Politics & Government - 6 December 2007

I have nothing against him and I think he has a shot. But I am not sure we will see the firs black president anytime soon.

2007-12-06 09:49:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

Iran's President, Ahmadinejad has told quite a few bold faced lies in the past.

Recently, he has told the world that there is no such thing as a homosexual or gay person in Iran.

He has expressed so much anti-american sentiment and religious fundamentalism over the years.

Recently he tried to take Hugo Chavez under his wing and posed for photographs raising their collective fists against America.

Now, I don't particularly like George Bush as a President, and I think he's made some awful choices... I plan on voting Democrat next year.

But do you really think that George Bush is far off base by not trusting this anti-american liar?
It's probably the first thing I've agreed with him on.
Sanction the hell out of Iran for all I care... that guy is a bigger jerk than Bush!

2007-12-06 09:47:24 · 28 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Politics

Im just an Aussie girl, afterall, I don't live in the US and don't understand their laws (or lack of laws when it comes to guns) but I spent a few months debating back and forth via email with a highly intelligent US girl who believed gun's should continue to be allowed and owned pretty much freely as they currently are, despite all the school shootings etc. She pointed out that we have gun psychopaths too which we do (take Martin Bryant for example) and there will always be sick people who get hold of guns however I do believe that if it is harder and less accessible, such as it is in Australia, the opportunity to perform mass executions like we are hearing about in the US, is removed somewhat. With guns more destruction is created, I just don't get why so many Americans are still for fairly unrestricted gun ownership. Some people have told me that they need them over there because they need guns for protection but if guns were outlawed this would be less likely.

2007-12-06 09:43:21 · 14 answers · asked by T 3 in Law & Ethics

like that used at the massacure in Omaha Neb shopping mall for hunting purposes for rabbit, deer, and squirrils?

2007-12-06 09:39:24 · 16 answers · asked by Mezmarelda 6 in Government

2007-12-06 09:38:38 · 49 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Doesn't the government do a magnificent job of protecting us?

2007-12-06 09:38:07 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-12-06 09:36:40 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

What is your opinion on universal health care? I sure wouldn't want to wait in line for 6 weeks for an MRI like in Canada! If you have MSRA staph, and you need to wait for a week to see the doctor, wouldn't you already be dead? Seriously, would you rather pay $500 for treatment, or be dead, where money is no object? I SAY UNIVERDAL HEALTH CARE=BAD!

2007-12-06 09:35:21 · 16 answers · asked by Luke Was Here 6 in Politics

Will this be a requirement for any persons to get an education? Be injected with the poison?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_he_me/mumps_maine

2007-12-06 09:34:48 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

"We shouldn't enamour ourselves on why they hate us. We shouldn't focus on the possible reasons for their conflict with us. Rather we should focus on the harm they pose to us now. We should defend ourselves against them for the sake of our wives and our children. All we know is their intent to kill us, do we need more evidence to fight."

I'll reveal the person who said this in about 10 minutes, so be sure to check back.

2007-12-06 09:33:56 · 8 answers · asked by Elutherian 4 in Elections

What is the ideal way to deal with immigration?

2007-12-06 09:33:35 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

John F. Kennedy
The Protestant immigrants to the New World brought many things in their baggage, including a deep-seated distrust of Roman Catholicism. Although Catholics had been among the early settlers of the New World, they had been a minority in the thirteen colonies that eventually became the United States. Not until significant numbers of Catholics began migrating to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century did anti-Catholicism emerge as a potent, and ugly, political and social phenomenon.

Although Irish Catholics began to play a major role in local and state politics in the latter nineteenth century, the first Catholic to seek a national office was the popular governor of New York, Alfred Emanuel Smith, who was the Democratic nominee for president in 1928. Anti-Catholic prejudice, the fear that a Catholic president would "take orders" from the Pope, insured Smith's defeat. Methodist Bishop Adna Leonard declared: "No Governor can kiss the papal ring and get within gunshot of the White House." Even liberal Protestants were concerned. The Christian Century declared it could not "look with unconcern upon the seating of a representative of an alien culture, of a medieval, Latin mentality, of an undemocratic hierarchy and of a foreign potentate in the great office of the President of the United States."

Smith's defeat at the polls seemed to foreclose a Catholic from seeking the White House, until John F. Kennedy captured the Democratic nomination in 1960. Much to his dismay, he discovered that many southern Protestant groups still believed in old canards about every Catholic having to obey the Pope's commands unquestioningly. He finally decided to try to defeat the issue by meeting it head-on, and on September 12, 1960, he delivered the following statement before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

There, according to one of his biographers, "he knocked religion out of the campaign as an intellectually respectable issue." Anti-Catholicism, of course, could not be eradicated that easily, but Kennedy's meeting the issue forthrightly limited the damage to those whose prejudices would never respond to reason. And with his election that November, barriers to Catholics in American politics melted away.

For further reading: T. H. White, The Making of the President 1960 (1961).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDRESS TO SOUTHERN BAPTIST LEADERS
I am grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only ninety miles off the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor's bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) -- and instead of doing this do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here -- and always omitting of course, that statement of the American bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts -- why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time, by anyone, in any country.

And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland -- and the independence of such statesmen as de Gaulle and Adenauer.

But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.

I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.

But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add with the oath I have taken for fourteen years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can, and I quote "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution so help me God."

Source: New York Times, September 13, 1960.

2007-12-06 09:28:50 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-12-06 09:28:42 · 2 answers · asked by cHariZ_geLO 1 in Military

2007-12-06 09:28:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-12-06 09:24:32 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

i asked a question as to whether the professors, firefighters, 9-11 family members etc all were conspiracy nuts for questioning the official 9-11 story. Then provided a link. I wanted to see what everyone thought about that. It was deleted. The reason was "solicitation", i was told. What does that mean?.

other similar questions were all wiped out.

this Yahoo is the second biggest dictatorship after China.

2007-12-06 09:24:31 · 7 answers · asked by orange truck 1 in Politics

O.k well he came here when he was a baby his parents brought him here he whent to school he speaks good english etc.... he has a good background. I am not a citizen but can become one in 2008 I am a recident here in CA we have a baby he was born here I am sooo tire of him getting fired for not having a good social# can any one idvice me on what to do a good lawyer how long will this proces take after we get married????

2007-12-06 09:24:29 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

WALTERS: Hugo Chavez, I was amazed that he, that he didn’t get to be president for life. I thought he was going to just bring in loads and loads of people.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/12/05/barbara-walters-hugo-chavez-charismatic-does-positive-things

2007-12-06 09:22:38 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Thanks...urls will help win best answer

2007-12-06 09:20:18 · 7 answers · asked by Fdog 1 in Law & Ethics

im not BNP but i have concerns about the number of immigrants.

2007-12-06 09:19:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

Please state whether you are Republican or Democrate-Then who you want as president...!!!!!Thanks all for your time-much obliged

2007-12-06 09:18:52 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

2007-12-06 09:18:24 · 5 answers · asked by bright 2 in Law & Ethics

I WANNA GET EMANCIPATED . . .
HELP. . . .!
I DONT HAVE MY PAPERS . . . .
WHAT DO I DO. . . . . ?

2007-12-06 09:18:06 · 2 answers · asked by 831+La Seniorita Chiquitita+831 2 in Law & Ethics

Grandfather passed away two years ago. Grandmother still leaves in house. Grandmother (who is not always in right mind) was talked into selling the house by realtor without family knowing. Sell was stopped because no one knew where grandfather's will was. Neighbor lawyer "friend" has since found grandfather's will and given it to the REALTOR to probate(?). Again, family was not involved. Family has yet to see will and lawyer "friend" had never mentioned the will to the family. Is this a breach on confidentiality? Can this be reported to the bar? This is all happening in Tx as we speak. Our part of the family is in NC.

2007-12-06 09:13:42 · 6 answers · asked by Tina D 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-12-06 09:13:22 · 4 answers · asked by John C 1 in Politics

Today, I was running a few minutes late for a dentist appointment. So I was speeding on a not-so-busy highway.
The county police pulled me over and gave me the third degree almost right away. I wasn’t rude, or anything with him but very cooperative. Anyways, he treated me like a hardened criminal. My plates had expired less then a month ago but I neglected to renew them right away due to family medical problems with my dad and I am temp. living out of state. I was unable to find my incurrence which is current. The cop gave me a ticket for speeding, plates, insurance and claimed I passed someone in an intersection which I didn’t do, but I was so shaken up at the time, I didn’t even realize he was charging and ticketing me with that. He impounded my car due to the tags being expired and also hounded me if I had drugs in the car and was going to search it. I don’t have any contraband in the car and didn’t care for the accusations. Can he impound my car like that in the state of Indiana for expired tags?
Also what’s the laws as far as search and seizures go? I never gave him permission to search it, he just said he was. And what constitutes harassment? I have never been treated this way by a cop in my life.

2007-12-06 09:13:13 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

(California Ballot Measure)

Just look up California Split electoral vote and tell me what your thoughts are. Thanks.

2007-12-06 09:12:03 · 11 answers · asked by Stars and Stripes 3 in Elections

2007-12-06 09:10:53 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

ok. My husband has a sister who is 12. She lives in michigan with her mom who is not a very good mother. she keeps telling her that she hates her and how much she cant stand her and wants to send her away to her dad (ill get to that) and that she wants to put her up for foster care. Her dad also lives in michigan, a few hours from her moms house, and he cannot provide adequate care either. He doesn't have a job and lives with his girlfriend who is living off of unemployment. she has 2 kids and his sister has 2 sisters living with the dad and his girlfriend also. one of the sisters has a boyfriend and child--ALSO living with them in this 3 bedroom house.

I told his sister that i would fight for custody of her before i ever let her go live with her dad. Is there any way that my husband and i could get custody of her? Does it make a difference that he is in the military? Thank you for any help you can get..i really would like to get her in a better environment.

2007-12-06 09:09:37 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

I rented a VHS tape from Ingles in 1999. I never returned the tape. I forgot about it. ( I moved to another city) A warrant was issued. I found out during a traffic stop. I went to court, and paid the fine...I thought that was the end of it. I am now applying for jobs, and this is showing up on my record as petit theft? For a $5.00 VHS tape? Is there anything I can do to clear my record? I paid the fine. This seems excessive.

2007-12-06 09:09:35 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics