Government - September 2006

For UK viewers - this means to call a General Election which would test the nation`s current view.

2006-09-08 03:33:06 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

How would you make America better ? Would you take better political venues/war efforts overseas? or would you focus more on energy/enviromental issues, etc. ?

2006-09-08 03:24:51 · 14 answers · asked by MC_2005 1

If you would who would it be?

2006-09-08 03:24:43 · 10 answers · asked by kisstineb 2

2006-09-08 03:18:33 · 5 answers · asked by kandi 1

which would you prefer as the next president?
As for myself i think Hillary she would do a better job than Bush loudmouth is doing now.

2006-09-08 03:13:39 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-08 03:01:12 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

I hear people complaining about the government and homeland security all the time. How they are not doing their job. I do not hear anyone giving any solutions to the problem?? WELL, if you was the President of the United States, what steps would you do to insure the safety of the people. What authority would you give homeland security and how would you track the terrorist?

2006-09-08 02:03:50 · 13 answers · asked by Doug favors universal insurance! 3

The budget 2006/2007 of Malaysia was announced on 1/9/2006.What is the impact on Malaysian economy?

2006-09-08 01:47:06 · 3 answers · asked by JN 1

An agreement to build a huge16 lane highway starting on Mexicos west coast and ending in central Canada was reached in 2004 by President Bush, Vincinte Fox, and then P.M Martin. Naturally America will be footing the bill for this project. My thoughts on it are that goods will be shipped in from the east (taking away American manufacturing jobs), recieved by Mexican dock workers(avoiding the longshoremans union, and American freight handlers), and shipped by Mexican truckers(eliminating American truckers). Would you agree that this sounds like Bush selling America out at the tax payers expense. I wonder how much "W" stands to pocket off this deal. Construction of this highway has already started in Texas by the way.

2006-09-08 00:29:52 · 5 answers · asked by ? 3

just looking for people worth talking to; just a kid lookn for a bit more.

2006-09-08 00:06:13 · 1 answers · asked by honorablepassion 2

fadsfaffdsfafafafadsfafadsffafafafaa
fafdsafafafafafafafasfasdf
fadsfdafafafafadsfdsafdsafdsafdsafdsaf
fasfas

2006-09-07 23:31:37 · 3 answers · asked by cucarotql 1

2006-09-07 22:37:00 · 17 answers · asked by Arush M 1

In addition to possessing the largest military capacity in the world, the U.S. also purchases more foreign goods and services than many other nations.

In the event of a catastrophic terrorist act, the U.S. economy would likely suffer a serious blow. While this would cause many problems within the U.S., decreased American consumption of foreign products causes harm to other nations as well.

Some leaders of some nations turn a "blind-eye" to the cultural incubation of terror mentalities. The "terror mentality" seems most attractive to segments of populations consisting of economically disenfranchised members of societies. While these people may not care whether U.S. consumption remains high, their leaders probably value the constant influx of U.S. spending.

Do these leaders realize how a catastrophic terrorist act on U.S. soil would affect their pocket-book?

2006-09-07 22:34:33 · 5 answers · asked by El Gringo 237 3

2006-09-07 21:56:22 · 7 answers · asked by TommyTrouble 4

"Democracy" in the US is just an illusion. Please read the definition of "republic" and article below before replying.

Even in the UK, most people don't trust the system (less than half the people vote and of those that vote, only a third are needed to form a government). A King or queen cannot be the ultimate authority in a democracy (as in the UK).

Shouldn't we put our house in order first before invading countries to impose "democracy"?

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/republic

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1866780,00.html

2006-09-07 21:32:42 · 18 answers · asked by Nothing to say? 3

Because USA had killed thousands of innoncent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pallestines, Lebanon, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia etc.

2006-09-07 21:06:13 · 19 answers · asked by Hafizul Azrin H 1

do you think the government should take over the drug companies because they have cures but only give out treaments,becasue they get more sale from daily treatmeants then one time cures

2006-09-07 20:44:03 · 5 answers · asked by big_e_40 2

I just went to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votingrecord.xpd. That site lists for me the voting records of my federal representative and state senators. Why is the federal Government voting on such things as:

Sep 6, 2006-H.Res. 875: Congratulating Spelman College on the occasion ofits 125th anniversary.

Sep 6, 2006-H.Res. 605: Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants Football Club, the National Football League, and the United States.

Jul 25, 2006-H.Con.Res. 384: Recognizing and honoring the 100th anniversary. of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans

Jul 25, 2006-H.Con.Res. 449: Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the historic 1946 season of Major League Baseball Hall of Fame member Bob Feller and his return from military service to the United States.

2006-09-07 20:18:51 · 6 answers · asked by msfyrebyrd 4

Is there a free public information site to look up owners of ohio license plates?

2006-09-07 19:41:50 · 4 answers · asked by lilqueenbee 1

Do you agree with the "War on Terror?" Do you think that The United States has become nothing more than a playground bully or do you really think that we are "Protecting Freedom?"

2006-09-07 19:25:52 · 19 answers · asked by Christian H 3

I feel that the presidential election results should be based *completely* on popular vote. 1 vote = 1 voice. FYI, the Electoral College system was actually devised by our founding fathers because they felt that the common man really couldn't be trusted with a decision that important. This was their 'backup system'. Basically, if one state is predominantly Rep or Dem, an opposing vote in that state is practically meaningless. There have been several times in American history where the popularly elected candidate lost the election. Any thoughts?

2006-09-07 18:47:19 · 17 answers · asked by Clean Independent Energy 3

The role of the president was never to be the direct ruler of the people. His role was to serve as the head of the unified collection of independent states to the world.

The democratically elected executive was supposed to be the governor of a state. The federal government is the representative body of the states, not the people. That's why only one house of congress was to be popularly elected. If we move to complete popular election of all federal offices, then wouldn't it completely invert the state/federal relationship? Roles that were reserved to the states would be devolved to the federal government, and voting in local elections would become redundant. Why have governors, or even states at all, when all the power will be vested in a unitary executive with popular demands to shoulder responsibilites formerly reserved to states, as will naturally tend to happen as people begin to view the presidency as the penultimate governorship.

2006-09-07 18:40:16 · 6 answers · asked by BrianthePigEatingInfidel 4

Check this out! Don't believe me? The camera. Never. Lies. It's all a conspiracy of our government to hide the truth.

http://www.sudftw.com/jackpic.htm

2006-09-07 18:39:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have heard people express the concern that the Consititution isn't democratic enough, that they need more power, etc. Why is democracy, which is nothing more than a tool of wielding power, the most overridingly important principle? We were not founded as a democracy. We are a republic.

The overruling concern should be liberty, and ONLY after that is achieved, then democracy can be used as ONE OF MANY means to ensure the rights of minorities.

But the very definition of democracy is antithetical to liberty. Rule by majority. There is nothing in that definition that questions the legitimacy of that rule, or whether every application of democratic power is just.

A few days ago, a person answering the question of whether the constitution were democratic enough, said that it was not, because they did not have the power to tax the wealthy more than they already are. But that's precisely why democracy is always a bad idea. There will always be a small hated group of people

2006-09-07 18:14:53 · 9 answers · asked by BrianthePigEatingInfidel 4

2006-09-07 17:59:32 · 8 answers · asked by sunshinegirl17 2

If you had to choose between communism and fascism which would you choose? It's the ultimate rivalry. Hitler against Stalin, Nazis and Bolsheviks. Russia against Germany. Who will win?

2006-09-07 17:54:14 · 7 answers · asked by Good Vibrations 2

If yes, can you still have democracy with a government with absolute power?

2006-09-07 17:34:10 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-07 17:23:10 · 10 answers · asked by Valerie 6

-impact on the nation
-impack on political history
-American aspirations

2006-09-07 17:07:35 · 11 answers · asked by Me 1

2006-09-07 16:59:26 · 15 answers · asked by BreannaMarie_WEST WEST 1