Politics & Government - 23 July 2007

I my opinion I believe yes.Here's my stand on it.There are too many different cultures in the U S to speak on a National level ALL languages.We must have 1 common language which all can speak or mass confusion in all aspects of daily life would result.Speaking your native tongue at home or with friends is fine but in the workplace,schools etc. we must have a common ground and that would be language.Do you agree or disagree?And why?

2007-07-23 13:35:33 · 34 answers · asked by Dog Tricks 4 in Immigration

A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling off the north coast of Alaska until a hearing in August. The order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocks the February approval by the federal Minerals Management Service of Shell's offshore exploration plan for the Beaufort Sea. Vessels currently located in the area shall cease all operations performed in furtherance of that program and need not depart the area," said the Ninth Circus. "Opponents contend that the Minerals Management Service approved Shell's plan without fully considering that a large spill would harm marine mammals, including bowhead and beluga whales. They say polar bears could also be harmed, and they question whether cleaning up a sizable spill would even be possible in the icy waters."

So here we are, the same damn people demanding energy independence standing in the way of drilling that an oil company, Shell, had been granted the right to do. The Ninth Circus, they are the most overturned appellate court at the US Supreme Court, but this is not anywhere near the US Supreme Court. What do you think the odds are that Shell will ever get the right to drill back, now that they've been ordered to be suspended? Slim to none and slim has left town, as they say.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2033359620070721

2007-07-23 13:34:27 · 10 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

its his first year in the marines and i want to get him his first k bar knife but i want it to say something special so if you can think of anything nice let me know.

2007-07-23 13:33:19 · 10 answers · asked by Erica R 1 in Military

2007-07-23 13:32:11 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-07-23 13:31:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

the surge is working. I believe the generals and what they've said, that the security measures are really beefing up. There's all kinds of great news out there today. There's a story from the Times Online in the UK: "Al-Qaeda Faces Rebellion From the Ranks -- Sickened by the group's barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces -- Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement. 'They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,' said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area." We've also captured the #1 Al-Qaeda in Iraq guy, and he's talking. He's admitting that this whole thing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a myth. It is a myth that they have created in order to perpetuate the notion that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, where there isn't. There is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq! It's just Al-Qaeda. Operatives from Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, other places are pouring into the country.

These are not native Iraqis that have joined Al-Qaeda. They're having to import these people, and the surge is working. This is how you beat them, is you turn their own people against them, and that apparently is happening. I don't have any inside information into what's going on over there. I'm connected, as you say, but I don't know anything more than what anybody who has access to media and what the generals are saying, and I think one of the indications, incidentally, that things are going better than anybody thought they would, is the Democrats' desire to kill the surge now rather than wait until September when the final report from General Petraeus comes out. I think they're desperate to get this done and over with because they cannot withstand good news, politically. They just can't withstand it. They've already told us that we have lost. So I think there's an uptick. I think things are happening. When you have the bad guys start turning on each other and when you capture bad guys, they start giving up information, you're obviously on the right track. It's taken some time. I don't know how long it will be sustained. But this can be won, and it could be done with the vision that the president has had -- and that's what scares the Democrats, frankly.





Speaking of Iraq, there are a couple other stories here that indicate great news, and this is along the lines of the Al-Qaeda underlings becoming informants, being so outraged at the barbarity they're seeing. This is in the Washington Times today: "Iraqi Tribes Reach Security Accord." The thrust of the story is that 25 local tribes have joined the US against Al-Qaeda. This is the first agreement book between the Sunnis and the Shi'a. Twenty-five local tribes. Something is happening over there. "Members of the First Cavalry Division based at nearby Camp Taji helped broker the deal Saturday with the tribal leaders who agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists." You couple this with the other story, and something's happening. I don't know enough here to understand it all, but something different, something new is happening. People from the Sunni and Shi'a agreeing with us, uniting with us against Al-Qaeda, tells me that the surge is working, and they've reconciled, at least to the extent that they want to defeat Al-Qaeda. They may not have reconciled to get along with each other forever, the Sunnis and Shi'a, but they have reconciled to defeat Al-Qaeda. Also, they're working and meeting on the oil revenue law over there. "Oil Law Stalls in Iraq as Bomb Aims at Sheiks," but they're still meeting about it

2007-07-23 13:29:49 · 11 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

apparantly because they didn't have enough money to cover it, Is that considered criminal or a bad check?

the check written for the loan had "loan" and the one to pay back the loan which payment was stopped on had "payback loan" written in the memo.

2007-07-23 13:29:19 · 6 answers · asked by Melissa T 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-07-23 13:27:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-07-23 13:25:51 · 11 answers · asked by the d 6 in Politics

by polarizing our nation, ignoring the Constitution and making many of us give up hope of living in a nation based on the rule of law

2007-07-23 13:25:00 · 4 answers · asked by Ford Prefect 7 in Politics

The Democrats' attack on executive privilege shows blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Republicans aren't exactly racing to defend President Bush's assertion of executive privilege against Congress's investigation of his firing of nine U.S. attorneys. This leaves former political director Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, facing possible contempt sanctions. If this sword of Damocles drops, an important constitutional showdown between the branches might well reach the Supreme Court.
Rather than run from this fight, supporters of the constitutional system ought to stand firm with the president. Presidents, Congresses, and the courts have long accepted a president's right to keep internal executive discussions confidential. Even when the Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, it recognized "the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking."
Without secrecy, the government can't function. No one thinks conversations between federal judges and their clerks, or members of Congress and their staff, ought to be aired publicly without good reason. The same goes for presidents--even if their poll ratings are low.
Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, Eisenhower (whose administration invented the phrase "executive privilege") Kennedy and Reagan, among others, have kept executive deliberations secret from congressional inquiries, usually over matters of diplomacy, national security and law enforcement. Courts have recognized that discussions among their senior advisors, not just meetings when presidents are in the room, also receive protection. So why aren't Republicans fighting to defend executive privilege now?
Those who made their bones investigating the Clinton administration's misdeeds might squirm over Mr. Bush's assertion of privilege today. But then, Democrats who supported President Bill Clinton's assertions of executive privilege in the '90s are being hypocritical by jumping all over Mr. Bush now, too.
The issues at stake are light years from those of the Clinton years. Mr. Clinton was fighting claims of sexual harassment brought by Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, an independent counsel corruption investigation into Whitewater, and his extracurricular relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton asserted executive secrecy to protect his personal affairs. This is legally important because the federal courts of appeals have held that the privilege only applies to communications between the president and his advisers on "official government matters."
Mr. Clinton's personal recklessness undermined executive privilege for all future presidents. At worst, today's flap might ultimately show some lax management, or partisanship, but the hiring or firing of U.S. attorneys for any or no reason is squarely within a president's constitutional prerogative. Mr. Clinton's groundless claims of privilege don't invalidate assertions of executive privilege for all time. Pundits who imply otherwise are just blowing partisan smoke.

Some Senate Democrats say Mr. Bush is just "stonewalling" and insinuate that he must be trying to hide something, as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) has darkly intoned. But as he well knows, executive privilege traces its lineage to George Washington. In 1796, the House of Representatives demanded all his papers related to the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Washington refused, saying that the Constitution barred the House from the making of treaties. Firing U.S. attorneys and any other executive officers, including those requiring Senate approval, rests beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, and totally within those of the presidency. This has been true since the first cabinet departments were established in 1789.
The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, "Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government." In the 1974 Watergate tapes case, the Supreme Court said that the president's right to protect information is strongest when law enforcement, national security or his other constitutional powers are involved. Under that rule, Mr. Leahy has no right to see the president's communications about the firing of federal attorneys, the nomination of John Roberts or Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court or the reduction of Scooter Libby's sentence.
That doesn't mean the president's power is limitless. Congress can conduct oversight needed to pass legislation. On the fig leaf that Congress is superintending the Justice Department's funding or statutory authorities, DOJ has accommodatingly turned over thousands of documents and made its senior staff available for testimony. Congress can always engage in good old-fashioned horse trading to get its way. If Senate Democrats really cared to see any of Mr. Bush's communications, as opposed to lobbing allegations of "scandal" endlessly on the front pages, they could refuse to confirm any new U.S. attorneys, high officials or judges until they got what they wanted. Not bothering suggests that there is no real wrongdoing here, just an intent to keep the scandal machine running.
Presidents can't invoke executive privilege to protect information needed for a criminal investigation, except perhaps if national security is at stake. Kenneth Starr pursued Mr. Clinton not for harassing Paula Jones, or having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but because Mr. Clinton apparently committed perjury and obstructed criminal investigations. Senate Democrats have yet to show that the firings have arguably violated a single law. Dumb and bad politics, maybe--criminal, no. If Senate Democrats really thought there was any crime here, then they ought to find somebody maliciously or politically prosecuted by a new U.S. attorney, or an FBI agent forced to drop a good case because of a new U.S. Attorney's partisan agenda. There is nothing criminal about a president's changing law-enforcement priorities, or replacing his political appointees with new blood.

Republicans unhappy with Mr. Bush for one reason or another don't care to use up their own political capital for an unpopular president. Others expect the administration to crumble at the end of the face-off, and who wants to be stuck defending a loser just because it's the principled thing to do?
But the odds are that Mr. Bush will win this fight. Even if a few Republicans defect, he has the Constitution on his side. His poll numbers may be low, but Congress's are even lower. Congressional Democrats have failed to follow through on the reforms promised in the 2006 campaign. They're too preoccupied with investigating rather than legislating. If the House or Senate vote contempt motions against Ms. Taylor or Ms. Miers, a U.S. Attorney must enforce them, and since they're all Bush appointees, nothing should come of it. The president has every right to order his prosecutors not to bring charges against officials who defend his legitimate constitutional claims. And what if the case gets to court? Vice President Dick Cheney prevailed in 2004 before the Supreme Court against efforts to learn the workings of his Energy Task Force.
With his domestic agenda exhausted, Mr. Bush has nothing to lose defending the rights of future presidents under the Constitution.

2007-07-23 13:24:55 · 7 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1 in Politics

I mean, it's the 21st century, yet these guys dress for work like they are going to a rodeo or to feed the cows. Yeah, I know, the terms sheriff, deputy, bring thoughts of a tin star and a six-shooter but geeeeez, do they have to take it literally? I saw a picture of our county sheriff and there he was, boots, ten-gallon hat, western shirt, and a big belt buckle. OK, so maybe the whole western/country thing is his lifestyle, but wear it to work? What if he was a Harley rider, would he come to work wearing a black leather jacket, a black Harley t-shirt, and a doo-rag over his pony tail? I'm sorry, but its hard to have confidence in an elected official that looks like he just fell off the hay truck. Today's law enforcement is very up to date and hi-tech and they should look the part. Professional people should dress professionally! Even Sheriff Andy Taylor wore a police uniform in Mayberry.

2007-07-23 13:23:59 · 9 answers · asked by Cary M 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

A mother's worse nightmare and that dreaded phone call. "Mama, come quick. I've been in a bad wreck". I don't even remember the phone ringing - just "where are you and are you hurt?". It was a classic antique car - but very unimportant. He's 18, and never had a ticket or wreck. He turned in front of oncoming truck; he misjudged her speed. The speed limit was 35, and it took her 190 feet to stop after impact. The state patrol said her speed was at least 45, but he couldn't cite her because he couldn't prove it. State Patrol says it wouldn't have mattered if she was running 100, he still has to yield right of way, even if she's breaking the law. So, he did fail to yield but had she been running the speed limit he would have had time to make the turn. Witnesses agree. Is it worth arguing the point?

2007-07-23 13:21:06 · 16 answers · asked by .. .this can't be good 5 in Law Enforcement & Police

Do you believe it will bring peace or riots and disorder?

2007-07-23 13:18:52 · 12 answers · asked by Clere. 2 in Politics

when you see the gop it looks lilly white and old men WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE ROOM(capital/senate) YOU SEE THE U.S.A. IN ALL ITS COLOR and genders not in gop .Even if gop wins in 08;
Dont you guys see other nations see the lack of flexability in gop.

2007-07-23 13:17:07 · 8 answers · asked by windyctlvr 2 in Other - Politics & Government

2007-07-23 13:16:42 · 16 answers · asked by Page 4 in Politics

What exactly does third degree burglary Mean? Is this where you break into someones home or a place of business?? Does third degree burglary mean you used a weapon? If someone is charged with 4 counts of third degree burglary in the state of SC what kind of a sentence do you think they will get?

2007-07-23 13:14:10 · 9 answers · asked by Sunny 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

Someone asked about this blog -

http://tributetofatherjeff.blogspot.com/

I just want to know how it is that Jesus (who I do not believe in ) who taught peace love and charity always ends up married to a gun in America ?

Yes in Canada we all said "Praise the Lord and pass the amunition" - but should we have gotten past the hypocrasy and cognitive dissonance of the by now ?

2007-07-23 13:13:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

I was just wondering, so that when Hillary gets into office and has a bad month, (breaks a nail, or something, during that time of month), and starts WWIII, how much it would take to turn us into a wasteland!!!

2007-07-23 13:13:35 · 6 answers · asked by billiards_bar 2 in Politics

Maybe he drank to much and Putin should not have got him drunk either.
Lobster Gate didn't help again Putin kept giving Bush more vodka.

2007-07-23 13:12:56 · 5 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics

2007-07-23 13:11:23 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-07-23 13:10:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I got a ticket for $150 for going 32 mph in a 20 mph zone. It was less than a quarter mile road from a shopping center to the main road. There was no school, no people walking and no residences. There was nobody around, except a police in an unmarked car.

If I go to court, do I stand any chance to get out of that $150 fine ?

2007-07-23 13:07:50 · 17 answers · asked by kenneth h 6 in Law Enforcement & Police

As far as I know, The WWE is starting to take away people's boos from the crowd and also Anti-Cena signs away. They've been doing this all the time lately on WWE Monday Night RAW whenever The WWE Champion John Cena comes out. They say the crowd boos him but when I hear him on TV, I think they are censoring the fans and pumping in fake cheers. The point here is that The WWE is deliberalty censoring the crowd and trying to take away their freedom of expression on how the audience really reacts to him.


What do you think about this? Your opinion?

I know this "Pro Wrestling" and belongs in the "Wrestling Section", but I really wanna get another opinion about The WWE trying to censorn the fans' freedom of expression.

2007-07-23 13:06:45 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

My dad has a hearing loss and is finally getting to the point where he is willling to get a hearing aid. He retired from the Navy about 10 years ago, and part of his hearing loss is due to his job in the Navy. He says that he cannot get VA benefits b/c it's too late to apply for them. Is this correct?

2007-07-23 13:06:10 · 11 answers · asked by queenrakle 5 in Military

2007-07-23 13:04:48 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

2007-07-23 13:04:15 · 11 answers · asked by Jamie 1 in Military

Well, obviously, you lose it. But I mean, what happens bank wise? Does the government/bank give your money back? I was watching a Dateline NBC special on how computer hackers steal various things like credit information, sell the information over the internet, thieves buy the information to use our credit cards to buy things from various places, emptying the credit card within minutes. Also, the show focused on a Nigerian scammer/hacker guy, and how he could not be arrested despite the fact the he has stolen thousands, if not millions of dollars from other peoples credit cards. So basically, if this happens to us, do we simply lose our money forever or do we get it back?

2007-07-23 13:03:39 · 3 answers · asked by River 1 in Law & Ethics

I received a letter from circuit court in regards to a possible forclosure. What does this mean???

2007-07-23 13:03:26 · 5 answers · asked by scgant 1 in Law & Ethics

My neighbors (across the street) have called the cops on us for noise levels and constantly threaten to call them again. When they called before someone from the city came out and advised us of the level the stereo could be at. The neighbors complain about anything that causes noise (playing basketball in the street, etc). It appears that they have a camera pointed at my house. My landlord says that if we get another complaint against us that we will be evicted. How can I make this neighbor leave us alone? Nobody else has any problems with us and have not had any for the past 6 years. Is there anything that I can do legally? I am really tired of living in fear of being evicted.

2007-07-23 13:01:51 · 11 answers · asked by annette 2 in Law & Ethics