Other - Politics & Government - June 2007

Please don't comment on the war, just write the number that you think. Thank you!

2007-06-29 04:56:29 · 8 answers · asked by Divra 3

45,000 people in the U.S. alone die EVERY YEAR from alcohol related auto wrecks.

i hear ppl and celebrities protest, call for a ban on the war where in 6 yrs. almost 4,000 soldiers have died in a combat zone but not one word of protest and not call from anyone to ban alcohol.

2007-06-29 04:55:06 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Isn't it silly, unrealistic, stupid, moronic, ignorant, and/or delusional to think the war in Iraq has slowed terrorism?

Are we fighting them over there, so the UK doesn't have to fight them at home? Aren't we fighting them over there so we don't have to break up terror plots in NJ?

The biggest lie of this war isn't WMD's. It's that fighting this war somehow had made ANYONE on the planet safer.

2007-06-29 03:30:21 · 17 answers · asked by Josh 4

Immigration Bill how long would it take to win in Iraq?

2007-06-29 03:27:35 · 7 answers · asked by john 2

2007-06-29 03:05:47 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

We have seen what they said would be a new openess in govt by their backroom deals trying to sneak a bill through before the american people knew about it. Not even reading a bill before they vote on it. Lets face it these people are out to destroy the american culture so shouldnt we voice our opinions on every bill not just the immigration bill. I think talk radio has started something here that could snowball. The american voters and taxpayers could again run this country and denounce these damn traitors.

2007-06-29 03:02:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

In the United State, citizens get more rights as they get older: When one turns 16, they can get a provisional drivers license. At 18, they become "legal adults" and they get the right to buy firearms (but not handguns), pornography, tobacco, spray paint, lottery tickets, and most importantly, the right to vote and the right to serve in the military.

Now why is it that an 18 year old can join the military, recieve Silver Stars and Purple Hearts for valor in combat, but cant come home and go to a bar in downtown Washington, DC? How come the US government can trust the 18-21 age group with owning firearms, bearing the burden on defending freedom, and choosing the nation's leaders but can't trust them with the responsibilty of drinking alcohol? What is the reasoning behing this logic and why did the US government change the law back in the 70's from 18 to 21? Why did the government feel they had to hold federal highway funds from states that didn't obey?

2007-06-29 02:59:02 · 8 answers · asked by Andrew W 2

Here's what the president of my college/employer just wrote:
" On Friday, June 15, Governor Rick Perry vetoed $154 million in funding allocated to community college group health insurance. The cut will take effect in the 2008-09 fiscal year and will result in a $3.8 million (approximately) reduction in state appropriations for Collin College. In his veto, Governor Perry stated that community colleges had falsified their appropriation requests submitted to the Legislative Budget Board. We absolutely take strong issue with this allegation. To date, no evidence supporting the Governor’s claim has been released. All 50 Texas community college presidents have united in making the Governor and the media aware that this action will be fiscally devastating to community college students and the economic future of Texas. "
Bottom line: this means that my paycheck which currently has over $600 in deductions for insurance will now make it over $900 per month taken out of my paycheck...

2007-06-29 02:22:01 · 2 answers · asked by YRofTexas 6

2007-06-29 01:21:53 · 23 answers · asked by ifhusain 4

Has anyone decide that they should change their political party affliation? If you have, why? I recently changed mine and am interested in how other Americans feel concerning what is going on in our government.

2007-06-29 00:13:31 · 5 answers · asked by bellslady65 3

i don't think so, we don't do it with newspapers or television..could you imagine the outcry if the tables were turned? demoncrats would be screaming bloody murder if republicans tried to force comedy central to have alternatives to the daily show or the colbert report...and you know we could not compete with the jockularity of those shows, so we would say.."we will put nothing on to oppose it" , so by law, those shows must be taken off the air...that's how the fairness doctrine works, it silences all views...am radio goes back to farm reports and evangelists 24/7..the funny thing is, and i don't think many think about this is this...the fairness doctrine only covers broadcast media, not cable,...the demoncrats ought to tread very carefully here, can you imagine rush limbaugh on say,..fox news for a couple hours every night??? hmmm...he might just save televisions sagging numbers huh?

2007-06-28 22:45:53 · 10 answers · asked by federalistcapers 2

if they are for balance then why not put it on all media outlets instead of just one section...shouldn't it be for talk radio, newspapers, cable news, network news, web blogs, etc...i know many liberals hate the fact talk radio can't survive in the market place...but they are just flat out wanting to discriminate...but claim to be for fairness...

2007-06-28 20:24:16 · 8 answers · asked by turntable 6

Or even at home? Apparently, there are three countries in Africa that like us better than we like ourselves (I'm guessing they have limited internet access). See the story: America still cherished around Africa http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_af/us_image_africa
We have many problems though stemming from many issues. What do we need to do to reclaim our moral authority and and improve our global image?

2007-06-28 18:32:29 · 16 answers · asked by David M 6

They blame video/pc games for everything these days. Why don't they just take out blood/gore movies too... lol.

2007-06-28 18:06:54 · 13 answers · asked by I like horses 1

Some people tried to tell me that AIDS is actually discriminatory towards poor people, not their ethnicity.

(I think it is a matter of choices people make [with some exceptions of course])

Could you explain these numbers if poverty is the target for AIDS contraction:

4.3 million American Indians in U.S. in 2003
36.4 million Blacks in U.S. in 2003

In 2002 (don't whine about the year difference) :
Estimated numbers of diagnosed cases of HIV/AIDS, by race/ethnicity:

White: 8,347
Black: 14,398
A-Indian 168

Multiply the American Indians by 9, to get a comparative figrure with Blacks: 1,512

Which means, Blacks have a rate of nearly 10 times that of American Indians, the most impoverished race in the country.

Also, Blacks make up 12% of the population, yet nearly double the rate of Whites regarding AIDS contraction. Are we to assume that there is not a large portion of impovershed Whites in this country?

2007-06-28 17:44:26 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-28 17:32:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've always heard the saying that in colonial America that only "white, property owning christians" were allowed to vote. Was this a policy that was setup by individuals colonies or an agreement between all colonies? I can't find online any one defining document that states this was so for all of the colonies. Can someone help, a link to this information would be appreciated.

2007-06-28 17:12:11 · 10 answers · asked by lander 2

It sucks up positive energy to see one thing after another go down the tubes since Bush was 'sort of' elected. It's just sad to see people get meaner and meaner. And now Supreme Court is allowing companies to get together and fix prices, and has made a decision that could conceivably allow segregation again. I'm tired of people being in power who haven't learned much from history and who don't really care much about the integrity of humans.

2007-06-28 16:38:43 · 23 answers · asked by Habitus 4

What do you hope it will achieve?

2007-06-28 16:30:55 · 31 answers · asked by Jason 4

Associated Press 6/28/07:

WASHINGTON - President Bush's immigration plan to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants while
fortifying the border collapsed in the Senate on Thursday, crushing both parties' hopes of addressing the volatile issue before the 2008 elections.

The outcome, though, was a stunning reversal from just a few weeks ago, when Bush confidently declared, "I'll see you at the bill-signing."

2007-06-28 15:58:37 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

“First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen... Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.” - Nancy Pelosi

Notice how Pelosi admits that liberal radio has proved to be a failure. Radio stations simply WILL NOT air a show that will turn away more listeners that it attracts because without ratings, sponsors, etc. the station or its parent cannot survive. This illustrates a free market at work.

Is it right that now, liberals want to pass legislation which mandates what radiostations will provide for its listeners, in other words, force them to air shows which would otherwise fail because people traditionally have freely chosen NOT to support them?

2007-06-28 15:53:22 · 10 answers · asked by Voice of Liberty 5

Im not a deb or rep, its just what i noticed.

2007-06-28 15:26:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-28 15:22:08 · 8 answers · asked by Candidus 6

Please tell me if you have witnessed the same media phenomenon that I have seen over the past few days...

Why is it that today, when the immigration bill was struck down, the Yahoo! headline was, "US Senate kills Bush Immigration Bill" and after the Senate voted to keep it alive on Tuesday the headline was, "The Senate's revived legislation to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants faces a critical test Thursday after surviving potentially fatal challenges."

So when it seems feasable, credit goes toward our Democratically controlled Senate, but when it has proved to be a failure, Bush's name is exclusively tagged to it?

Media bias?

2007-06-28 15:14:42 · 9 answers · asked by Voice of Liberty 5

2007-06-28 14:54:04 · 21 answers · asked by Somewhere Tropical 1

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2425061320070628

Does globalization threaten American security?

2007-06-28 14:24:10 · 5 answers · asked by Brand X 6

seriously, beats the heck out of television, and you can participate if you would like...did you know democrats want to put a end to that? yes they do...

2007-06-28 14:21:45 · 15 answers · asked by federalistcapers 2

can dick cheney use his executive priveledge to assert that he is not part of the executive branch? can they really protect American freedom, while tearing down constitutional checks and balances and civil liberties?

2007-06-28 13:56:28 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

I been thinking a three layer defense system, first an electric fence, then a hole with alligators, and at the end fresh and newly deputized minute man. but I would like to take your ideas, to protect the USA from terrorists and whatever.

2007-06-28 13:17:51 · 27 answers · asked by ravenfan1978 2

Though the amnesty bill's demise was a victory for the average citizen, we need more. Congress has made it clear they will only discuss tighter border security in conjunction with an amnesty program. They have no intention of building a fence, only to erase the borders in 2010. We need to continue the momentum and swing this pendulem back onto the people's side. We are at war with our own govenrment on this issue, and I am sure they are already devising another bill with a stronger shroud of border enforcement.

2007-06-28 12:54:30 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous