Other - Politics & Government - February 2007

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

2007-02-20 08:46:33 · 9 answers · asked by Lou 6

Narrow minds draw lines in the sand with names! Just watch how several Avatars come on & try to spin why common people should stay as herded sheep,while the shepard rules & controls the gold!

2007-02-20 08:38:04 · 8 answers · asked by bulabate 6

2007-02-20 08:38:02 · 8 answers · asked by Quickie 3

2007-02-20 08:34:07 · 6 answers · asked by drunkredneck45 4

Our school district (like many others in Michigan) is in serious financial trouble. We are closing schools, laying off teacher, and staff, increasing class sizes. Meanwhile our teacher don't pay anything toward their own medical benefits. Is this right?

2007-02-20 08:33:03 · 7 answers · asked by Tam 2

JFK stopped WW3/Nuclear holocaust by 1st not invading Cuba & then by appeasing the Soviets by promising to withdraw all US Nuclear missiles from bases in Turkey. In that case appeasement actually worked very well, solved a extremely serious problem & saved the world from total destruction. Neville Chamberlin made the wrong choice at the wrong time but that doesn't mean that appeasement never works.

JFK showed that sometimes it works very well. Sometimes you have to give a little to get back something you want in return. In the business world they call it a DEAL & it's one of the main reasons why US business are so successful & no one gets killed. Bush may want to pick up a book on the Cuban missile crisis because he might actually learn that might doesn't always make right. Unless of course you are trying to take over the world then it makes perfect sense.

2007-02-20 08:27:01 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

If not for the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bush in Bush vs. Florida would all of these Pontius Pilates have created the mess in Iraq?

2007-02-20 08:26:31 · 5 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1

2007-02-20 08:14:49 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





Can you rewrite that preamble of US Constitution IN YOUR OWN WORDS?

2007-02-20 08:08:52 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

for some time. It would be well within their capabilities to create a dirty bomb, which if unleashed on a US city could have devastating consequences for millions of people. The fact that this possibility has also existed for some time also begs the question: is Iran really the threat that the White House would have everyone believe? We Know that the WMD story to invade Iraq was a lot of nonsense, the invasion was about oil supplies and the fact that Saddam started trading his oil in Euros undermining the Dollar.
So what is the truth? If the Iranians are a bunch of lunatics, then why haven't they attacked the US in a big way before now?

2007-02-20 07:19:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Are Prescott Bush and George H.W. Bush those stupid Fathers and is George W. Bush the Prodigal Son? If not for wealthy fathers, the Bush's would not be Senators, oilmen, or Presidents.

2007-02-20 07:16:47 · 7 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1

Whats going on>?

If it starts when is it gonna start?

2007-02-20 07:10:36 · 11 answers · asked by Kieran 2

I just posted a question regarding the effectiveness of raising tax rates, I received many misguided answers from uniformed liberals. I have two main points to counter before asking my question.

1) Bush's spending has increased our deficit to record levels.

Truth: Everything has to be viewed in relative terms. Our budget deficit is actually quite low historically. In 2006, it was 1.8% of GDP, and is expected to be .8% in 2007. Compare this to the past 40-year average of 2.4%.

2) Our government debt is ridiculous.

Truth: Again, everything is relative. Our debt as a % of GDP is trending downward, and is only 37% of our GDP. This compares pretty favorably to 52% in Germany, 43% in France, and 79% in Japan.

There is only so much tax money you can squeeze from the rich.

A balanced budget must come from spending restraint, not further hosing the rich.

Should we really be so quick to judge Supply-Side economics? Both major implementations were during times of war.

2007-02-20 07:00:40 · 12 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6

2007-02-20 06:56:14 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-20 06:55:02 · 18 answers · asked by Joshua F 1

who have got the goat?

2007-02-20 06:51:30 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

This airport should of been built years ago,
i not being built because people are wanting a pice of the pie?

2007-02-20 06:50:55 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-20 06:37:53 · 2 answers · asked by PlasticTrees 2

US bashing and Bushate are all the rage in Britain and the BBC has apparently thrown in the towel and joined Reuters in printing salacious headlines and vacuous articles.

Example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm
This article has a great headline but when read it doesn't match the story. The article provides no facts supporting the headline, it just cites the guesses of their security correspondent. It mentions Central Command in Florida but never relates it to the story.

Why would the BBC stop so low just to take a shot at the US from across the Atlantic? In order to pander to the anti-American crowd in Europe they have forfeited their reputation as an unbiased news source.

2007-02-20 06:33:01 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

i heard this from a friend and my sister that texas wants 2 leave the u.s. im just wondering why if its true

2007-02-20 06:32:36 · 22 answers · asked by peace 2

them localed in another part of the world planning another 9/11 type attack? Let's say in Pakistan for instance & why isn't the US military killing them?

2007-02-20 06:29:20 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

To what extent should the media be allowed to report on U.S. military involvement? Should we censor our media during war time?

2007-02-20 06:26:15 · 11 answers · asked by eternalreverence 1

Yahoo has work repeatedly to help the Chinese block free speech and punish those who attempt to practice free speech in china. GOOGLE and others do NOT allow influence from governments unless forced. Yahoo voluntarily helps block free speech and turns in violators. WHY? need more info?http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2005/09/yahoo_chinese_c.html

2007-02-20 06:11:41 · 8 answers · asked by noname 1

?

2007-02-20 06:08:48 · 12 answers · asked by Gottlos 4

"That ... we shut down our nuclear fuel cycle program to let talks begin. It's no problem. But justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too. Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere," Ahmadinejad said.

below is full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Do you think western countries accept the condition?

2007-02-20 05:42:22 · 5 answers · asked by Ear 3

Yahoo news cut out Who do you believe ????
2 hours, 36 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon dismissed as "ludicrous" a BBC report that the US military has drawn up detailed contingency plans for air strikes against Iran.

ADVERTISEMENT

The BBC, citing diplomatic sources, said target list extends beyond Iran's nuclear facilities to include its military infrastructure -- air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command and control centers.


The report said triggers for an attack are confirmation that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, or a high casualty attack on US forces in Iraq that is traced directly to Iran.

2007-02-20 05:23:32 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've been reading some pretty silly questions on here, so I thought I'd ask one of my own...

It could be plausible though because Bill invited Yasser Arafat to the white house numerous times, and he was a terrorist.

2007-02-20 05:18:14 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-20 05:09:21 · 19 answers · asked by Stu pid 5

?

2007-02-20 05:07:57 · 23 answers · asked by Gottlos 4

not bear the sacrifice hes forcing upon our troops, in his sidestepping involvement in his own war of Vietnam?

Or should we trust him when he says he understands the hardships our troops face?
when in reality he never had to -- because he couldnt when it was his turn to prove his patriotism?

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam

2007-02-20 05:05:43 · 11 answers · asked by writersbIock2006 5