Other - Politics & Government - July 2007

Are the muslims fighting against the new world order?

2007-07-09 11:22:05 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

In the past, the Democratic and Republican conventions actually chose the candidates for each party. People rejected the "smoke-filled back room deals" which chose candidates for most of our history. By choosing nominees through primaries, it was thought they would open the process to a more democratic ideal.

What it really did, however, was concretize the fringes of each party, giving veto power over nominees to the religous right for the Republicans, and radical/socialists for the Democrats. Since these blocks mobilize large numbers of voters for the primaries, they can choose their candidates, or effectively block candidates who don't follow their line on issues like abortion, gun control, etc.

This has hurt the Dems much more than the Repubs, and explains why weak-kneed candidates from Humphrey to Kerry have met with resounding defeat. Is it time to change?

2007-07-09 11:15:09 · 5 answers · asked by A Plague on your houses 5

Someone posted this on another board, and while I am no fan of the Soviets or communism, it makes a kind of perverse sense:
_________________________

If the Russians were victorious in Afghanistan:

Bin Laden would have either killed, captured or left a beaten man without any fanfare or sense of invincibility ;
The Muslim world would have been defeated by an atheist power that challenges every premise they hold sacred.
Women would have been allowed to be educated in Afghanistan.
The Poppy Fields would have been destroyed.
We wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.
Maybe the "Evil Empire" wasn't so evil (at least compared to what we face today)
_________________________

The guy who posted that left out one little historical asterisk though: Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski said we were funding the mujahideen to harass the Soviet-backed government BEFORE the Soviets invaded to make it necessary for them to intervene to prop up their ally.

2007-07-09 11:04:30 · 11 answers · asked by yurbud 3

Would you rather our country did nothing? If you were the president what would you do? And how would that make things better?

2007-07-09 10:59:19 · 11 answers · asked by ☆Zestee☆ 5

And during the presidential election major University president Said he would revoke degrees of those voting for this presidential candidate. Are we talking about President George W. Bush, no!!! With all the left talking about how evil and stupid president Bush is how will history judge him. Well when President GEORGE Washington was leaving office noted Revolutionary Writer Thomas Paine said he was a traitor and wished for his death. And another "questionable" presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson had the President of Yale University wanting to revoke degrees for those voting for this scoundrel. Left, be wary of your hatred because his history has a tendancy to judge you also in your wrongness. One of the singers during the concerts this weekend had a song invoking a leader like Abraham Lincoln who could be respected. Yes the Lincoln who at the time had half the country leaving the Union and then during the middle of the war major anti-war protests in all cities.

2007-07-09 10:58:28 · 5 answers · asked by ALASPADA 6

Also see www.phoenixmotorcars.com, and www.eaaev.org.
Get and watch the DVD "Who killed the electric car? I cant believe Americans don't control there 0wn destiny! Just like the immagration issue, its time to speak out loudly! What do you think

2007-07-09 10:49:55 · 7 answers · asked by Earl 2

Do you think Congress would go along with it if the American people want out of the U.N.?

2007-07-09 10:44:38 · 10 answers · asked by mountaindew25 3

It's sad that I even have to ask, but I'll do it anyway.

2007-07-09 10:23:14 · 12 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

2007-07-09 10:19:12 · 2 answers · asked by shih rips 6

"Bush denies Congress access to aides"
"WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_bush

2007-07-09 10:18:21 · 12 answers · asked by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6

Bush not considering Iraq troop pullout By , AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush is not contemplating withdrawing forces from Iraq now despite an erosion of support among Republicans for his war policy, the White House said Monday.
The administration also tried to lower expectations about a report due Sunday on whether the Iraqi government is meeting political, economic and security benchmarks that Bush set in January when he announced a buildup of 21,500 U.S. combat forces. White House press secretary Tony Snow said that all of the additional troops had just gotten in place and it would be unrealistic to expect major progress now.

"You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an "A" on the first report."
--------------------------------------------

He 'took out' Saddam - changed regimes.If Iraq had lettuce, he'd be long gone...

2007-07-09 10:08:03 · 5 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

Bush executive privilege firings attorney general office aides scandals

2007-07-09 09:56:31 · 16 answers · asked by az33freedom 1

I'm beginning to think so. Two strikes and counting, will the third strike reveal the traitor?

2007-07-09 09:13:52 · 12 answers · asked by Rosebee 4

If they don't, I fail to see how a corporation exploits someone who willingly comes to work.

2007-07-09 09:13:02 · 12 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

Oh I can just see it now... birds chirping, children playing, a productive person resisting confiscatory taxes has his front door kicked in and he is hauled off to jail. So peaceful. So just. So balanced. So wonderful. Awwwww. Let's all get together at the commune and congratulate ourselves for a job well done. We're so wonderful and compassionate.

2007-07-09 08:45:29 · 17 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

Don't get me wrong, I think global warming has been used as a political tool to gain votes, and has been seriously blown out of proportion. I think there's probably a natural cycle to the earth's temperature, but I don't think our SUV's are going to cause the world to end like some people are claiming.
I'm buying bamboo flooring for my house, not because they're the most eco-friendly flooring, but because they're inexpensive and they look nice. I don't drive an SUV, not because I think they're ending the world, but because I can't afford to put gas in one.
I use fluorescent bulbs, not because I want to be green, but because I want to save money and change my bulbs less.
SO - maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but wouldn't it be a much better political tool to point out the financial gain of doing things that are environmentally friendly, versus alienating everyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon?? I think most people are reasonable, they just don't like to be insulted

2007-07-09 08:41:43 · 9 answers · asked by Roland'sMommy 6

I think I get it now, work hard, be successful, enjoy the fruits of your labor but don't forget to look over your shoulder: We're watching you, because we know the right profit you should make and we know when you need to contribute more to the welfare state.

2007-07-09 08:36:15 · 8 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

It was about 30%. Sound like a familiar number? About 30% of people in any given country are apparently too stupid and partisan to see the blue sky or the green grass.

2007-07-09 07:50:27 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

So, from what I have learned through reading news and etc... social security benefits are supposedly ending about three years before I hit my retirement age...
I fall within the age range where there is a very good possibility that I will never receive social security benefits.
My only question is....
Why do I have to pay social security every payday for the rest of my life, and when it is time for me to retire, I will never get it. Will I get a check reimbursing me for everything that I have already paid in?
The government is taking my money every paycheck to supposedly "SAVE IT FOR ME TO RETIRE" but I will never get it.
Why can't I save my own social security money? Why can't I stop them from taking it from me and put it into my own account that I know I will have later in life?

Why do I have to pay social security my entire working life and never receive it once I retire.?
What a wonderful country we live in.....

2007-07-09 07:34:49 · 16 answers · asked by Mrs. R 2

Doing so makes one suspicious does it not?

2007-07-09 07:29:55 · 20 answers · asked by Old Guy 4

Some people have a lot of negative things to say about socializing healthcare. If you think it is so bad, what is the better option?

Personally I think healthcare is a right, especially in an affluent modern country like America. And from what I understand about Clinton's plan, there will still be competition and choices available for insurance providers. Far too many people are uninsured in this country.

2007-07-09 07:21:14 · 12 answers · asked by ? 6

2007-07-09 07:14:45 · 20 answers · asked by shih rips 6

over the past 7 years, i've noticed all elements of american politics have been lumped into 2 camps:

democrats vs republicans
liberals vs conservatives
good vs evil
right vs wrong
us vs them

and so on..

has all political thought been reduced to us vs them and black vs white?

and why all the team politics?

i don't understand why everything has to be lumped into two sets of generalities. nothing is ever that simple. nothing.

2007-07-09 06:57:54 · 10 answers · asked by BrightEyes 5

2007-07-09 06:39:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Or set aside jobs or afirmitive action or does this just apply to non-white human beings?

2007-07-09 06:37:32 · 11 answers · asked by john 2

I mean they're trying to make the gullible think that Dems. want to start a sort of Soviet Union. They say places like UK and Australia are "socialist", as if an EU style democracy with a few more more social programs, fewer crimes, prisoners, and lawsuits, and with populations that vote and feel quite content and free in their pursuit of happiness, press, speech, etc. is something terrible.
I looks like to me the R's want a one-party government with insider trading, endless wars to profit from, surveillance on the population, throw dissenters in jail, and government intrusion into people's private affairs.

2007-07-09 06:36:25 · 19 answers · asked by topink 6

Was I just not copied on that email? Did that label get approved without interviews of Gulag survivors, prisoners in Castro's jails, Zimbabweans starving after Mugabe stole the farmland from the evil White farmers who know how to farm, Productive Venezuelans fleeing to the U.S. and other locales on the heels of Chavez' "new socialism", survivors of Mao's Great Leap Forward and others?

2007-07-09 06:25:05 · 7 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

Why? It's so so unfair...

2007-07-09 06:19:27 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Boy you guys are all over the map on this one... We know this much from lefty dogma: corporations are evil, concerned only with profits (God bless 'em!!), they would sell their mother for a dollar. We also know that, contrary to all available evidence, lefty talk radio is a smash hit that his been kept off the air by the same evil corporations run by evil white men. So which is it? Corporations are concerned only about profits and will do anything for a buck, or they ignore massive profits and instead leave lefty radio off the air?

2007-07-09 06:12:24 · 5 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

`I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.`

2007-07-09 05:45:23 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous