Politics & Government - 13 December 2007

2007-12-13 03:09:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-12-13 03:07:27 · 6 answers · asked by thomasmcneilage 1 in Government

2007-12-13 03:07:26 · 6 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics

the UK has faced wars, invasion, natural disastors, riots. and countless unseen dangers.

we have come through them all, sometimes it was a very hard road and sometimes it was just tough. we did this with pride determination, and the will of the people.

now i think we have finally met that thing that we can not survive. we have our selves to blame. the population of the UK is in a state of apathy and fear. no one will stand up and speak what they think, just in case someone is offended, no one will defend them selves in fear of being sued, no one will defend the principals of the nation for fear of offending a Muslim.

most people are so preoccupied with them selves they have forgotten what the duty of a citizen is, the nation has elected to stand by while stealth tax destroys your ability to have a good quality of life.

people just sit back and complain about the EU and now most will sit back as Emperor Gordon Brownaparte Gives the UK up to foreign leadership. = Death nell

2007-12-13 03:06:56 · 16 answers · asked by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 in Other - Politics & Government

Do people really want a president who wears their religion on their sleave? havent we had enough of that with Bush?

2007-12-13 03:06:36 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-12-13 03:04:51 · 17 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics

2007-12-13 03:03:52 · 6 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics

Ok im goin to court in April to move in with my dad. I highly doubt that i can live with him because he has no job so im wondering if i can get emancipated if im 15 turning 16 just in 3 months after my court date. Could i do this legally in Missouri or at all?? thank you

2007-12-13 03:03:46 · 6 answers · asked by Christina K 2 in Law & Ethics

2007-12-13 03:02:25 · 24 answers · asked by Bman 1 in Elections

I think that child support should be 50/50 split between the two parents evenly.....I really see no reason for the unequality of child support, I mean after all it is the woman who makes the final decision........NOT the man ,who really has no say at all, though He will be paying at least 75% of what it costs to rear a child that will eventually be warped by the mothers audacious slander......Why is it ok to punish a man for having sex outside of a marriage....but on the other hand reward the woman for her mis-deeds........And why is it that when the man has no fatherly rights to take a child even for a day, but if the child is harmed in the mothers care the father can/will be brought up on charges for not stopping something he had no real control over!?!? (<---that came out of the mouth of a lawyer---^)

Any polite insight will be greatly appreciated.

2007-12-13 03:00:27 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-12-13 02:58:02 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

Yesterday Huckabee asked Romney "Don't Mormons believe that God and the Devil are brothers"
Huckabee just washed his presidential career down the toilet in my opinion.
Huck did apologize and Romney accepted. Why would anyone want to vote for a man like that, along with his track record being so awful??

2007-12-13 02:56:39 · 17 answers · asked by My Baby! 7 in Elections

if some one eighteen sleeps with someone underage.. will the person underage get registered as a sex offender or will something else happen with the new laws???

2007-12-13 02:56:34 · 6 answers · asked by Ku$her. 2 in Law & Ethics

My mother passed away but still receives child support checks (in her name) from my father (which he is legally obligated to continue paying despite the fact that she's deceased). Every time I go to the bank they have to "check with their legal department."

2007-12-13 02:56:28 · 3 answers · asked by C Squared 2 in Law & Ethics

If you truely want independance & freedom you must change the way Business only benifits the very few wealthy by law in the current form of government "Republic of F/C!

2007-12-13 02:54:21 · 7 answers · asked by bulabate 6 in Other - Politics & Government

What is the average time in the army for a 0-1 to move up through the ranks? I am on the enlisted side now and I have the TIS Im just trying to find out if I get commissioned how long I should expect to spend TIG in order to move up through the ranks.

2007-12-13 02:54:13 · 3 answers · asked by name 1 in Military

I am tired of the Democrats and Republicans. I have done a fair amount of research on the Libertarian party. I am in favor of their hands off government aproach. What is your opinion of the party? Do you believe it is time for a new way to govern? Do you beleive this party is a feasbale answer to this countries problems?

2007-12-13 02:53:55 · 6 answers · asked by Daniel A 3 in Politics

Right now, the U.S.' debt to creditors is over 9 trillion dollars, and rising at the level of over one-quarter trillion every year. Since we make no effort to pay down the debt, nor do the politicians seem to care anymore about balancing the budget, Congress must allocate, as one of our two largest expenditures (defense is the other) roughly one-half trillion dollars per year of paying off the interest of the debt (roughly 25% of this goes to foreigners). As long as we continue to run deficits, the amount paid for interest on the debt will only increase. Neither the democrats nor republicans seem to be terribly interested in this issue anymore, because the mantra seems to be to keep taxes low and spending high. Dick Cheney has actually said that deficits and the debt don't matter.

Are you concerned about this? Shouldn't our goverment at least try much harder to balance the budget, and then to try to pay down the debt?

2007-12-13 02:53:29 · 10 answers · asked by Stephen L 6 in Government

2007-12-13 02:53:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

The Schip program has been widely recognized as a well run cost effective program that brought health care to millions of children who would otherwise have done without. In denying its benefits to another 10 to 12 million children who are now uncovered while at the same time spending two hundred million dollars a minute on a tribal civil war in Iraq I think it is clear the Bush’s family values extend only to his immediate family and even then only on what he perceives as his lofty place in history. The question is how many children will suffer between the time the existing limited bill expires and the Democrats come to power and rush a bill through. One is too many, two is obscene.
Isn’t it strange that the Republican debate did not mention health care at all. I guess they just placed their faith in the availability of Huckabee’s holey healing cloths.

2007-12-13 02:53:06 · 17 answers · asked by sSuper critic 2 in Politics

1. An Iowa class battleship has way to much armor to be pierced by Cruise missile or harpoon because cruise missiles carry only a 1000lb warhead and usually intercepted which is why they are never shot at ships often (or is there a chance to shoot them at another ship) and harpoons only have a 500lb warhead but not strong enough to pierce the Iowa since the harpoon lack the ability that most ww2 bombs did “Steel on target”.

2. The modern guns of the Battleship can rip a modern destroyer/cruiser in half, and a CV would be dead in the water after one hit or unable to launch aircraft if it got hit on top of it, Hell I think even a harpoon missile could do that if it was not intercepted!

3. True battleships can be targeted by Subs but that is why you usually have battleships screened by a destroyer or with subs, just like with any carrier fleet today.

4. Modern advances in the battleships could be made today at the cost little since ramjet projectiles have already been successfully tested and fired at 100nm with good accuracy and even with an improved warhead of HMX or RDX explosive.

5. Arguing the Battleships reactivation cost is useless since reactivation and modernization together costs as much as a modern missile frigate which I have come to view as being quite interesting since a BB can threaten a whole city conventially.

6. Manpower is a joke since it takes 5000+ men to run a CV when a Iowa class Battleship takes 1,921 men at maximum capacity (minimum is 800+) and with greater firepower and if range is a problem the Pentagon has already said they want more Tomahawks in the war on terrorism so the amount of tomahawks deployed on each battleship would be increased about 3x as much as they were in the Persian gulf.

7. A battleship can make decisions easier when invading on a beach easier than a destroyer using tomahawk missiles and a puny 5in gun that couldn’t make craters in runways of enemy airports.

8. Battleships have all weather status and are not affected by any kind of weather including hurricanes.

9. A Battleships will only take 1-2 million a year to maintain. At the same time an aircraft carrier cost's several Millions to replace missiles and aircraft (if it wasn’t for the people who put money into the navy’s pocket because they have a house onboard the ship, we would have much less amount of Super carrier’s today).

10. Reactivation and Modernization will only take 1-2 years.

11. Reactivation costs are $500 million and modernization is $2 billion.

12. to further Technology of the Battleships would cost an additional million if not less for the projectiles to be but into production.

13. True no such personnel know or are trained to operate a battleship main gun but can easily be taught if trained properly since manning the main guns is an easy task just as with any gun.

14. Some reports have indicated a battleship's main guns could be used as anti aircraft if the time detonation fuses could be computer operated with its target and shoot 10mm sabot shells plus shrapnel when shell explodes allowing it to be used as an: anti-air, anti-missile, and even anti-ballistic missile some cases said they mixed ramjet rounds with this shell design that it would be able to take out ICBM’s!

15. Some or all 5" guns could be removed when the new ERGM comes out to replace the older 5” guns if you wanted to.

16. No ship or missile in the world is designed to take out the battleship with one shot or with many massed attacks.

17. Battleship Survivability is truly since the Iowa class battleship mostly consists of thick amounts of “Class A Steel” belt armor reinforced by large Bulk heads and Barbettes.

18. True the turrent on the USS Iowa did explode but it only did so little damage to the ship that it can easily be repaired and which was considered in the GAO Reports I read so that turrent has already been included into the mathematics of reactivating the battleships plus even after the explosion it did not render the whole ship inoperable could it have been with a modern destroyer or frigate.

19. True Air Superiority is necessary but when it comes down to shore bombardment, Planes can be: intercepted, sometimes ineffective economically and physically, time to respond even from 10 miles, and usually avoided by the enemy until the marines come on up to the shore to attack.

20. Currently building new battleships would be.....truly expensive depending upon their armaments and capabilities and just be a lot easier to reactivate and modernize our battleships today.

21. Surface ships were built for Naval presence, if we did not want Naval presence we would have built the arsenal ship back then but it came down to the fact that the arsenal ship could be easily struck by one harpoon missile and probably blow up the whole ship because of it's weak armor and heavy armament beyond it's own defensive capabilities to protect exposed weapons whereas the battleship can protect it's magazine and it's missiles with several anti-air/missile weapons and thick enough armor to make sure they don't explode by the bullet proving that ships do need armor, even today. Hell The USS Cole Bombing proved our destroyers and frigates are unable to take a single hit from even a small speedboat with explosives, chances are they were probably using dynamite for the bombs which is a joke, hell when I read the article I laughed a bit myself, it’s a joke to think the U.S. Navy will never get hit when we are at war, even if it is with a third world country.

22. Iowa class battleships today cannot be compared with the ships of WW1 or WW2 due to the fact that technology back then against aircraft was completely ineffective in most cases whereas today trying to hit a destroyer with a single harpoon is almost impossible but massed attacks would sink a destroyer after 1-3 hits of harpoons.

23. In history the Iowa’s have been praised for their ability to put "steel on target" something that no other ship in the world is able to comprehend due to modern destroyers only shooting weak 5" guns and cruisers of the same size guns, hell the only thing that separates the difference today between a destroyer and a cruiser is their length and the fact that cruisers carry a few more tomahawks and have one more gun than a destroyer, and most frigates today only shoot 3" shells sometimes (I wonder what this world is coming to!).


24. The current intended replacement of the Iowa class battleships is the DD(X) destroyer, which is now being questioned since each will cost 3+ billion (USD) and small 19 pound explosive out of a 225 pound projectile is also being questioned on strength and the price of one projected DD(X) will mean that two Iowa class BB’s can be reactivated and modernized with extra money to spare and built in less time with greater firepower. I understand the concept of the DD(X) to have stealth on surface to “change the future of naval warfare” but if that’s true and the enemy does think they are unable to find the DD(X) on it’s radar they will fire at innocent civilians to try and find it or even if they spot it, it’s pretty hard not to spot a fishing boat out in the middle of the ocean fishing knowing that fish aren’t usually out that far but by the shore.

25. Battleship explosive power can easily be increased since current battleship shells use TNT and not RDX or HMX explosives which would give them a close 200lbs+ explosive force instead of a 145 lb force, the anti-ship shells of the Iowa BB’s would be used with this new warhead also.

If you wish you find out what I’ve gotten my sources from here they are:

About the Ramjet round- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet

About the Iowa class battleships- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship

About the remaining Iowa class battleships- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_%28BB-64%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29

Some other commentary I came across- http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

I would have liked to have list all of my sources but that would take to long so enjoy for now!

2007-12-13 02:53:00 · 8 answers · asked by Combos 2 in Military

Why can I not donate my organs upon my death? I have my card, my D.L., and a statement in my med. records stating my desire to be a donor. Problem is I found out that I do NOT have the right to donate them. It is up to my NEXT OF KIN to actually decide if my organs will be donated, and they are NOT required to follow my wishes..Why is this the case? I have called attorneys and received this same information. I live in Mississippi. What can I do as my family is against organ donation and I want to be a donor???

2007-12-13 02:50:17 · 4 answers · asked by carmeliasue 6 in Law & Ethics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202837_pf.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119750838630225395.html?mod=politics_first_element_hs

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/our-view-on-war.html

2007-12-13 02:50:04 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

- Stated at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention

2007-12-13 02:48:07 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

i believe so and cant wait !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-12-13 02:44:30 · 13 answers · asked by canada1usa0 5 in Politics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice
But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.”

Is it possible that nature has more to do with global warming that humans?

2007-12-13 02:42:28 · 15 answers · asked by madd texan 6 in Politics

In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The ad wasn't just a blanket, "we support the SBC statement," but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

2007-12-13 02:42:19 · 13 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics

Say one of them needs back up etc.

2007-12-13 02:41:19 · 25 answers · asked by Paul M 4 in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-12-13 02:41:07 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

Does it really help people if the government provides for them? There is a saying that goes "You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." We already have a public education that we are dumping tons of government funds into. Should we also spend money to feed people? How does that benefit them? Doesn't it give more incentive not to work, because of all the freebies?

2007-12-13 02:40:22 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics