Politics & Government - 19 January 2007

I own and am renting a property through a propery management company. The tenents have a dog that they stated on the rental agreement was a Bull dog. The dog has squeezed between the two fences and gotton into neighbors yard on a couple of occasions. The neighbor called me to complain and I immdeitely called property management company to report this. They told me that they would resolve the problem. Now it happened again and the neighbor called me and threatened to sue me and says that the dog is a pit bull. He has not taken any steps to block fence on his side. I reported this again to property management. If this dog gets through again and were to bite someone am I legally responsible. I should add, I live in another state so I can't just go over there and fix the problem myself that is why I have a property management company.

2007-01-19 03:57:37 · 2 answers · asked by mom of twins 6 in Law & Ethics

Is she married? To whom?
Thanks!

2007-01-19 03:57:15 · 26 answers · asked by MarauderX 4 in Politics

while they write 'BOARDERS' instead of 'BORDERS'???

And why don't you ever complain about street names and shop signs in Chinese in China Towns in America??

(Many Chinese immigrants DO NOT speak English, how about that?)

2007-01-19 03:56:41 · 20 answers · asked by Malcolm Knoxville 2 in Immigration

"Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime"

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040109015020.8ivyabdw.html

2007-01-19 03:55:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

2007-01-19 03:55:54 · 3 answers · asked by NORMAN E 1 in Military

I need to know this for the women in combat debate. The thing is that they (the goverment and upper powers) dont alow women to go into direct ground combat (engage with the enemy) all they can do is fly transport vehicals. They consider that serviece and we want to get them into acualy combat.

2007-01-19 03:55:48 · 9 answers · asked by Joshua 1 in Military

With incident after incidents of bullying and general anti social behaviour maybe its time to restore authority . The problem was the" youth rights" liberal lobby who have helped breakdown and return our society back to the dark ages.

2007-01-19 03:55:16 · 30 answers · asked by jack lewis 6 in Other - Politics & Government

Considering the West and other countries

2007-01-19 03:53:30 · 15 answers · asked by Gbenga O 1 in Other - Politics & Government

Is it because the politicians are using the war as a springboard for political gain? Do politicians truly believe that causing the death of more American military is more important than the possibility of losing an election? Is all the rhetoric only giving support to the terrorist?

2007-01-19 03:53:22 · 6 answers · asked by Border Security!! 1 in Politics

I'm in the UK.

The local Jehovah's Witnesses have visited several times and handed us magazines.

A letter was sent to ther Kingdom Hall requesting - in an incredibly polite and civil way - that the visits and the magazines stop.

However, since then, we have been visited twice in two days ~ the second time they brought the actual letter which requested them not to come, therefore ignoring our 'un-invitation', which I find frankly discourteous.

If they come again, I'd like to resolve the issue quickly.
What steps, under UK law, can I take now?

2007-01-19 03:53:01 · 8 answers · asked by Neil_R 3 in Law & Ethics

the BBC report that the suspected 21 july bomber's were photographed by the police while camping in may 2004 why the police failed to ask what they were doing instead filming? not hate answer please!

2007-01-19 03:52:46 · 4 answers · asked by Clean heart 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-01-19 03:52:30 · 4 answers · asked by *~*~BABY GURL~*~* 1 in Military

2007-01-19 03:51:28 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

Remember no matter what the law the black market will always be selling weapons. Yes making it illegal to own weapons will stop those gun accidents at home. If weapons are banned the honest people will not have anything to defend themselves if someone with an illegal gun attacks them. I say don't ban them because people will have weapons just the wrongs ones!

2007-01-19 03:50:44 · 14 answers · asked by Iamhere 4 in Law & Ethics

All you have to do is look around the Uk .right now every english persons seems quick to condemn her, but the goverment spend money promoting BRITISHNESS.....what a bunch of wollys

2007-01-19 03:50:07 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

why did republicans get the boot?

2007-01-19 03:48:55 · 7 answers · asked by TheAnswerGuy 2 in Politics

the Adobe Dollar is by far a more stable currency than the Almighty Dollar, plus it already has an eagle printed on it.

Wouldn't you love to see Benjamin Franklin and Benito Juarez together on a banknote??

2007-01-19 03:47:24 · 18 answers · asked by Malcolm Knoxville 2 in Immigration

2007-01-19 03:47:13 · 3 answers · asked by halfway 4 in Law & Ethics

2007-01-19 03:46:14 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-01-19 03:43:27 · 12 answers · asked by rosen 1 in Immigration

law abiding citizens are forced to get rid of their guns(following the law)...... while criminals who never registered for their guns(stolen most of the time) keep their guns to commit crimes on a gunless public.

2007-01-19 03:43:23 · 9 answers · asked by to be announced 2 in Law & Ethics

The USA can't even do that.

2007-01-19 03:43:00 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

in my opinion noone is above law! we all have laws we have to follow. so if you think your above the law, your 110% mistaken. what is your opinion?

2007-01-19 03:42:27 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Can you acknowledge that Nancy Pelosi BEFORE Bush was in office?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

2007-01-19 03:41:22 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Take this test and post your results just curios on were people fall on the political compass?

I fall in the Left Libertarian

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

2007-01-19 03:39:08 · 10 answers · asked by striderknight2000 3 in Politics

would also argue that every single barrel of domestically produced crude oil and every MCF of natural gas makes us less dependent on foreign sources. That is just one more barrel that we didn't have to import. That is another 50-plus dollars that we didn't send to some country that may hate us. It is another $6 an MCF of natural gas that didn't go somewhere else.

And so, why, for goodness sakes, would we want to intentionally inflict financial harm on the folks that are producing the crude oil and natural gas from domestic sources? It is counterproductive in the extreme.

And so when you talk about reducing our Nation's dependency over some period of time, since we recognize we are going to have to have crude oil and natural gas, then by reducing the domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, you have, in fact, increased the foreign source requirements of that crude oil and natural gas. And so that is what this bill does.

Let me talk a little bit about the specifics of what this bill does. Back under the Big Oil category, let me talk about what that did. That is simply a tax increase. Most businessmen and -women understand that taxes on businesses go up and they go down, they go up, they go down, so a 3 percent increase in the tax rate on businesses is not something that is going to destroy any single business, I wouldn't expect. But it is cash flow that would have otherwise gone into their business. And in this instance, their business is producing crude oil and natural gas.

Statistics show that the small producers who are impacted by this provision reinvest about, in 2005, reinvested 617 percent of their profits back in the ground. Let me make sure you understand that. If they made a dollar out of their businesses, they borrowed $5 and put $6 back in the ground.

Now I would give you the statistics from 1999 to 2005, but it is embarrassing. It is 898 percent. And so these are folks that take that money that they earn, taking the risks of drilling for oil and gas. And I am going to be joined here in a few minutes by a colleague who fed his family for a while owning a service company in the oil and gas business, taking the risks that are inherent with all the oil and gas exploration, all of the regulatory burden with trying to produce crude oil and natural gas and making money with it and turning that money back into additional activity.

That 617 percent provides additional jobs, because you spend that with drilling contractors; you spend it with service companies, some large and some small, some mom and pop organizations. In fact, my dad and mom owned an oil field service company for the last 25-plus years of my dad's career. They spent it with folks like him, who he also hired folks, and so that is how that system worked.

What section 102 does is to change a section of the code, section 199, which, back in 2003 when America was losing jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, the Republican Congress in place at the time said, we need some way to incent manufacturing jobs because most manufacturing jobs have better benefits and better pay than service jobs, particularly entry-level service jobs.

Now, you know, lawyers and accountants and doctors and others are in service business and they make really good money. But the bulk of service jobs are such that they don't make as much money. But manufacturing jobs, by and large, really are important to this economy on a go-forward basis.

In fact, back in 2003, Speaker Pelosi said manufacturing jobs are the engines that run the economy. These are good jobs. They give working families high standards of living. So even our current Speaker agreed that to incent manufacturing jobs to stay in this country was an important thing to do. So that is what section 199 of the code was intended to do.

The net effect was to take the corporate tax rate which, on C corporations is 35 percent, and over its implementation time frame would lower that rate about 3 percent to somewhere between 32 and 33 percent, meaning that those manufacturing jobs would have that 3 percent taxes that instead of coming to the Federal Government and having the 435 of us spend it, the companies would spend that money themselves. And with respect to the oil and gas business, they would take that money and multiply it by, from 200 percent to 600 percent for the small companies with additional activity, additional jobs.

Now, by definition, oil and gas production was considered to be manufacturing under the definition that was put in place. Now, under the ending subsidies for Big Oil, every single oil company, the companies that produce the largest average daily production down to the smallest daily production, if they are a C corp, are impacted by this. So I guess by impact, we will have to assume, my colleagues on the other side's definition of Big Oil includes every oil company, just because that is how this impact will be. This impacts every single oil company that is in that business.

And again, I said taxes go up, taxes go down. But the net effect on this is that there is less money for these companies to spend in the oil business drilling, producing, completing all the things that go on to produce additional crude oil and natural gas which, again, as I said earlier, limits our need for imported crude oil and natural gas. Every single barrel is a barrel that we have not had to buy from somebody who really hates us.

2007-01-19 03:37:59 · 8 answers · asked by CaptainObvious 7 in Politics

My Fellow Americans:

As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list! contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

2007-01-19 03:37:54 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

2007-01-19 03:37:39 · 5 answers · asked by halfway 4 in Military

Your all Christians, right? or at least the majority of you are.

Well, I'm not, sorry, but i do believe that Jesus had some great ethical ideas.

One of which is when people are putting money into the collection box.

The poor woman is treated really well by Jesus, but a rich man who puts in several times more what the woman put in, is not given the 'gratitude' he expects.

Jesus explains that the woman has donated (to a degree) a high percentage of her income to charity.

As you are all Christians, why will you not agree to donating 0.7% or whatever it is of your GNI to foreign aid?

Britain is not that great either, we spent only 0.48%

You guy were bad, what’s 0.22% all about?

2007-01-19 03:37:06 · 8 answers · asked by speedball182 3 in Politics

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0116MigrantKilled16-ON.html

FYI: Illegal immigrants do not carry GUNS.

2007-01-19 03:37:02 · 22 answers · asked by Malcolm Knoxville 2 in Immigration