Politics & Government - 7 April 2007

It comes out his mouth a lot.

2007-04-07 04:47:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

my breath for two minutes out of every hour do you think Al would be proud of me? Do you think I could win an Oscar or a Nobel Peace Prize?

2007-04-07 04:47:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Or more about the profound ignorance of the person looking?

2007-04-07 04:43:44 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

The Democrats' Choice
Do they want to get something done, or just wage war on the president?

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Next week the Democrats will mark their 100th day running Congress, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared herself "enormously proud" of their record.

We think it's too soon to judge success or failure, and in any case the more pertinent question concerns what the Democrats are trying to accomplish: Do they want to get something done, which will require the signature of a Republican President who still has 21 months in office? Or is their goal to delegitimize the Bush Presidency with a purely partisan goal of regaining the White House in 2008?

If their plan is to govern, Democrats have several opportunities to work with President Bush to achieve goals they claim to share. Trade deals on Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea await a Congressional vote, and their defeat would harm those nations and the U.S. national interest. On immigration reform, Mr. Bush is closer to most Democrats than to many in his own party. The No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (a k a Mandatory Maximum Tax) needs another patch to avoid hitting 15 million more taxpayers this year.

We have nothing against partisanship, and Democrats have every right to reward their supporters and pursue their policy goals. Some of these are part of the "Six for '06" bills that House Democrats passed easily in their first days, though they still have to run the gantlet of the Senate. But our guess is that Democrats would help themselves more, and have a better chance of gaining seats in 2008, if they show they are open to compromise and can point to priorities that became law.

The alternative is to frame a largely partisan agenda that may pass the House but will either die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. These include the largely political payoff to unions of abolishing secret organizing ballots, or cutting off funds for the Iraq war. These are crowd pleasers on the left, which has overinterpreted last year's victory as a mandate for their policies rather than a rejection of GOP failure.

But this is a risky strategy that would give the lie to the claim that House Democrats made last year that they could govern better than the Tom DeLay Republicans. Their freshmen from swing districts would have few accomplishments to tout. And neither Mr. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be on the ballot again--a reality that Democrats will sooner or later have to acknowledge, hard as it will be to give up the anger.

If Democrats are smart, they'll realize that Republicans in Congress don't fear veto fights. What gives them nightmares are signing ceremonies with Mr. Bush and Nancy Pelosi.

2007-04-07 04:43:29 · 4 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

Why/why not? Do you think Bush over reacted?

2007-04-07 04:40:57 · 9 answers · asked by 2 days after my B day :) 2 in Politics

Why the Liberal republicans behave so liberal like Mark Foley or George Ryan?

2007-04-07 04:40:27 · 3 answers · asked by OllinIkniuhgötterdähz 2 in Politics

And a missile was on its way,Why would we get just 2/3 minute warning? Personally i would rather not know and not panic

2007-04-07 04:38:58 · 31 answers · asked by dope 1 in Military

2007-04-07 04:32:50 · 17 answers · asked by Jackie Oh! 7 in Elections

For over 40 years now, politicians have been using abortion as a red herring issue. No other red herring has been able to stand that test of time.
And this issue is ideal. It requires only an opinion, not any knowledge. It has no reasonable solution to satisfy both pros or cons. It makes an election seem like a contest between sinners and saints.

Divide and conquer is the oldest strategy in the world. There's nothing like a perpetual red herring issue to accomplish that goal.

2007-04-07 04:30:34 · 11 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5 in Politics

2007-04-07 04:27:04 · 24 answers · asked by DeuceRider 3 in Politics

I think the participative (direct) democracy is better than representative democracy。
In a country with a representative democracy the people interests are represented by the members of the parliament they elected. But after the elections the people can not really control what their representatives do.
But in a country as Switzerland, where there is participative democracy since 19th century, the people can purpose laws that can be voted by referendum. And if they don't like a law voted by the parliament they can purpose a better law to be voted by a referendum.
Also, in a participative democracy there is less room for coruption, because the people can check how are spent the money they paid for taxes to the state.
You can find more about participative democracy (named also direct democracy) by searching in www.yahoo.com for "participative democracy" or "direct democracy".
Also, see the below sites.
We can have a better life in a participative (direct) democracy.

2007-04-07 04:27:03 · 10 answers · asked by Gabriel 1 in Government

Israel is said to have the right of existence though there were people (Palestinians) living on that land and many massacres were committed against them by the Zionist gangs and many also were made homeless. Israel extended their occupation to the West Bank and still violating the International law. Why??
Why do millions of people support Israel blindly?

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/massac.htm
http://www.palestinehistory.com/issues/refugee/ref1948.htm
http://resistance.jeeran.com/massacres/deiryassin/index.htm

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/nueva_web/index.htm

2007-04-07 04:25:52 · 16 answers · asked by MagicWand 3 in Politics

while in captivity at least ... were being accused (by some)of kow-towing to their captors (the Iranians/president...

I heard at least one guy on the ';Wright' show yesterday say this

has the recent news about the treatment they recieved changed peoples minds .... or should it always be

..stiff upper lip .. Name ..Rank ...Number ....

What would you have done..?

2007-04-07 04:21:08 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Answer seriously...I am NOT going for the nobel prize here. LOL

All parties have something that they have done that is good. Who has the balls to point out something good that the other side has done?

Dem vs. Rep and vice versa.....

2007-04-07 04:17:48 · 8 answers · asked by Tall Chicky 4 in Politics

?

2007-04-07 04:11:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-04-07 04:07:44 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

for the priviledge of coming here, working here, not being taxed the same as a US worker, and then sending 85% or more of that money back to Mexico?

2007-04-07 04:04:51 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

well you know.

2007-04-07 04:02:07 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

It is sad but true.

http://www.conservativeworld.us/

2007-04-07 04:00:55 · 10 answers · asked by JASON A 1 in Other - Politics & Government

He stated flat out that,

"The war in Iraq has hurt the United States far more than it has helped and we have created more terrorist!"

I use to think he was insane, finally he makes some sense.

Good for you Pat, I have renewed respect!

Are the Conservatives coming around, well some?

2007-04-07 04:00:47 · 13 answers · asked by Malthusian 3 in Politics

is it hypocritical of Bush to chide the senate and house to come home early from vacation so he can pass a bill for "emergency funds" for the Iraq war?

Bush took 4 days to get to the south after hurricance Katrina, and took at least 4 days to visit the hospital where the war vets werent being taken care of. he's also taken more vacation days than any president in history and he's still got 2 years to go. plus, he said the war will last into the next presidency.

Also, its been estimated that the War Budget wont run out until AT LEAST the middle of June.

lastly, its the constitutional duty of the house and senate to keep him from having too much power, the idea of checks and balances, but he openly tells the media that he's the one who'll decide whats going on, and its not their place to make decisions about the war, even though the finances of the country are exactly what the constitution says is their job.

am i missing something here, or is he very plainly wrong and out of touch?

2007-04-07 03:59:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

At one time many public offices did not make you rich to hold it was an honor and a privelage to be in that postion. Now you could feed a starving country or help the homeless, better protect our borders, or educate our children on a stadard of world class by providing better classrooms supplies, better well paid teachers, and concern for something other than a deplomia that is just a piece of paper with the money spent in a short time by a person running for an office that makes them rich and capable of lying on a grand scale on everything from education to war and tax cuts that only benifit the people with the most money.This is shameful that a person can behave as many of our presidents have and still do & for life recieve the finest health care possible and our aged are ever day decieding if they can afford their Rx's. Many people are making just enough to not recieve any help with health care but can't afford Rx's after getting them.

2007-04-07 03:46:39 · 3 answers · asked by ruttschaw1 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-04-07 03:43:54 · 13 answers · asked by searching 2 in Military

Also how much do they cost for the army to buy them?

2007-04-07 03:43:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

apologies to Shakespeare, but I mean...

So we sell massive amounts of weapons and chemical reagents to Hussein in the 80's, the we kick him out of Kuwait after he uses his weapons we sold him, then gasses the Kurds with chemicals we blostered him with, then, he says he has no WMD's, the UN agrees, then, we invade on the premise of him holding WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda, then, we find he didn't, then, get booged down and spend 1/2 trillion in the process. Sounds way too funny to be real...

2007-04-07 03:40:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

When you take into account international relations, climate change, social cohesion.

2007-04-07 03:29:06 · 32 answers · asked by Wayne B Australia 2 in Politics

I say loyalty! It is a double edge sword. They would defend the worst person in the world out of loyalty. Dems split on vote - Reps are allways 99% with the program.

Take the recent "surge" it is full of crap! Everyone knows that we need 300-400 k troops to pacify a country size of Iraq. WE do not have them and we did not have them!!! These 20k (or actual number 28? Bush lied again) will do nothing, but cons still defend it like a GREAT solution out of loyalty!

2007-04-07 03:20:52 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-04-07 03:19:27 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

do the dems think we the people are stupid?or are they just plain stupid?

2007-04-07 03:17:47 · 7 answers · asked by texaspades 1 in Military

A lot of people don't completely fill out a ballot because they don't understand or have knowlege about certain items like referendums for instance.

In these scenarios, if the ballot isn't completely filled out, does it become nullified or do they count the ones checked?

2007-04-07 03:12:44 · 10 answers · asked by Tall Chicky 4 in Politics