Other - Politics & Government - October 2006

He is so stupid that he gets accused of being the mastermind behind the 911 attacks,he got blamed for california's black out when Grayout Davis was in office,he got blamed for Katrina,hes getting blamed for lying about the reason we went to war in Iraq but I guess the simpletons forgot the UN resolution Saddam broke time after time.So I am waiting for them to say he flew in on a space craft over the yankees and threw fairy dust on them to make them lose.

2006-10-07 14:08:35 · 16 answers · asked by halfbright 5

a confederate soldier is a soldier from the south during the civil war and i was wondering even though the kkk formed afterwards would a onfederate soldier favor the kkk or oppose it?

2006-10-07 14:06:21 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Pro gay marriage, supporters of N.A.M.B.L.A, supporters of gay rights in general.

2006-10-07 14:02:50 · 19 answers · asked by babe 2

It does not matter what party he belongs to, he just needs to be in jail. And it is not the repulicans fault he did it, it is stupid to say that. Like saying "your white so your guilty of all white crimes". And this Demorate lady saying she would change it when she gets speaker of the house? DUH! If she is already there, and had knowledge, why didn't she say something? From what little I know about law, isn't having knowledge and NOT reporting it same as doing the crime? I know it is here n TN. I really do not think there is any difference in any party anymore. They just tell you what you wish to hear. What a novel Ideal, no parties, just run on your record and choices.... So Question is, anyone agree with me?

2006-10-07 14:01:52 · 11 answers · asked by Common Sense 5

Obviously, the man is quite evil. However, from a legal point of view, whatever crimes he is being accused of, whether he committed them or not, are when he was the dictator of Iraq. Since he was the dictator he could follow his own rules and thereby, he broke no laws despite his involvement in thousands of murders, tortures, etc.

So by what authority is he being tried, since at the time he committed these things there were no specific laws against it? Is there something I'm not considering?

Please be nice and no dumb answers please.

2006-10-07 13:44:01 · 9 answers · asked by John B 1

2006-10-07 13:43:56 · 6 answers · asked by red 2

When Clinton is the one who had Osama in his sights, yet done nothing about it. Had sex with a woman in his department, left his spew on her dress, and denied everything, while all the proof was there, the only president impeached, and yet GB has done none of these actions. What gives? Loyalty? Ignorance? By the way, GB never inhaled.

2006-10-07 13:38:53 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-07 13:06:15 · 9 answers · asked by wlday2002 2

2006-10-07 13:04:49 · 17 answers · asked by wlday2002 2

consiquences?

2006-10-07 12:50:57 · 7 answers · asked by The King 2

2006-10-07 12:47:39 · 4 answers · asked by The King 2

I hear all this hype on it in the news what exactly is it?

2006-10-07 12:45:29 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Our poor kids are dying on our streets...but omg...the liberals are more concerned with the war than our kids. Oh, and all the school shootings...I just wish they would protest against that, instead of our freedom. Liberals are more concerned with overseas affairs than what is happening in their own cities.

2006-10-07 12:42:05 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please give answers. Explain ur answer please, so I can understand it. Anything welcome, just give good answers, and not stupid answers.

2006-10-07 12:38:33 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

People seem generaly unhappy with both republicans and democrates. I personally think that a third and fourth party would be beneficial to our country. I think more people would vote and politicians would behave more respectfully and serve the public better. Is this too far fetched of an idea. Do you agree or disagree with me on this

2006-10-07 12:29:32 · 15 answers · asked by tranquilized_inaz 3

Okay, now I know my liberal brethren will say yes, but what I am asking is do you believe he is a paid tool? or a close friend with members of the RNC? the party apparatus?

2006-10-07 12:28:41 · 22 answers · asked by Lisa M 3

If the butcher of baghdad is a monster like they tell us why would a former U.S. Attorney General be on his defense team.

2006-10-07 12:28:15 · 7 answers · asked by J S 1

Or, would the storm of public opinion have us out after some horrible battle, before the job was done. Would the politicians be more concerned with votes than the lives of those under Hitler's rule and wrath?

Would we "cut and run" after video of the Battle of the Buldge was seen on nightly TV? Approximately 600,000 killed and wounded in WWII.....

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html

2006-10-07 12:23:06 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I always knew it was, but it took a GERMAN (if you can imagine that..lol) to illustrate this FACT...This is the TRUEST thing you will ever read about the European's method of foreign/world policy.........All I can say is...Thank God for America...and the United Kingdom...(whom is far closer to America than she is Europe)...
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Weltam Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word quidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form! of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of t he great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values! and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.


On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental cover! age, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".


These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.


---God Bless America

2006-10-07 12:18:42 · 4 answers · asked by quarterback 2

because he refused use of atom bomb.

2006-10-07 12:18:40 · 8 answers · asked by ? 4

received an email that listed senators that did NOT vote for English being the primary language in the US. is this a possibility?

2006-10-07 12:14:58 · 6 answers · asked by Dear 1

The Syrian ruler appears to make preparatory justification in a statement Saturday, Oct. 7, that he expects an Israeli attack.
He was speaking in an interview to Kuwaiti paper al-Anba.
Assad’s Iranian-backed war plan would serve the purpose of forcing the Americans to divide their military assets between a strike against Iran and the defense of their allies in the Persia Gulf, Israel and US forces in Iraq. Both are seriously looking at a Syrian attack on the Golan which would escalate into a full-blown Syrian-Israeli war and a second Hizballah assault from Lebanon.
Asad’s remark that during the Lebanon hostilities, he was under pressure from the Syrian population to go to war against Israel and liberate the Golan is the most direct threat of belligerency of all his four Golan statements in the last month. He is implying that he stood up to the pressure once but may not do so again.
The Syrian ruler would not threaten war without guarantees from Iran. Assad and Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are prompted by the following motives:
Tehran is not prepared to wait passively for the Americans to build up their assault force in the Gulf and strike its nuclear facilities. A pre-emptive attack would suit them better.
Syria now believes that if Hizballah could stand up to the Israeli army in Lebanon, its commandoes can capture sections of the Golan and walk off with an easy victory.

2006-10-07 12:04:46 · 7 answers · asked by defOf 4

Why must you chastise the Bush administration when your young kids are dying at an alarming rate? Do you care for the kids on the streets, or just the war? Soliders have a job to do, kids just go out and kill each other just because it is fun. Please, worry about our kids, not the war. Why not protest against school shootings, pedophiles, rapists, murderers? Those are the people breing down our country, not the war.

2006-10-07 12:04:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

.. so Canada is finally going to sign a softwood lumber deal next week with the U.S. Just how much has the new conservative government given away? Is it a good deal or a bad one for Canadians?

2006-10-07 11:52:28 · 2 answers · asked by Debra H 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn9Fr7Tpd20

2006-10-07 11:35:58 · 7 answers · asked by AZRAEL Ψ 5

2006-10-07 11:25:32 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

The polls are important to them,what other countries think are important to them but having a back bone sure isnt.If it were up to them we would be more like france and be good at two things cooking and surrendering.

2006-10-07 11:20:59 · 22 answers · asked by halfbright 5

Bush's approval rating is 33%!!!
How do you explain that?

2006-10-07 11:11:28 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

I understand people believe in gun control. I think this may be regional. I live in the west where many people are armed. If you are for or against guns can you tell me which coast or region you are from? I am thinking this is really regional. This is a constutional right and I think people sometimes confuse it as being pollitical. Also can someone from CA tell me the view out there.

2006-10-07 11:09:34 · 24 answers · asked by adobeprincess 6

I just can't find any jobs that I like and I am tired of looking. I thought that if I received some grants, I could relax for about a year or two.

I know there is free money out there.

2006-10-07 11:05:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous