Politics & Government - 16 May 2007

2007-05-16 12:50:53 · 6 answers · asked by scott h 1 in Law & Ethics

I reported a crime to the police. The first person they investigated was me. I was interrogated and they wanted to search my house. It was an ordeal, intimidating, and scary. I came away with the opinion that I should not become involved with the police unless it directly involved me and that one can never be sure how the police interpret what you may say and the ramifications of what you may say. I'm sorry. Next time I look away.

2007-05-16 12:45:28 · 13 answers · asked by quidproquo888 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

I heard this baby has one.

2007-05-16 12:45:05 · 10 answers · asked by Conrado 2 in Law & Ethics

I mean, are people so utterly horrified that they're wrong that they can't actually ask an honest question? It's not a right-wing thing, it's not a left-wing thing. It's not Democrat or Republican, Socialist or Neocon or anything like that. On the main page alone (as I type this) there are 13 of 20 that aren't honest questions at all - they're just some jerk whining about how dumb anyone who disagrees with him or her must be. 5 of the remaining 7 are similar style questions except the insults aren't necessarily political in nature. Can someone with a touch of insight into this sort of thing let me know why everyone is so frightened that they might be wrong on any given topic that they have to come up with the craziest headline they can to get the people they hate frothing at the mouth (regardless of how good or bad the point is) and get like-minded people cheering and patting them on the back (regardless of how good or bad the point is). I really hope someone can clear this up.

2007-05-16 12:42:08 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Most fair-minded readers will no doubt take me at my word when I say that a majority of Democrats in this country are out of their gourds.

But, on the off chance that a few cynics won’t take my word for it, I offer you data. Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here’s how the research firm put it: “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39 percent say he did not know and 26 percent are not sure.”

So, one in three Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can’t quite make up their minds.

There are only three ways to respond to this finding: It’s absolutely true, in which case the paranoid style of American liberalism has reached a fevered crescendo. Or, option B, it’s not true, and we can stop paying attention to these kinds of polls. Or there’s option C — it’s a little of both.

My vote is for C. But before we get there, we should work through the ramifications of A and B.

We don’t know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.

The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it’s so stupid. It’s like trying to explain to a four-year-old why Superman isn’t real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn’t work that way. Or you can just say, “It’s make-believe.”

Similarly, why try to explain that it’s implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen — and clever enough to get away with it — yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he’s such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.

And, if Bush — whom Democrats insist is a moron — is clever enough to green-light one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMDs?

No, the right response to the Rosie O’Donnell wing of the Democratic party is, “It’s just make-believe.” But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the “reality-based” party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61 percent of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, “blame America first” doesn’t really begin to cover it, does it?

So then there’s option B — the poll is just wrong. This is quite plausible. Indeed, the poll is surely partly wrong. Many Democrats are probably just saying that Bush is incompetent or that he failed to connect the dots or that they’re just answering the question in a fit of pique. I’m game for option B. But if we’re going to throw this poll away, liberals need to offer the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to data that are more convenient for them. For example, liberals have been dining out on polls showing that Fox News viewers, or Republicans generally, are more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Now, however flimsy, tendentious, equivocal, or sparse you may think the evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 may be, it’s ironclad compared with the nugatory proof that Bush somehow permitted or condoned those attacks.

And then there’s option C, which is most assuredly the reality. The poll is partly wrong or misleading, but it’s also partly right and accurate. So maybe it’s not one in three Democrats suffering from paranoid delusions. Maybe it’s only one in five, or one in ten. In other words, the problem isn’t as profound as the poll makes it sound. But that doesn’t mean the Democratic party doesn’t have a serious problem.

2007-05-16 12:41:10 · 9 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

..sent a letter to my old landlord who stole my money that said something like, "YOU ARE THE BIGGEST A**HOLE EVER" with no mention of physical harm? Would it be ok to express that opinion?

Could I go to jail for that?

2007-05-16 12:39:21 · 8 answers · asked by donna p. 3 in Law Enforcement & Police

..sent a letter to my old landlord who stole my money that said something like, "YOU ARE THE BIGGEST A**HOLE EVER" with no mention of physical harm? Would it be ok to express that opinion?

Could I go to jail for that?

2007-05-16 12:37:00 · 9 answers · asked by donna p. 3 in Law & Ethics

2007-05-16 12:30:50 · 7 answers · asked by Layne J 2 in Politics

Why is it if oil prices raise it's W's fault, but nothing is said if they go down? Why is it George W's fault if a hurricane hits New Orleans just because the stupid governor and mayor did nothing? Give me some answers George Bush haters and i'll look them over.

2007-05-16 12:30:15 · 13 answers · asked by sunnygirl 4 in Other - Politics & Government

Isn´t he the man best fitted to figth against corruption in poor countries?

2007-05-16 12:27:47 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-05-16 12:26:34 · 4 answers · asked by Jay Edgar 2 in Other - Politics & Government

Do they want to continue Bush's deficit spending?

2007-05-16 12:20:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

What if warehouses across America are already stocked with millions of microchips ready for use?

2007-05-16 12:17:41 · 15 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in Law & Ethics

I have a very high stress job, and a couple of weeks ago i started to feel very weird at work and passed out.
It lasted a split second, and after that I was feeling very dizzy.
I really had no brain activity, couldnt walk straigh or hold a pen, couldnt see very well either...So my coworker rushed me to the doctor's on duty next to our work...and there the doc called my employer to tell them my illness wasnt work related???
Im now left with the doctor and ER bill in excess of $4,000
What can i do, What should i do?

2007-05-16 12:15:06 · 2 answers · asked by djscred 1 in Law & Ethics

My friend had a domestic 5 years ago, did time, classes and probation... just got arrested for the same thing in a different county, but no domestic on record. can they give more charges if they find out?

2007-05-16 12:14:57 · 6 answers · asked by DARKANGEL72 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-05-16 12:14:39 · 27 answers · asked by funny_owl 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

I need this ? answered

2007-05-16 12:10:35 · 5 answers · asked by mims 1 in Military

I happen to believe that everyone owns their own bodies, and therefore they own their own labor. Health care is a service, provided by someone who has devoted a large investment of time and money to the trade. They should be able to sell their service at a rate reflective of their investment in learning it, and patients should be able to negotiate for a fair price for services performed. However, if we have a RIGHT to health care then doctors MUST perform their trade regardless of price simply because the patient NEEDS their service. In effect it is coercing the doctor to labor based not upon a mutually advantageous contract, but rather upon a definition of need defined by somebody else. And that seems inherently wrong to me. Can anyone show me the flaw in my logic without resorting to emotional appeals? Can you prove that we have a right to health care?

2007-05-16 12:09:21 · 19 answers · asked by Bigsky_52 6 in Other - Politics & Government

2007-05-16 12:07:58 · 5 answers · asked by Dana B 2 in Military

Why is it that I cannot smoke in public, in a place with "non-smoking areas" and smoke filters, BUT I can go almost anyplace, even a family place like ball games, KI, or the place "non-smokers" go to eat and get as trashed as I want? Even the Yahoo home page advertises beer. Would you rather be driving down the highway with someone smoking or drinking?

2007-05-16 12:07:31 · 6 answers · asked by gary l 1 in Law & Ethics

I thought it was the 10th amendment.

2007-05-16 12:04:24 · 6 answers · asked by InTROLLigent 3 in Government

are they?

2007-05-16 12:02:46 · 13 answers · asked by Victoria23 2 in Military

we are going to have the police come in our class, so we need to ask him some question, but i can't think of one right no,maybe yall can help me with some.

2007-05-16 12:02:23 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-05-16 12:02:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Sorry Gonzo

I had out you for trying to get Ashcroft to sign the Wiretap law while he was sedated for surgery.

2007-05-16 12:01:44 · 4 answers · asked by ShortBus43 2 in Politics

Can a landlord deduct more from my security deposit after we already signed a paper stating only a certain amount will be deducted? For instance, I had the preliminary walk-through where the landlord said all I need to do is clean the kitchen real good and will only take $75 out of my deposit. A week later, the landlord says she will be taking more out! The $75 deduction is for re-painting but I read somewhere that in the state of CA, there is no need to deduct for re-painting if there is not major damage done. Also, I moved out 8 days earlier than what I was suppose to so am I entitled to get the 8 days prorated back to me? Lastly, I read somewhere that in some states the landlord is suppose to pay interest on the deposit every month, is that true for California? How does that work exactly? I hope someone can help! Thank you.

2007-05-16 11:59:28 · 4 answers · asked by zenith 1 in Law & Ethics

1. They keep close ties to China, and many have received funding from that country.

2. They believe in limiting the rights of the citizens and creating a police state.

3. A one-party system is one they continually fantasize about, asking the people to abandon the Democrats.

4. They are striving to create a small elite with a mass of workers with no rights underneath, just like it was in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

2007-05-16 11:57:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

The Federal Government decides to "Federalize" State Militias and National Guard units, what can be done to stop this aggressive government practice?

2007-05-16 11:54:05 · 5 answers · asked by InTROLLigent 3 in Government

2007-05-16 11:53:48 · 7 answers · asked by Jacks036 5 in Elections

1. You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but yesterday's gasoline prices are all Clinton's fault.

2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.

3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.

4. You have to believe that AIDS victims deserve their disease, but smokers with lung cancer and overweight individuals with heart disease don't deserve theirs.

5. You have to appreciate the power rush that comes with sporting a gun.

6. You have to believe everything Rush Limbaugh says.

7. You have to believe that the agricultural, restaurant, housing and hotel industries can survive without immigrant labor.

8. You have to believe God hates homosexuality, but loves the death penalty.

9. You have to believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.

10. You have to believe that pollution is OK as long as it makes a profit.

11. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.

12. You have to believe Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were really faithful husbands.

13. You have to believe speaking a few Spanish phrases makes you instantly popular in the barrio.

14. You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.

15. You have to be against government interference in business, until your oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke and you beg for a government bail out.

16. You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred for AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton.

17. You have to believe government has nothing to do with providing police protection, national defense, and building roads.

18. You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher.

2007-05-16 11:53:35 · 8 answers · asked by slipperypickle 3 in Elections