bush knows where bin ladin is but he;s using him to keep the war in iraq going on.he;s the worst president this country ever had.good thing he was'nt president during world war 11.we would have been under the nazi flag instead of the american flag.
2007-06-11 12:21:13 · 25 answers · asked by bigjoe8127 1 in Politics
Suppose some man ' T '.....says to his some friend 'G'.....,
'' My grandfather IS so bad tempered that once he killed his own cow in anger''.
CAN 'G' file a complaint against T's grandfather under section 429 IPC (prevents cruelty to animals),
WITHOUT CHECKING OTHER FACTS,
Just ON THE BASIS OF....... T's THAT STATEMENT against his own grandfather?In INDIA?
2007-06-11 12:19:57 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government
Child support is for 3 children. oldest just turned 18 and graduated. Does the child support payor have to file a motion to modify child support or does he just stop paying for the one that turned 18?
2007-06-11 12:19:29 · 3 answers · asked by KoolKat 1 in Law & Ethics
Suppose some man ' T '.....says to his some friend 'G'.....,
'' My grandfather IS so bad tempered that once he killed his own cow in anger''.
CAN 'G' file a complaint against T's grandfather under section 429 IPC (prevents cruelty to animals),
WITHOUT CHECKING OTHER FACTS,
Just ON THE BASIS OF....... T's THAT STATEMENT against his own grandfather?In INDIA?
2007-06-11 12:18:00 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
2007-06-11 12:17:16 · 4 answers · asked by pomik 1 in Law & Ethics
with social assistance programs, when their solution to the problem of poverty is to do........nothing?
2007-06-11 12:16:07 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics
What were the top well known things people knew Jimmy Carter for? Besides being president.
2007-06-11 12:16:06 · 11 answers · asked by ♫Take These Misunderstandings♫ 3 in Government
something dealing with drivers licinese
2007-06-11 12:14:10 · 4 answers · asked by dreae 2 in Law & Ethics
Mon Jun 11, 8:45 AM
VIENNA (AFP) - UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that the "brewing confrontation" with Iran over its atomic ambitions "must be defused," as Tehran failed to provide sensitive information it had promised.
ADVERTISEMENT
A meeting Monday between ElBaradei and a senior Iranian negotiator was cancelled since "the Iranians didn't want to talk substance at this point" on questions about possible weapons work, in an over four-year-old investigation by the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, a diplomat said.
ElBaradei meanwhile told an IAEA meeting: "I am increasingly disturbed by the current stalemate and the brewing confrontation -- a stalemate that urgently needs to be broken, and a confrontation that must be defused."
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors began Monday in Vienna a week-long meeting that could bring Tehran one step closer to a third round of UN sanctions against its nuclear programme.
2007-06-11 12:07:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics
2007-06-11 12:05:09 · 4 answers · asked by il93 1 in Law & Ethics
The hospital has admitted fault.
2007-06-11 12:04:06 · 5 answers · asked by LISA W 1 in Law & Ethics
Hamas-Fatah battles spill into Gaza hospitals; infighting reignites despite Egypt-brokered truce.
2007-06-11 12:02:56 · 4 answers · asked by Atlas 2 in Politics
Hamas-Fatah battles spill into Gaza hospitals; infighting reignites despite Egypt-brokered truce.
2007-06-11 12:01:53 · 9 answers · asked by Atlas 2 in Politics
I have an answer I just need opinions to help me develop more of an understanding, I hate war it's too difficult.
2007-06-11 12:01:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics
everything should be free because man made the things so man shoulnt pay for those things
2007-06-11 11:57:33 · 9 answers · asked by tylerschlueter 1 in Law & Ethics
To many of you think that questions that revolve on distorted opinions of parties, President, Pro choice insisting on answers that have very little to none merit are not fun, productive, nor challaging. My first reaction is assuming the writer is a moron, is this how the writers want to be percieved?
2007-06-11 11:54:00 · 17 answers · asked by gag t 1 in Politics
They say it's wrong to execute a murderer who poses immense threat to the lives of innocent people, but it's OK to abort (murder) an innocent baby. It's hypocrisy in its purest form!
2007-06-11 11:53:01 · 16 answers · asked by Dr. Adriano Nostromo 2 in Other - Politics & Government
My husband is deployed to Iraq and every week I send him the indivual packs of kool aid and ice tea...well you only get 10 packs per bok at 3.00 a box, and he uses 2 packs per bottle of water.. what i was wondering is has anyone ever used regular powder kool ais, ice tea and just measured out enough for a bottle of water if so, how much did you use. Im sorry if this sounds like a dumb question.
2007-06-11 11:50:09 · 7 answers · asked by *Army*Wife* 3 in Military
As a method of discovery, I wish to file a request for documents from other party. I would like information on how its done for a civil case.
2007-06-11 11:49:46 · 1 answers · asked by lady_just_chilling 2 in Law & Ethics
25 minutes ago
By Bruce Cheadle
ADVERTISEMENT
OTTAWA (CP) - The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.
The survey by Decima Research, released Monday to The Canadian Press, found that two-thirds of respondents want Canadian troops to come home when the current mandate from Parliament expires in February 2009.
Only 26 per cent of respondents believed the military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."
The results of the poll, conducted May 31 to June 4, were released as Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed an extension to the mission with his Dutch counterpart in Ottawa.
Harper has repeatedly hinted that Canadian troops may have to stay on in Afghanistan's troubled southern provinces beyond February 2009 in order to ensure stability.
2007-06-11 11:47:17 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics
Why Liberals Spread Poverty
Liberals would prefer more people to experience poverty. Their actions demonstrate their massive desire to see more people unemployed, and under paid. One of their chief political goals is to cripple the chance for the impoverished from improving their lot in life and thus become even more dependent upon entitlements that only they (liberals) will dole out. Thus the greatest con in elective politics begins again.
It's called a "surcharge."
You and I would call it a tax increase. One more way and reason for the political class to take even more of the money that you and I slave for by slugging it 9 to 5 everyday.
In their funny little semantic sideshow this "surcharge" would be their answer to resolving the problem of the "alternative minimum tax." This year the "AMT" (another hostile attempt for elected leaders to pick-pocket us) will hit 23 million people. Some making as little as $50,000. The original idea of the AMT was to purposefully inflict pain upon 155 wealthy people a gazillion years ago. But it has never been adjusted for inflation - and you know liberals - they've never found a tax no matter how ill conceived that they've ever had a desire to do away with. So now the liberal congress is about to unload a ghastly holocaust of earnings redistribution on many working class families if the leadership in Congress doesn't take action to care for the AMT.
Their idea?
A 4.3% "surcharge" on "rich people." Particularly those who make $250,000 or more. And one important note - the plan, since it is a "surcharge," would be in addition to the tax rate you already paid last year.
Why they do it makes absolutely no sense - especially to the poor. The data speaks clearly to this matter. When you place uber-taxes on the rich you create higher unemployment, greater poverty, and most importantly for people like me who care about the poor - less money in the treasury to provide the important safety nets for those who truly need them.
When you do the opposite - you get an opposite result. Cutting the top marginal tax rates - particularly on the upper middle, and upper class tax brackets has a stimulus effect. Jobs are created, poverty turns into ownership, and the treasury takes in oodles of dollars.
The liberals' motivations, if impure, make perfect sense. If liberals are in charge of the public sector programs that people become dependent on for day to day living - then liberals can always campaign on the issues of "not taking food out of school children's tummies." Thinking people understand that while offering a hot lunch for a child at school is a wonderful thing for those children who need it. How much more wonderful would it be if that family grew their own economic ability to not be dependent upon the government issued lunches. A family that has the ability to send its own children to school with lunch boxes packed full of Mom's special goodies doesn't need liberals to force feed them the high-carb, mediocre nutrition that one can only get from government processed lasagna.
But Mom and Dad seeing Sally and Johnny off everyday fully independent of state aid - is bad political business for liberals. If liberals can't be the family's provider, then they won't be as likely to need such politicians in place and government might actually begin to address what is best for said family.
If you haven't noticed - this didn't used to be such a partisan issue. It was a Democrat who in fact first demonstrated the soundness of the fiscal propriety of reducing taxes and increasing revenues - John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush followed in his steps and the results have always been the same. Each of them lowered, and in Reagan's case - greatly reduced, the top marginal rates - and the following year revenues poured into Washington in record numbers.
I know... some of you educated in public schools are scratching your head wondering, "How’d they do that?"
Follow the simplicity. Top marginal rates are reduced on the people earning the most - many of whom own businesses. Many of them take the savings and reinvest it - in business, in the market, in expansion, in additional services, franchises, or product lines. Every time they do they are giving work/employment to advisors, consultants, contractors, assembly line workers, systems analysts, and the list goes on. Many of those people have employees, or have to hire additional employees to complete the work that they are hired for. And every employee that they hire, earns a little more than they would have - had that company, small business, etc - not been able to grow.
And one other thing... all those employees pay taxes. (At least those who are here legally.)
Liberals see the economic pie as something that is static, does not grow, and must always be redistributed. Of course they fancy the idea that they know best how to redistribute it all - and in doing so they buy into the Marxian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An utterly immoral viewpoint!
Conservatives see the economic pie as something that is somewhat unlimited and can be grown and that when it is grown - people will actually pay MORE in taxes - but will do so off of greater earnings.
And the lesson of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush confirm that it is true.
If liberals truly cared about helping people - especially the poor - they wouldn't try to thieve more tax dollars from the only sector of the tax base that can help grow the pie. Instead they would abolish the AMT all together, and give increased tax reduction incentives for those who would use their reductions to further expand their business ventures. They should also give the greatest incentives to those who could demonstrate that they had grown their employment base by more than 4% - since that is roughly the record low rate of unemployment we are now experiencing thanks to the "grow the pie" economy now in place.
But they won't.
As long as liberals will live they will attempt to take more of what does not belong to them, even if it means growing the rate of unemployment, seeing the number of Americans who live below the poverty line increase, and reduces the amount of dollars Washington can use to help those who truly do fall through the cracks.
Just remember - raising taxes lays people off, cause poverty to increase, and reduces the resources that are available for government to help those who are in desperate need. Reducing taxes increases jobs, moves people from poverty to ownership, and fills the federal coffers with help for those in need.
Can it be said any more plainly?
2007-06-11 11:46:45 · 8 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics
2007-06-11 11:45:57 · 12 answers · asked by vipto 2 in Civic Participation
How can it be done, who usually does it and under what circumstance is it done?
2007-06-11 11:44:25 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics
The application for renting this house asks if I've commited any crimes. I have a 4 year old DUI and some misdemeanors from a different state...how much should I disclose?
2007-06-11 11:44:16 · 7 answers · asked by meadow03 3 in Other - Politics & Government
2007-06-11 11:43:44 · 11 answers · asked by bethcabjax 1 in Law Enforcement & Police
Follow this link then answer the following questions about the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration;_ylt=AqQQwbVxN56Hqu3D62fyUy3MWM0F
What claims are being made?
Do the claims conflict with your personal observations?
What background information do you have about the claims?
What is the expertise of the author, if any?
Is the author biased & untrustworthy, or unbiased and trustworthy?
2007-06-11 11:42:26 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government
I received a fix-it ticket from CHP today for my tinted windows what should i do ?
I am international student, i live in west covina CA so can anyone tell what to do thank you
2007-06-11 11:40:08 · 15 answers · asked by new in java 1 in Law Enforcement & Police
Are they all about the same? Thank you.
2007-06-11 11:37:53 · 2 answers · asked by Be responsible towards others 2 in Law & Ethics
make back seats to raise up to the height level requirments? I wonder what excuse state lawmakers will use if someone had their back seat taken out and lifted. Washington state law is 8 years old or 4' 9" and child must be over 13 to ride in front seat. Most back seats only have 3 seat belts which makes it impossible for my neighbor to pick up his 5 kids from school at the same time. Yet it is ok for a kid to ride in a truck bed. Makes me wonder if lawmakers are concerned about safety or more ways to increase revenue. Some people believe the "underdeveloped stomach muscle" excuse they are using. I don't. I was was in a serious car accident when I was a kid and the seat belt did not do any damage to my stomach musles. Neither did getting kicked in the stomach by a horse or hanging upside down in a ferris wheel with the belt digging into my stomach for 20 minutes until they fixed it. Hogwash to the lawmakers....
2007-06-11 11:37:36 · 4 answers · asked by skycat 5 in Other - Politics & Government
i really dislike hilary clinton, SHE WOULD BE A NOBODY WITHOUT CLINTON, plus she wouldnt even divorce him after what happened which would have showed a stronger person but the reason why she didnt leave him was becuase she needed him to be where she in now, thats the only reason why shes senator now. true?
2007-06-11 11:36:06 · 29 answers · asked by fhsdjfsd 2 in Politics
Questions asked on 11 June 2007:
Showing 241 to 270 of 637 questions
Questions asked on other days: