-14 11:39:55 · 6 answers · asked by FootballFan1012 6 in Politics

Marijuana does not turn young healthy boys into lanky, girlish looking wimps, no. This scare tactic (call it homo-phobic if you will) was a common device used in early anti-drug literature. It attempts to scare boys away from marijuana by telling them, essentially, that it will turn them into a girl. Young men probably should not use marijuana heavily (see the section on amotivational syndrome), but the risks are not horrendous.

Anti-marijuana pamphlets used this claim often during Reefer Madness II, but the studies which are cited are mostly faulty or misinterpreted. This is not to say that marijuana use does not affect childhood development at all, just that the effects are not as drastic as some people would like them to sound. In fact they are pretty much unknown.

2006-08-14 11:39:17 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics