Politics & Government - 8 July 2007

2007-07-08 15:57:55 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

During World War II, it was said by many that Gen. George Patton was the best strategist in the Allied forces, but that Gen. Erwin Rommel was the best tactition of all the generals throughout the war, even between the Allied and Axis forces.

Could someone clue me in as to the main difference between the two? For example, what do both descriptions entail?

I know many will debate on who was the best general during the war, and everyone is rightly entitled to their opinions. All I really need is a detailed description of the definitions.

2007-07-08 15:57:46 · 11 answers · asked by Ash Wednesday 2 in Military

2007-07-08 15:56:15 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Does the topic seem to get people GOING?

2007-07-08 15:54:55 · 10 answers · asked by mrs O 6 in Politics

2007-07-08 15:49:30 · 10 answers · asked by Lindsey G 5 in Politics

2007-07-08 15:47:07 · 13 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Politics

I graduate in 2012 and i'm really serious on joining the coast guard anyone as young as me serious on joining the military?? oh yah my dad was in the marines

2007-07-08 15:46:13 · 10 answers · asked by theinvisible44 4 in Military

...that even though her son was busted for going 100 MPH in an Earthmobile, high on pot, with a mini-pharmacy beside him, that at least he wasn't listening to music with "objectionable" lyrics?

2007-07-08 15:46:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-07-08 15:45:18 · 7 answers · asked by Proverbs 1:7 2 in Politics

they're citizens too!

2007-07-08 15:44:55 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

I'm not much of a liberal but I'd still like to see Pelosi punch that ho in the teeth. Why is she even ON the news? Who seriously cares? She makes a mockery of our troops and has exploited her son's death in order to make a political statement. She talks crap about liberals AND conservatives, I think we need to make up an anti-sheehan act and someone needs to throw a pie in her face every time she talks.

2007-07-08 15:39:38 · 16 answers · asked by of 2 in Politics

2007-07-08 15:38:47 · 20 answers · asked by NIck C 1 in Other - Politics & Government

I met this guy last fall, and we went on a few dates...to the movies, etcetera, and I discovered I didn't like him, and told him. We weren't even going out, but he said something about not wanting to even live if he couldn't have me, so I told him we would always be friends. Then he started leaving very sexually explicit e-mails and things and he totally freaked me out, so I told him to back off. He apologized, but soon after went back to the explicit e-mails and then told me that "he would always be around." Well, anyway, I blocked him from everything and I went to visit friends for a couple months in another state. I just got back two days ago, and today I was at the library and he followed me all around town (there was no one around) and then I thought I had lost him but I realized that he had followed me home and watched me go into my apartment. What should I do? I'm scared of him and I don't know why, and I don't know what I should do.

2007-07-08 15:37:30 · 16 answers · asked by Nipivy 4 in Law Enforcement & Police

Scene in Irak
American women teach Iraq women many things.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N9/51dildo_frankDONE.jpg

2007-07-08 15:35:40 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I strongly believe 911 was planned by people in own goverment but when I talk to family and friends about it they think I'm nuts. How do you go abouts convincing family and friends that 911 was an inside job?

2007-07-08 15:35:17 · 20 answers · asked by Dave 3 in Politics

I know George W. Bush has a terrible reputation because he is so evil, but has he done anything good for our country?

2007-07-08 15:29:26 · 13 answers · asked by Cate 2 in Government

Was this contradictory term 'invented' by the US to replace 'inept and bungling'?
If one is killed by 'friendly fire' is one smiling as one dies?
No wonder no nation wants to go to war as allies of the US.

2007-07-08 15:28:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

One night I was staying in the room of a popular hotel chain and the water was shut off. Not for a few minutes, but for 3 or 4 hours. The hotel gave no notice to me or anyone else in the hotel, and when I complained, they tried to deny that the water was off. Then they took 20% off my stay and made me sign something that I believed to be a reciept.

My question is: should I just be happy with my discount, or should I do something more...

2007-07-08 15:27:37 · 9 answers · asked by BIG RED 3 in Law & Ethics

three great reasons to back up your answer.

2007-07-08 15:27:19 · 17 answers · asked by Ms. Witaker 3 in Elections

I thought this went on the books this past January. If this is not true, when will it be law?

2007-07-08 15:27:03 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

In your opinion, do you feel it is likely a flag descreation amendment will be passed soon? explain your opinion...

2007-07-08 15:23:25 · 6 answers · asked by Phantoms 2 in Law & Ethics

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0tmTtdu3sjY&mode=related&search=

2007-07-08 15:22:55 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

http://www.mises.org/story/2520
Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights.
Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer.
If you recognize the line of thinking in this set of beliefs, it might be because you have read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Madison, or examined the philosophical origins of the American Revolution. Or perhaps you have read the speeches and books against FDR's New Deal: the same group warned of the devastating consequences of World War II.
Not only does this Paulian view have a precedent in American history; it sums up the very core of what is distinctive about the American contribution to political ideas. The proposition was and is that people are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them. Under conditions of liberty, the result is prosperity and orderly civilization. Under government control, the result is relative poverty and unpredictable chaos. The proof is in the news every day.
He takes the ideas of Washington and Jefferson seriously, just as seriously as he takes the idea of freedom itself, and he does so in times when faith in Leviathan remains the dominant political ideology.
Ideology is such a powerful force that it has propped up policy inconsistency for more than a century. The Left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The Right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad.
It doesn't take a game-theory genius to predict how this conflict works itself out in the long run. The Left and the Right agree to disagree on intellectual grounds but otherwise engage in a dangerous quid pro quo. They turn a blind eye to the government they don't like so long as they get the government they do like.
It's one thing for the Left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people.
What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that the same government that is incompetent and dangerous domestically — at least in economic and social affairs — has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade.
The freedom to trade internationally is an essential principle. It means that consumers should not be penalized for buying from anyone, or selling to anyone, regardless of their residence. Nor should domestic suppliers be granted anything like a monopoly or subsidized treatment. Nor should trade be used as a weapon in the form of sanctions. Ron Paul has upheld these principles as well, which makes him an old-fashioned liberal in the manner of Cobden and Bright and the American Southern tradition. He has also rejected the mistake of many free traders who believe that a military arm is necessary to back the invisible hand of the marketplace. For Ron Paul, freedom is all of a piece.
Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. In fact, I'm willing to predict that a hundred years from now and more, when all the current office holders are all but forgotten, Ron Paul's name will be remembered as a bright light in dark times (we are in the right side of history).We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. May this treatise stand as an example of how to fight for what is right even when everyone else is silent. May it always be regarded as proof that there were men of courage alive in the first decade of the third millennium. May public and intellectual opinion someday rise to its level of intellectual sophistication and moral valor.

2007-07-08 15:19:30 · 13 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 in Elections

I see it on television all of the time, and it's always followed by a gourmet-type dinner. Any recipes would be appreciated as well!

2007-07-08 15:19:19 · 9 answers · asked by aanstalokaniskiodov_nikolai 5 in Law & Ethics

John Kerry thinks Edwards does it. Cindy Sheehan certainly does it.

2007-07-08 15:19:18 · 15 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Politics

2007-07-08 15:16:29 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

2007-07-08 15:16:26 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

WW2 helmets design to stop what?
The Iraq U.S. helmet design to stop what?

That's crazy, why cant we design helmets to stop bullets like vests does?

2007-07-08 15:16:07 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Did the old one use to be in Cambodia when the Kamar Rouge and Pot Pohl gradually exterminated millions? Wasn't that a big movie and documentary? Did we cause them both? Was Johnson in charge? Is Bush now in charge? Who is in charge? New movie?

2007-07-08 15:11:40 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

It wouldnt' take much would it.

2007-07-08 15:08:57 · 28 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Politics