Other - Politics & Government - October 2006

For the first time on this site I'm not trying to offfend anyone I just really do not see the good in this. I mean think of what it means for our soldiers who are kidnapped, do you serously think that they country they are kidnapped in (assuming they are one of the countries who originally signed the geneva conventions) will honor the geneva conventions? And if they did not sign the G.C. don't you think they will treat us with just as respect or lack of as we gave them? ALSO, do you like the fact that it gives the government the right to search without warrent?

2006-10-11 16:16:44 · 8 answers · asked by Jillian 2

before not believing or becoming skeptical of everyhting they say?

2006-10-11 16:08:24 · 17 answers · asked by To Be 4

Yeah I might have what you want but dont you think I get tired of this? Do you think I should be getting paid for this?

2006-10-11 16:06:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-11 16:05:48 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

Was it the balanced budget and $127 billion surplus?

Or the already used and developed Intelligence agencies of the U.S.?

Was it the relatively low cost of living for people of the middle-class?

Was it the fairly small amount of unemployment?

Was it the bursting-through-the-roof economy?

Which one is it? What was the mess?

2006-10-11 15:55:07 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

First off, understand that I do believe Clinton is PARTLY responsible...

Bush supported the Taliban back on May 22, 2001 with $43 million, just for them to stop their attacks on local communities and to end their opium trade.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/...
http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2006/09/... ---not a blog site

Or the fact that Bush supported North Korea with $95 million in 2002, and then waived the required inspection to make sure North Korea is following the agreement.
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?...
(I just have sites for the sake of having sites. Any very informed person knows this material).

I realize it is partly Clinton's fault for making the primary arrangement (The Agreed Framework).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/agreed_fram...
But now with Bush also being in office for 6 years on top of these bad decisions...It's weird how some people put the full blame on Clinton. Clinton deserves some blame. But definitely not even most of it.

2006-10-11 15:48:49 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-11 15:46:55 · 13 answers · asked by The Dark Prince of Awesome 3

Talk about egg on his face. Bush's answer about diplomacy turned around and blow-up all over his face. And then, even he realized the opening he left so he asked himself a question, but his answer was predictably non-sensible. It is as if Bush tries to creat problems for the USA everywhere he turns.

2006-10-11 15:46:30 · 7 answers · asked by zclifton2 6

2006-10-11 15:44:17 · 11 answers · asked by Babbit 1

Our country is in the worst shape it's been in since Carter but according to Bush everything is rosey. Are my fellow Americans so ignorant and gullible enough to fall for his pack of lies? Do you think Bush believes it himself or is he holding back laughter as he tells us everything is great and he and his cronies bleed our country dry?

2006-10-11 15:43:37 · 13 answers · asked by al f 2

Years ago - voted for Clinton...I guessed right that time. He won. But I ended up hating the guy because of his infedelities, lies and scandal.... So, voted for Bush twice... Not to happy about that either. Economy is bad and we are in a war... So, even though I guessed right both times - want to try to do better at the polls for the governor race. I usually vote a strait ticket - it's alot easier... Any advice???

2006-10-11 15:41:12 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

1/4 of Americans are retarded.

2006-10-11 15:34:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

CIA JOB OPENING
The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all the
background checks, interviews and testing were done, there
were 3 finalists...2 men and a woman
For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a
large metal door and handed him a gun. "We must know that you
will follow your instructions, no matter what the
circumstances. Inside this room, you will find your wife
sitting in a chair. Kill her!
The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my
wife."
The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this
job. Take your wife and go home."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the
gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about five
minutes. Then the man came out with tears in his eyes. "I
tried, but I can't kill my wife."
The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your
wife and go home
Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same

instructions to kill her husband. She took the gun and went

into the room. Shots were heard, one shot after another, eight

in a row. They heard screaming, crashing, and banging on the

walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened

slowly and there stood the woman. She wiped the sweat from her

brow. "This gun is loaded with blanks," she said. "I had to

beat him to death with the chair."


Moral: Never put a woman to the test

Additional Details

16 minutes ago
not that I think they should

2006-10-11 15:17:16 · 10 answers · asked by katlady927 6

2006-10-11 15:17:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

u might think im retarded because of this but i need to know

2006-10-11 15:12:07 · 15 answers · asked by Krys 1

then what size of retaliation would be considered apropriate from the rest of the world ie should they be blasted to oblivion by nukes and would this be creating further problems for the rest of the region from nuclear fallout what does the average person really think on issues such as this.

2006-10-11 14:51:43 · 17 answers · asked by TrOpPo 3

2006-10-11 14:45:24 · 21 answers · asked by Phatcat 1

Maybe the answer is in this video? Some kind of confussion?

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/940/

2006-10-11 14:41:38 · 16 answers · asked by kkpurro 1

The authors of "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq", citing a death rate (5.5/1000 per year) before the Coalition invasion and comparing it to the post-invasion death rate (13.2/1000 per year) has determined that the war is responsible for 655,000 deaths in Iraq. Given that the survey of more than 1800 households randomly selected in clusters that represent Iraq's population AND is a standard tool in epidemiology used by the US Government and many other agencies, how can one question the methodology of this peer-reviewed paper in an eminent journal?

President Bush said ""I don't consider it a credible report...The methodology is pretty well discredited."

Considering he has ZERO science background, I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Specifically, what methodology does he have issues with?

2006-10-11 14:37:46 · 5 answers · asked by The ~Muffin~ Man 6

2006-10-11 14:28:25 · 10 answers · asked by TrOpPo 3

i thought homeland security was supposed to be made aware of any planes reaching a low altitude so that jets could be scrambled to help down or shoot down, the plane is low, hits the building, and then the jets are scrambled and flying around? guess we are still not safe. what if it would have been another attack? we are not safe, and I don't beleive the hype from the puppet master (bush) that we are.

2006-10-11 14:28:05 · 4 answers · asked by ABC 3

will history books say we killed amy iraqi civillians and our boys and girls for greed of a few?
what does rest of the world say about usa in vietnam now that time has passed..

2006-10-11 14:25:53 · 13 answers · asked by macdoodle 5

a working class audience with a dumbed-down line-up, (don't get me wrong, I'm an American, and much of the irreverent comedy is my style) then brainwash them wish biased news reporting. It worked in my mid-sized, working class hometown.The hard-rock morning show host that happened-to-be a conservative republican convinced a whole lot of working class people that they were somehow republicans as well....
Before anyone starts throwing slurs at me, I'm not making any social comments about the working class. It happens to be my own background.

2006-10-11 14:16:56 · 16 answers · asked by KSR 2

2006-10-11 14:14:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Well obviously they are, you see the party, the radical left-wing extremists will do anything to gain CONTROL of America, and the radical extremists such as the islamofascists are hoping so as well. They view a democrat led America to be an easier target.

Seriously, you agree, the Dems are soft on terror, wishy washy, flip flop. One day it is you should do multi-lateral talks then the next it is bi-lateral and the next it is secret talks. What do the Dems want?

Besides CONTROLLING America. When anyone wants something this badly, to do all of the dirty things they have done, well I just don't trust them to do the right thing.

BTW, for all of you bush bashers, I'm not a repub, just hate socialists and communists.

2006-10-11 14:13:11 · 8 answers · asked by rmagedon 6

Trying to determine if I should lock in my oil prices for home heating....

2006-10-11 14:03:35 · 9 answers · asked by mcslain 2

since I am not fat and nasty as they seem to describe us all?

2006-10-11 14:01:05 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is he above reproach? Can you not even mention his name in conjunction with ongoing issues from his administration without being accused of "blaming" him for something?

I don't want to hear about Monica if you can help yourself. It's hard sometimes. I know.

2006-10-11 13:57:09 · 11 answers · asked by MEL T 7

for those that don't know isolationism is basicly a country that stays away from other countrys problems. (And why is being a super power so great it just puts a target on are back and china couldkick *** any day.)

2006-10-11 13:56:36 · 6 answers · asked by Spencer A 1

2006-10-11 13:54:46 · 17 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4