Government - November 2006

There are so may questions surrounding the official 9/11 story that I wonder why the newly elected Democrats are not promising to reopen the investigation. From the video tapes the FBI confiscated from the Sheraton Inn, the gas station and the Virgina DOT cameras that filmed the 911 Pentagon attack, that could clear all the Conspiracy up, to the fact that WTC Bldg 7 fell for NO REASON, one would think that any ELECTED OFFICIAL that was NOT a TRAITOR, would be bound by the laws of NATURAL DECENCY to reopen the 911 investigation.

At least that is how I see it seeing as how we've started two wars since that have, in total, claimed at the very least, about 6,000 American lives and according to some reliable estimates, upwards of ONE MILLION Iraqi lives.

I think it is prudent to reopen the 9/11 investigation and see those confiscated video tapes to see what exactly hit the Pentagon and then take it from there.

2006-11-16 12:30:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-16 12:26:58 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-16 12:15:19 · 3 answers · asked by thank you guys 1

2006-11-16 11:51:24 · 5 answers · asked by skatetilluodie 1

Think about it and answer honestly, k?

2006-11-16 11:47:04 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-16 11:27:45 · 3 answers · asked by dc 3

2006-11-16 11:25:42 · 8 answers · asked by ciabatta 2

If someone wanted to send astronauts to space, would they have to a congressional sponser from the house or senate. Which one of them is controls space exploration?

2006-11-16 11:02:08 · 4 answers · asked by dc 3

Honestly, I am not trying to pull a joke nor am I trying to be sarcastic. The Bush Regime had about 4 group of people.

1. The Corporations = Cheney, Exxon, The Scowcroft Group

2. The Jews who were promised full security for Israel and wealth if Bush won the White House = Canadian Frum, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Libby , Kissinger ect....

3. Joe Wilson & others who really thought they were serving the United State but got the boot for working

4. The Christians who really thought that Bush was a man of God. The Christians that really wanted a moral United State. The Christians that were concerned about the direction of the United State after two fags kissed on stage celebrating the victory of Bill Clinton. The Christians that were concerned about the rising crimes in the United State. I share all of your concerns too but you guys just jumped on the wrong boat.

Maybe a fat devil, on viagra, is whispering too much fake news into Christians' ears?

2006-11-16 10:13:18 · 6 answers · asked by Taco 3

And why ?

2006-11-16 09:59:06 · 19 answers · asked by How e' ye Horse 2

2006-11-16 09:35:12 · 5 answers · asked by haether c 1

how did the founders provide in the constitution to limit the power of government?

2006-11-16 09:08:55 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

This is what it reads, not seperation of church and state! Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2006-11-16 09:06:09 · 4 answers · asked by m c 1

As is the world population is increasing at an alarming rate. The world's resources aren't increasing either. Shouldn't we discourage large families at least for a short period of time say 50- 100 years? I am not arguing for policies like in China, but to stop tax breaks for families with more than two kids.

Why do people immediately think it is unethical to be against large families? Reproduction is a right and responsibility of the parents, not some favor done to the rest of the population who are least concerned if you have kids or not

2006-11-16 09:05:39 · 7 answers · asked by Existentialist_Guru 5

this is a direct quote from the whitehouse website from a speech made some weeks ago.What is he referring to? 9/11??
Did Muslims blow up the WTC buildings on 9/11, if George W. Bush admits explosives were used?
WHITEHOUSE WEBSITE:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...

Press Conference of the President, The Rose Garden, 11:15 A.M. EDT

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks
of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them
out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility
to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed
to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high
enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."


you can find it on the whitehouse website

2006-11-16 08:55:08 · 3 answers · asked by Paul I 4

2006-11-16 08:53:42 · 4 answers · asked by blackcat1354 1

BASIC facts

2006-11-16 08:38:33 · 5 answers · asked by NEW 1

2006-11-16 08:35:25 · 13 answers · asked by NEW 1

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106taser.htm for americans theres your "PATRIOTS ACT "enacted to protect the people WTF!!! wake up guys this isnt a single incident theres hundreds of these events happened a women being tazered bcause her ******* driving licence was out of date and she wouldnt get out of her car .and for every other nationality in the western hemisphere this is a fuking takeover bid and if people dont wake up were all screwed read my last question as well .also stand up for your rights and libertys and question you governments who are being run by world banks.

2006-11-16 08:28:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

DIDN'T BUSH DECLARED VICTORY FEW YEARS AGO??? So is that another one of his many BS Bush fed us and u still support Bush/Chaney and his oil buddies???
I mean there's no end in sight and every day someone is getting killed over there, our soldiers and the innocent Iraqis. So not only are we losing the war, it's another Vietnam in a smaller scale, isn't it?
The way we're going over there, I say in about another 5 years, at least10 thousand of our US soldiers will have died, not to mention about 300 thousands of Iraqis.

2006-11-16 08:25:24 · 12 answers · asked by Believe me 3

2006-11-16 08:14:51 · 26 answers · asked by George Harris 3

2006-11-16 08:10:35 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have a debate tommorrow, and I need an example of how the US is controled by rich people. Try to use history to support the question. Best questions get 10 points. Thanks

2006-11-16 07:58:32 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-16 07:49:12 · 7 answers · asked by BowtiePasta 6

sensible answers only please

2006-11-16 07:21:16 · 23 answers · asked by George Harris 3

2006-11-16 07:19:54 · 10 answers · asked by glenda r 1

Do you think it would be better for the uk to abolish NHS? Maybe we should take a leaf out of the united states of America's book and have a health insurance instead of paying extra taxes? would love to hear some views. thanks xxx

2006-11-16 06:44:07 · 25 answers · asked by louise 5

2006-11-16 06:31:09 · 14 answers · asked by Lleh 6

There are so may questions surrounding the official 9/11 story that I wonder why the newly elected Democrats are not promising to reopen the investigation. From the video tapes the FBI confiscated from the Sheraton Inn, the gas station and the Virgina DOT cameras that filmed the 911 Pentagon attack, that could clear all the Conspiracy up, to the fact that WTC Bldg 7 fell for NO REASON, one would think that any ELECTED OFFICIAL that was NOT a TRAITOR, would be bound by the laws of NATURAL DECENCY to reopen the 911 investigation.

At least that is how I see it seeing as how we've started two wars since that have, in total, claimed at the very least, about 6,000 American lives and according to some reliable estimates, upwards of ONE MILLION Iraqi lives.

I think it is prudent to reopen the 9/11 investigation and see those confiscated video tapes to see what exactly hit the Pentagon and then take it from there.

2006-11-16 06:22:27 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Since the time of LBJ Congress has (for want of a better term)raided Social Security to make the budget look better. And they did it in a way the corporate officers who are now in jail wish they could have done.

Congress passed a law that said it was legal to take money from Social Security funds and replace them with IOUs (US Treasury Bonds) and then they went and spent the money. What's wrong with that?

Well the problem is--- Government never makes any money. Oh it prints it but it never shows a profit. So when the Bonds come due how do they pay them off? They pay them off with your and my tax money. But wait a minute-- It was taxes that created the surplus in Social Security in the first place.

So they tax us, spend the tax money, then make us pay taxes again to pay back the tax money they spent.

We revolted because of taxation without representation. Well. Taxation with representation isn't too hot. Am I the only one who sees the flaw in this?

2006-11-16 05:54:38 · 1 answers · asked by namsaev 6