Politics & Government - 6 July 2007

I have 3 questions:
1. Does a person who is a citizen but has never worked get a social security check after a certain age?

2. If yes, then what age is that and how much do they get?

3.What if someone has worked but just for a few months, do they get the benefit?

Thanks.

2007-07-06 16:15:09 · 14 answers · asked by Make M 2 in Law & Ethics

In Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/fr/flyout), there is an article that lauds the brilliance of Sicko but finds several problems with Moore's answer to the problem. Basically it says placing healthcare in government's hands would require pay cuts to doctor's, better handling of malpractice lawsuits, dealing with the price of prescription drugs, and the simple principle of what's free is abused. Can anyone give me good evidence to refute this. Not a debate I just want to see the other side of the coin.

2007-07-06 16:15:01 · 5 answers · asked by A Z 1 in Law & Ethics

How do you Bushies distinguish between what is true and what is "crazy."

2007-07-06 16:14:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

2007-07-06 16:10:13 · 35 answers · asked by metaxas 2 in Government

Where do you go, and how much do it cost?
And when you change it does it change in everything, like social security, birth certificate, mail, credit cards, drivers license etc.?
Once you change it, does it show in your record that you had a name change, and what your name was before you changed it?

Thanks =]

2007-07-06 16:08:16 · 3 answers · asked by [[Krazy♥Gang♥Bang]] 3 in Law & Ethics

2007-07-06 16:04:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

I try not to be racist but I'm fed up with the lack of respect they give to this country. For example when the bill for building better borders passed thousands of mexicans gathered to protest while waving their mexican flags. In my personal opinion (and again I'm not racist and I give respect to anyone who came to this country legally) we should have got the buses ready and shipped them back to mexico where they belong. And I'm also tired of going to the grocery store with employes saying "no hablo ingles." It's like we've become the minority in our own country. So the question now is how are we going to get rid of them. A recent study showed that border patroll only gets 40 percent of them. And of those 40 percent who get sent back 90 percent try it again. If we jail them its just more taxes for us. But what if we make the people who employ illegal alians pay for their jail time. Well any way whats your opinion.

2007-07-06 16:04:36 · 27 answers · asked by SOX FAN 2004 2 in Immigration

She lied about what congress would do in the first 100 hours!

2007-07-06 16:04:25 · 13 answers · asked by hardwoodrods 6 in Politics

I remember something about them taking a chair they thought was a gift but then returned it after they were criticized for it. She thinks they stole furniture, china, etc.

2007-07-06 16:02:04 · 20 answers · asked by lickedysplit 1 in Law & Ethics

Let's face it he is going to serve the rest of his term. Isn't it better to wait it out than to waste taxpayers money trying to accomplish something that isn't possible? Do people who say such things even understand the Process? I myself think they are just ignorant.

2007-07-06 16:01:08 · 20 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Politics

These avatars are unfair. I can't look like Arnold to save my life. Yet the ladies are foxy. Well...most of them.

2007-07-06 15:59:57 · 14 answers · asked by Watched 2 in Politics

"My friend" has a co-worker named "Linda". "Linda" works 2 jobs, one of which is M to F 830 to 430 M to T, F is 9 to 12. So that is her full time, primary job. She also has a 2nd job where she works weekends and the remainder of her Friday. "Linda" was recently injured at her 2nd job and is using the benefits of workmen's comp. It is not confirmed if at her second job she is full or part time since it is retail, but she is getting the benefits via check. "Linda" continues to work at her 1st job and her injury does cause some conflict because it has to do with her hands. My question is, what she is doing is that fraud, shouldnt she be at home collecting 2 checks?? I need to know what is going on here. I really cant obtain a straight answer via internet. Any input is appreciated...

Thank you!

2007-07-06 15:58:54 · 2 answers · asked by Kristy J 2 in Law & Ethics

in the state of california, can you get into trouble with the cops for skinny dipping in your backyard pool? I usually go swimming at night by myself since i love the peace and quiet, but we have kids on all houses near us. So I figured that If i go swimming at night without a bathing suit it would be ok. A family member recently told me that if a neighbor see's me they could call the cops and have me arrested for indesent exposure. is that true?

2007-07-06 15:58:13 · 10 answers · asked by Angie 2 in Law & Ethics

The Original American Foreign Policy
By Ron Paul
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." – George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
________________________________________
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. Send him mail.
http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/welcome.htm

2007-07-06 15:52:28 · 3 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 in Other - Politics & Government

Obviously people...yall haterz need to get a life and STOP the racism?

2007-07-06 15:52:20 · 19 answers · asked by ***Nina*** 2 in Immigration

2007-07-06 15:50:43 · 3 answers · asked by Mama_Kat 5 in Law & Ethics

or just outright calling him a closet Republican. That seems to be the tactic Republicans are using this day trying to justify Bush's failures.

2007-07-06 15:47:32 · 6 answers · asked by Gemini 5 in Politics

i would like to know on a legal sense how high should a tree & it branches be from the roadway as i have had damage to my tractor trailer done by a tree branch as i was proceeding to go up this street in oh i been looking on the websites for reference to this as i am now down because of this major damage to my box after a very large branch smash on to it and the city it happened in tell me it is up to the property owner but i need to know what high should these branches be from roadway surface HELP !!

2007-07-06 15:42:10 · 2 answers · asked by wombat4412 2 in Law & Ethics

2007-07-06 15:39:52 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

How could I word such a question?

Surely these cannot be mutually exclusive words. There must be a few good questions that can contain these two words.

Can you think of any?

I tried, but it was probably offensively simple, so let me invite you to bring some complexity into your reply.

Are there genuine ways to do this? Are these two words just bitterly locked out of topic with each other like water and oil?

Are we not able to handle these two words together in any question here?

This is starting to amuse me.
(But I was not primarily looking to be amused.)

2007-07-06 15:36:40 · 13 answers · asked by roostershine 4 in Politics

that they are swarming our borders to come here why can't they put that energy into fixing the problems of their home land instead of risking death (while crossing) then imprisionment and deportation once here?
i mean it takes a lot of effort to do what they do so why can't that same effort be applied at home?

2007-07-06 15:36:37 · 18 answers · asked by bgdadyp 5 in Immigration

Why? Why not wait until they are 18? since that's when you become an "adult".

2007-07-06 15:31:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

Would it cause a wider war? Would other countries become involved?

I think its an important question, as such an attack is inevitable if Iran refuses to turn away from its quest to join the nuclear club.

2007-07-06 15:28:53 · 15 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics

flames or frienship medals and congrats on their new nuc power plats,bombs to come?

2007-07-06 15:27:40 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

I wish that Justin Timberlake would marry Jenna or Barbara Bush! or Kevin Federline might marry one of them!

2007-07-06 15:25:46 · 2 answers · asked by hvii333 1 in Politics

I knew Bush was incompetent, I just didn't realize that many Americans want him impeached. Even more people want Cheney gone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush

2007-07-06 15:21:10 · 20 answers · asked by Gemini 5 in Politics

Latest polls shoW:
45% of the American public favor impeaching Bush - 46% opposed - the rest undecided.

54% of Americans favor impeachment of Cheney.

What do you think and if possible give a reason why or why not.

2007-07-06 15:17:54 · 16 answers · asked by Larry A 5 in Other - Politics & Government

Today Condaleeza Rice made a statement saying that military action against Iran could not be ruled out, and that Iran is an increasingly dangerous country.

Will Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions?

And what will happen if Iran continues on their present course?

2007-07-06 15:11:02 · 10 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics

Rice today: Fri Jul 6, 3:18 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described Iran as "increasingly dangerous" and refused to rule out US military action if Tehran refuses to suspend its nuclear program.

But Rice said that President George W. Bush is backing diplomatic efforts aimed at convincing the Islamic republic to freeze nuclear activities that Washington fears are a drive to build an atomic bomb."

Iran can't even get enough high grade Uranium to run a nuclear power plant, much less build a bomb! Experts say they are 10 years away from a bomb!

They have a right under Article 4 of the NPT to build a nuclear power plant! They have to enrich Uranium. Nuke plants don't run on dirt!

Why all the BS? Bush wants to attack Iran! Is he so stupid that he thinks we don't know why he wants to attack Iran?

This is an out of control administration!

2007-07-06 15:03:47 · 19 answers · asked by cantcu 7 in Politics

1. illegalizing all abortions
2. illegalizing elective abortions after 14 weeks
3. illegalizing elective abortions after 12 weeks
4. keeping abortion laws as is, but teaching better sex ed.
5. none of the above(explain)

2007-07-06 14:54:32 · 22 answers · asked by GothicLady 6 in Politics