Politics & Government - 31 May 2007

What is the solution if a liberal democrat made it to the Presidency if you really cannot handle the country you love being put into the ground by one of them? Fleeing to Canada? Constant protests? Maybe an egg fight with Sheehan (or however you spell that)?

2007-05-31 03:50:55 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Considering that it was Reagan who ended the FAIRNESS DOCTORINE in TV and RADIO reporting. Then finally Bush 43 deregulated the media and it was all bought up by a handful of massive corporations that by law have to avoid waste when doing business. When this happened all the networks and paper cut loose loads of investigative reporters and started basically repeating government and business statements rather than researching the facts for themselves.

2007-05-31 03:43:31 · 16 answers · asked by ??? 3 in Other - Politics & Government

A guy I know (army guy) is going to Iraq, and he'll be protecting the Chaplin guy (Spelled wrong?).

Whats the chances that he'll........die....... :'(

2007-05-31 03:40:58 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Lets say a person on probation for a simple Mary-Jane charge (L worth). Would the Army provide help dismissin your probation

2007-05-31 03:39:53 · 8 answers · asked by Rashad 1 in Military

I just wondered what the downsides and plus sides would be for the above areas of law. I have to choose in August (ILEX qualifications) and wondered if anybody could advise me on what would be the best route to take. If anybody has any other ideas aside from the above those are welcome too. Many thanks.

2007-05-31 03:38:55 · 9 answers · asked by Daniel P 2 in Law & Ethics

2007-05-31 03:38:28 · 11 answers · asked by John 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-05-31 03:38:17 · 6 answers · asked by Wen Wen 1 in Military

War in the name of protection/defence is right. But if you invade/kill/destroy a weak country who never really directly or indirectly harm you, you are committing atrocities. Iraq never harmed USA (some liers wanted to make you believe so) but no prove). How do you justify the killing of innocent Americans and Iraqis all in the name of perceived threat?.

2007-05-31 03:37:30 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

This is antipollution wrapped in a new pacckage with a bigger bow.

Yes, reducing pollution (i.e. carbon footprint) is a good thing. Forcing governments to follow "new" golobal warming reduction guidelines is Kyoto in sheep's clothing.

We all want to reduce the pollution we put out. Let's all reduce our footprint. But let's cut the hype.

2007-05-31 03:36:44 · 11 answers · asked by Philip McCrevice 7 in Other - Politics & Government

I think that the CIA, and their mob connections, killed JFK. A few people and oswald shot him. They then all got in a car, and drove off. They were pulled over by a police offiecer, killed him and ran off in different directions. Oswald was caught and the CIA, covering their tracks, got Jack Ruby, using mob connections, to kill Oswald. Ruby agreed because he thought he would only get a five year manslauhgter charge. But he got death. Oswald was in the CIA, and the CIA unit that was used to kill him was Division D, the assassination unit, who had previously tried to kill Castro.

2007-05-31 03:31:40 · 8 answers · asked by aaadaj 1 in Politics

If we bring our soldiers home, are we bring the war home as well? Will terriorists stay there or will there be another attack here on our soil because of removing soldiers from the Middle East?

2007-05-31 03:31:05 · 19 answers · asked by Nathaniel 5 in Military

So Hillary stuck to her support of troops in Iraq until she started losing in the polls.She is afraid of Obama, Obama is afraid of her. Will they self destruct before this is over leaving the republicans (God willing) in charge? I can't take these bickering silly liberal flip flopping democrats running.

2007-05-31 03:30:26 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

How would you feel if the paychecks of active duty military service members of all branches went up, and maybe the paychecks of majors, colonels, and generals went down?

[ *Would it not be nice IF McCain were president and he successfully raised enlisted paychecks?* ]

2007-05-31 03:30:19 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

2007-05-31 03:26:04 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

They keep marching in lockstep with the president. Will they march over the cliff to their certain doom?

2007-05-31 03:25:24 · 15 answers · asked by courage 6 in Politics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_hi_te/spam_arrest

2007-05-31 03:20:25 · 3 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics

That is to say , sure the employers are paying low wages but add in all of the EXTRA benifits that they receive like ( school lunches ) free hospital care ( emergency room visits for minor problems. ) and the rising crime rate from the over 700 gangs in Los Angles alone.
Are the criminals really benifiting you ? - or the employer.
Yep they will work for low wages - and that is what they always BRAG about as an arguement but in reality are costing the TAXPAYER more money than you would care to know- because it would make you sick.

2007-05-31 03:20:24 · 5 answers · asked by caciansf 4 in Immigration

2007-05-31 03:13:20 · 12 answers · asked by Stop Bitching. 1 in Politics

Do you think the us should have the death penalty? , Does the death penatly get help get rid of crime?

2007-05-31 03:10:52 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

The Right to Lie in the "News"
If ever we needed to know why the biggest media consumers in the world are so badly informed, this pretty well tells it all. The Media Can Legally Lie.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.
Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows.
[...] FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation."
In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
OK, pick your jaw up off the floor. That some court thinks they CAN is bad enough, that these people assert their right to do so pretty well kicks it all down the hole. And these guys wonder why their credibility is in the toilet and the net is burning them left right and centre.
Oh, and February 2003, 30 days before Iraq.

2007-05-31 03:09:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

You know, if thousands of Americans were in Mexico City chanting and demanding their RIGHTS to dumb down schools, overpopulate prisons and drain social services, create massive gang problems, and don't embrace higher education in lue of popping out babies like rabbits(which they can ill afford to even feed and clothe, never mind educate)...what do you THINK would happen to those protestors??

I am an immigrant who came to America, and busted my @ss, educated myself, and am now living what is known as the American dream(I also was once homeless, while going to school).

So who is it that wants the hand-outs? The free-bee's? The welfare and food stamps for able bodied people, who create children, yet have no responsibility as parents(and I am suppose to buy into this LIE??!!)

Real Americans want ASSETS to come to America, not LIABILITIES, and definately not the nutcases marching in the streets demanding their "rights"!

Your thoughts?

2007-05-31 03:09:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

Is this an example of how well our Homeland Security works? Doesn't it show terrorists how easy it is to bring a biological agent into this country?

2007-05-31 03:03:46 · 10 answers · asked by diogenese_97 5 in Law & Ethics

Does anyone no the difference between these two?

2007-05-31 03:03:17 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

2007-05-31 02:59:36 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

I have been researching this but cannot find a yes or a no.

2007-05-31 02:59:05 · 5 answers · asked by gonzofski 2 in Military

Tax cuts are paying down the deficit, Growth is fantastic, good paying jobs are plentiful, my tax cut helped pay my gas bill for May... now, I have to run to the pharmacists for more xanax.

2007-05-31 02:57:51 · 16 answers · asked by Gemini 5 in Politics

obviously no "sane" person would commit a murder. so why are you allowed to plead insanity to a crime? if you get convicted and you plead insanity all you have to do is go to an institution until you are "cured" how do you know when a person is cured from insanity? how can you insure they will not kill again. i think it is ridiculous people are allowed to plead this way and basically get away with murder. no matter what your state of mind it doesn't change the fact you took a life. that would be like being allowed to kill someone because you are drunk or under the influence of drugs. both of those are mind altering. i would like to know your opinion. for or against? and why? thank you


nothing rude please.

2007-05-31 02:57:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

when a person under the age of 21 can join the Army and kill but cannot buy beer in any store at home.
when is one of the countries with more laws and regulation that tells what people got to do,how to do it and when to do it , than any other one .(this laws being made by an elite of rich people who ussually control business and corporations that terrorize not only their own country ) but other part of the world too). (see bush and oil ,see chaney and hallebert,see generals and admirals and military companies like rigtehon and others )
When high education got to be paid by the people instead of being subsidise by the goverment
When health care so expensive that almost nobody can afford it .
dont'you think instead of spend trillions of dollars in wars ,will be better to spend it in there own people at home??

I can keep going on and on but you get the point !!!

2007-05-31 02:56:21 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

2007-05-31 02:52:20 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-05-31 02:51:54 · 17 answers · asked by ifhusain 4 in Government