Other - Politics & Government - October 2006

2006-10-21 16:07:01 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

Y?

2006-10-21 16:04:00 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-21 16:02:40 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Well you just did.As a retired Sgt. Maj. from Desert Storm I feel that Bush took us into this war under false pretenses.He said Iraq Had WMD's and we later found out that they did not.Did you hear what he said when asked how he felt about the number of soldiers killed in Iraq?He replied to the effect "I don't measure success or failure in those terms.To me success will come when the Iraqi's can govern themselves" I'm para phrasing.That says to me it's not important how many men are killed as long as Bush gets what he wants.Bush said not long after 9-11 that there was no link between bin Laden and Iraq.He can't have it both ways.If he's trying to weed out terrorism , he's fighting a losing battle.Terrorism has been around since Cain & Abel.You can argue with me all you want but I've been there, done that.I was in the first Gulf War.

2006-10-21 16:01:41 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Iraq is going to hell quickly, and it appears that this issue is going to cost the Republicans control of Congress. If that happens, do you think Bush will regret that he didn't take action sooner to change his Iraq strategy, and do you think the situation would be better if Donald Rumsfeld had been replaced?

2006-10-21 15:55:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Conservatives carry these ideals:
Balancing the budget, small govt, limited govt, moral values...

But the incumbent Reagan-inspired Neoconservatives have impulsively done this:
$8.5 trillion debt, big business-supported government, new controversial laws being passed all the time because of "national security" that increases the power of the govt to the point beyond extremity, and misleading the American public about the war without reluctance.

If anyone supports these things Bush has done, and tries to justify the reasons for doing them, they are a NEOconservative, and not a respectable conservative.
If this describes you, then YOU have betrayed your core conservative beliefs! How do you feel about that?

2006-10-21 15:54:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

If we hear on Monday that barrels of oil are more expensive, by Tuesday morning I'm paying more at the pump.

On the other hand, if the price of cotton goes up I don't suddenly pay more for boxers at Target.

How can this be justified? The gas that was already sitting in the big tank at the Chevron didn't cost anybody any more-- it's the crude stuff that's being imported in the barrels, which should take some time to make it to the Chevron.

2006-10-21 15:47:25 · 8 answers · asked by RR 3

I think so.

2006-10-21 15:31:42 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Not percentages, but what happened in the gov't and people. What actually happened after.

2006-10-21 15:21:20 · 2 answers · asked by hipnotikgurl 1

Why doesn't the International criminal court Charge Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld with institution of a War of Agression, Crimes against humanity (the tourture polotics) and general war crimes (mistreatment of POW's)

Tourtue is the most cowardly thing a nation can do.
The Nazi's did it, the Soviots did it, al quida does it, and we do it.

Only cowards defend tourture.

2006-10-21 14:55:24 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

After all, if it weren't for him, I wouldn't have had this job to begin with and wouldn't have failed at my project!

2006-10-21 14:51:02 · 6 answers · asked by Agenda Dog 2

Now America is known as a country that tortures. The Bush administration has made the country look ignorant. Our deficit is out of control. Under the Democrats we had a surplus.
The religious fanatics in our country are fighting with the religious fanatics in the Middle East. What can we do?

2006-10-21 14:42:25 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

We both hate our leaders with a firey passion so why not join forces and get someone who knows what they are doing? Who agrees? And if not what are your thoughts?

2006-10-21 14:39:23 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Countries would welcome American's with open arms,see if you can name more than three.

2006-10-21 14:22:37 · 3 answers · asked by kman1830 5

I have read pretty much all of the documents of the founding era that are worth reading and there is no writer who has explained or tried to justify the American Revolution in light of Romans 13:1, etc. These men demonstrate a knowledge of the Bible sufficient to inform us that they knew of these passages. My question is: How did they explain/justify their rebellion (or did they?) when they knew it was contrary to the teaching of the Bible? Even if they were Deists and not at all concerned with strict adherence to the Bible, not all colonists were Deists (in fact, they were very religious). Therefore, some explanation would have to be offered to the non-Deist colonists to justify a rebellion against the crown. I am looking for their arguments, if any. I don't buy into the argument the Founders didn't respect the Bible. Obviously, their intimate knowledge of it puts the lie to that. My question requires an answer from one who has more knowledge of the history than I do. Not guesswork.

2006-10-21 13:40:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think he is one to go with the majority religion. he is fooling people.he is evil. is what I think, he doesnt have any love. just hate.and every thing he does is for big buisness.

2006-10-21 13:34:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

It seems to me that Republicans view Democrats as weak-kneed pacifists who wouldn't say boo to a goose.And themselves as always ready to take up arms if it seems the US is threatened.
If this is the case,what do Republicans think of the fact that President Bush dodged the draft during the Vietnam conflict?
Seems to me he's happy to send other kids to war but was too cowardly to go himself.

2006-10-21 13:24:11 · 25 answers · asked by rosbif 6

The usa only opened iraq to more terrorists. they are coming out of the wood work now. When saddam reigned in Iraq his methods may have been harsh but it was no where near the blood bath it has become since the usa invaded the country. ok admittedly, saddam executed a lot of people perhaps, some of them was innocent but you have to respect the fact that he had three warring factions living in iraq. If he had allowed even one of those groups a little power it would have been as bad as it is now under the usa control.

2006-10-21 12:58:16 · 9 answers · asked by msstyic 2

The Democrats said how Republicans are 'corrupt' or have 'scandals'. Hello?! corruption and scandal is what Democrats live for. Its their trademark. Rather hypocritical of them isnt it?

2006-10-21 12:48:00 · 20 answers · asked by robertbdiver 3

2006-10-21 12:45:21 · 3 answers · asked by politicallypuzzeled 3

I am not American.I don't live in the US.My various sources are international and not just from the American press.
Just looking at the economy,the following are facts.

Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.[16]
Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.[17]
Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).[18]
Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.[17]
Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.[19]
The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.[20]
The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.[21]
The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.[20]
President Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people

2006-10-21 12:40:58 · 17 answers · asked by rosbif 6

One answerer ran a parallel between the KKK and the NAACP. They also compared the KKK with the UNCF. THen the KKK with BET. Huh?? There has been many stretches that I have seen here. Lets look at what these stand for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The United ***** College Fund, and Black Entertainment Television. I think that people need to stop looking for something where there is nothing. I am sure that I am going to get some hateful and racist feedback. If you think that these are one in the same, let me know. How do they compare?

2006-10-21 12:35:14 · 8 answers · asked by 2fine4u 6

Maybe thats why he is so good, the rest are trash talkers.

2006-10-21 12:29:16 · 8 answers · asked by kman1830 5

I'm sure i'll get plenty of thumbs downs, i don't care, so lets set a record.

This must be a liberal thing, but all I read on here is just Bush hatred. There is nothing about how things should be run, ie new ideas on how the gov't could be run, what candidates have to offer.

Everyone has heard all the Bush slander, there's nothing new, we know he talks slow, we know he cannot use big words, and we know that he might not know what he's talking about. It's been done. Lets be a little more contructive and a little less destructive?

2006-10-21 12:21:09 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-21 12:11:10 · 6 answers · asked by shanitha1 1

Was Chairman of the Texas Penitentiary Board in 1900. Born in Germany came to New Braunsfuls, Tx in the mid 1800's. Served in the Texas Legaslature. Need picture anf boi info. Serven in texas confedrate army.

2006-10-21 11:50:36 · 1 answers · asked by olddude 1

2006-10-21 11:31:56 · 13 answers · asked by Lisa S 1

2006-10-21 11:15:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-21 10:19:47 · 4 answers · asked by nickysantor 1

we had a discussion in history class about it and i keep thinking about it and if it should be kept or not. so give me your reason why you think it should be kept or abolished. i wanna know what other ppeople think too.

2006-10-21 10:06:34 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous