Other - Politics & Government - February 2007

i heard a while ago he was tired of providing his back side for bush's enjoyment.

2007-02-27 22:10:29 · 9 answers · asked by nutterandbolter 1

i think we should call democrats in america "anti-republicans." anyone with me? i love being a liberal in america, but i still have a hard time voting democrat when it comes time to go to the polls.. simply because when i make my decision i feel like im voting against something instead of for something.. what do democrats stand for in this country? what is their platform? i at least know what im getting into if i vote republican, but i dont feel the same if i vote along democratic lines.. maybe im crazy.. i probably am

2007-02-27 22:09:01 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-27 22:03:12 · 1 answers · asked by LongJohns 7

?

2007-02-27 21:57:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

simple language please and no cut and paste or web-links.
thanks

2007-02-27 21:57:24 · 7 answers · asked by nutterandbolter 1

2007-02-27 21:17:55 · 27 answers · asked by Connor 1

And by "positive", I mean for both sides of the aisle and the middle. In other words, all of America, not just the people that agree with you. Please no augmentum ad hominem.

Clever original ideas are best.

2007-02-27 20:51:49 · 14 answers · asked by The_Music_Man 3

2007-02-27 20:20:24 · 19 answers · asked by ry_in_dubai 3

she works in unrwa,gaza,palestine

2007-02-27 19:25:58 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

India is a socialist country and Parlamentary form of government where public enterprises and private enterprises coexist. Public enterprise checks the monopolistic tendencies of private enterprises. Government of India is resorting to privatising all public enterprises leading to capitalism from the form of socialistic country. Why not our country is not adopting Presidential form of Government when there is everything is privatised. In sequence, Socialist fabric of India is torn by present day government due to privatisation all public enterprises are vanishing forming syndrome of capitalism. Elaborate.

2007-02-27 19:08:47 · 4 answers · asked by katkam v 3

Bully of the world

2007-02-27 18:56:17 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

im doing a speech on "the inconvenient truth" anyway i basically need to know the REAL reason that america declared war on iraq. i know bush said it was to free the iraqis and disarm the WMD, and stop saddam and all that.
i've heard it was because of oil.
is there proofof that?
and can anyone help me know the REAL reason america invaded iraq?

2007-02-27 18:52:09 · 11 answers · asked by tallica_child 2

HYE< LOOK GUYS<

WE TYRED EVERYTHING WIT DA CONSERLVATIVES!

NUN OF IT WERKED!

WE NEED A "FINAL" SOLUTION! WUT DO R IS U SUGESTED!?????

2007-02-27 18:30:25 · 10 answers · asked by mmm_billy01 2

2007-02-27 18:29:18 · 9 answers · asked by Felicity 1

2007-02-27 18:26:29 · 3 answers · asked by jacqz 1

This was the operation after the 1972 Munich Olympics killings.

I would prefer to focus on how this relates to globalization and/or international relations. Specific results, consequences, and political maneuvers which ensued would be much help to me.

I would prefer information from credible sources, as I need to thoroughly analyze the political/global consequences.

2007-02-27 17:41:32 · 1 answers · asked by Professor 1

We have three candidates wanting to be President next year. One lives out of the country and will not be present at our election night. (She will be moving ack here in June.) Can she be on the ballot and can people vote for her?

2007-02-27 17:37:42 · 3 answers · asked by uclagrads 2

2007-02-27 17:25:02 · 15 answers · asked by nude chef 3

The jingoist neocon's kneejerk excuse for the silly War on Terror is "It's better to fight 'em over there than over here!" But where would you rather fight the terrorists: on their turf, where they are familiar with the terrain, or here in the streets of America where we have the home field advantage?

2007-02-27 17:14:50 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

The United States Supreme Court yesterday decided not to review a case challenging the constitutionality of a New York City public school policy that expressly permits the display of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent during their respective religious holidays, but completely bans the display of Nativity scenes during Christmas.

The constitutional challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two minor children, devout Roman Catholics, who attend the New York City's schools. The lawsuit was filed only after William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, made several unsuccessful attempts to convince school officials to allow Nativity displays alongside the other religious symbols.

The Supreme Court considered the Law Center's petition for review at seven different conferences. At the end of the day, however, by deciding not to review the case the Court passed on the opportunity to clarify its much maligned Establishment Clause jurisprudence. More fundamentally, the Court allowed to stand an anti-Christian policy that adversely affects over one million students enrolled in the Nation's largest public school system, which has 1,200 public elementary and secondary schools.

In the petition, the Law Center asked the Supreme Court to review a February 2006 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which a sharply divided panel upheld the constitutionally of the City's Nativity ban. The Circuit Court held that this policy of permitting Jewish and Islamic religious symbols but banning Christian religious symbols was permissible in part because it achieved a valid "pedagogical endeavor" by "us[ing] children's natural excitement about various year-end holidays to teach the lesson of pluralism by showing children the rich cultural diversity of the city in which they live and by encouraging them to show tolerance and respect for traditions other than their own."

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, "This case presents yet another example of how federal courts are using Justice O'Connor's contrived test to cleanse America of Christianity. This unprincipled test allows judges to impose their own ideological views under the pretext of constitutional interpretation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to take up the case and remedy its flawed jurisprudence."

In a religious display cased decided by the Court in 2005, Justice Thomas echoed the sentiments of Thompson, stating, "The unintelligibility of this Court's precedent raises the further concern that, either in appearance or in fact, adjudication of Establishment Clause challenges turns on judicial predilections. . . . [A] more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order."

Robert Muise, trial counsel for the Law Center who handled this case, was disappointed with the Court's decision, stating, "Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward Christians. Our Nation has a strong Christian heritage that is reflected in our traditions. One such tradition is displaying a creche during the Christmas season. New York City's Nativity ban exhibits a hostility that is contrary to our history and our Constitution. The Supreme Court should have reviewed this case."

2007-02-27 17:02:16 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-27 16:45:39 · 6 answers · asked by delta 1

Knowing that I pay into Social Security every pay check with the possibility that I may never see that money again simply enrages me. With that little less to work with for retirement, the pennies are surely adding up. Is there any solution to this disaster called Social Security? I'm curious as to what others think can turn this failing system of Government around (and please think of something better than suggesting Bush's impeachment, for this has been a downward spiral since before his era). The most intriguing answer will get my vote. Thanks for answering!!

2007-02-27 16:43:43 · 9 answers · asked by seymour 2

Would you consider globalization to be more like Samuel Huntington describes it as a clash of civilization in the sense of a rejection of overlapping cultural identities or as Thomas Friedman describes it as a conflict of cultural tradition and modernization?

2007-02-27 16:41:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-27 16:36:13 · 10 answers · asked by alfredo a 1

I previously posted a question with the same title as this one. (You can refer to it to see all the curious details)
Since that question was posted, Hillary somehow, mysteriously extended her question another 2 weeks without signing in. (Still has the same 96 points)
Yahoo staff claims...
"This is not an endorsement. We are not siding with any candidate or party -- in general or for the 2008 US elections."
What do you believe is acctually going on here?

2007-02-27 16:36:02 · 7 answers · asked by Write Your Name Here 4

What is your preference and why? Since they are basically the same(and partially true).

2007-02-27 16:31:00 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-27 16:07:42 · 5 answers · asked by Adorable B 1

2007-02-27 15:41:59 · 17 answers · asked by nude chef 3

Mitt Romney said that Giuliani would "destroy the GOP" with his socially liberal values.
Agree with Romney? Disagree?

2007-02-27 15:34:29 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Republicans are ready to do everything and anything to preserve as much of their failing party power this next election.

They will even go so far as toimpeded all the progress that COULD be made against this war, for their own political gain, as they attemptto transfer accountability to the democrats to get themselves off the hook, by trying to bait the democrats into a position that says do something, but the only thing that republicans will allow is a full denial of funding to this war.

Democrats are not saying a war on terror is wrong, so long as its done against those that are responsbile for 9/11 -- Al queda.

Democrats arent even saying lets do a complete troop withdrawal. But Republicans are promising to filibuster anything the democrats do, until for the benefit of our troops, they wil be forced to cut funding altogether.

2007-02-27 15:22:09 · 3 answers · asked by writersbIock2006 5