Other - Politics & Government - August 2007

I am a white Christian male nad i don't get any special treatment. The John Doe act was nearly removed because of muslim's. And atheisist and other's don't like In God we trust. This country was founded on Christian values. Freedom is spoken of in the Bible. Same sex marriage is wrong to. In the Bible homosexuality is a Sin not to be spoken of. I really want to hear what you think.

2007-08-01 16:42:40 · 11 answers · asked by No More Mr. Nice Guy 3

At one time, weren't we a country that could actually make things?

Didn't we use to make stuff ourselves and still be able to buy the things we bought?

2007-08-01 16:28:07 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-01 16:22:14 · 10 answers · asked by Bryan 7

With all the problems with illegal immigration why isn't Mexico our 51st state? I mean they have great vacation hotspots like cancun and a lot more which means a lot of income. Also they have a lot of untapped oil in Mexico. Anyways doesn't it make sense?

2007-08-01 15:53:26 · 13 answers · asked by tedfromwi 2

2007-08-01 15:33:17 · 13 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

nuke Iran & Iraq (pulling US troops out 1st of course).

2007-08-01 15:26:39 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Be honest.

2007-08-01 15:25:54 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-01 15:21:26 · 7 answers · asked by davidthegnome2003 2

This oughta be interesting.

2007-08-01 15:15:22 · 11 answers · asked by YinxSphinxmen 4

Don't they have more important investigation than dog fighting.. Their must be some murder to be solved or terrorists to catch.

2007-08-01 15:09:16 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

And on top of that they are denied the freedoms while serving that american citizens enjoy. Under the Uniform code of military justice.

2007-08-01 15:06:33 · 15 answers · asked by Phil 2

2007-08-01 14:51:22 · 2 answers · asked by budda 1

The more money you have, the more justice you can buy? Why can't poor people have the same quality legal defense as do rich people?

2007-08-01 14:28:44 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Explain.

2007-08-01 14:11:29 · 17 answers · asked by Appono Astos 5

I notice a tendency of people on both sides to attack any opinion which doesn't agree with their own, even when the question/answer is designed to promote understanding of a particular mindset or position and does not denigrate counter opinions in any fashion. With such a prevailing mindset present in so many is it even possible to find middle ground on which to begin to agree on issues of interest to us all?

2007-08-01 14:05:41 · 16 answers · asked by Bryan 7

Why do Libs revere Robert Byrd so much? a former member of the KKK....How would they react if GW was a former KKK member? Why is William Jefferson still holding his job? If a Republican Senator had bribe money in his freezer, wouldn't he be run out of town?

2007-08-01 13:49:00 · 10 answers · asked by El Guapo 4

since bush is no longer worried about him anymore he said it himself not my words.what you guys think ?

2007-08-01 13:48:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Raul Castro, who has been in charge of the Cuban government during Castro's illness, has suggested that the U.S. and Cuba begin talks on this subject. Because Cuba is a Communistic country, some people feel we should continue the embargo. However, others feel it should be relaxed and Cuba once again be accessible to U.S. citizens.

2007-08-01 13:27:41 · 11 answers · asked by Me, Too 6

2007-08-01 13:27:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

I can't wait to see the answers for this.

2007-08-01 13:22:50 · 11 answers · asked by Steve 3

do you agree with her or think she is mean spirited ?

2007-08-01 13:12:00 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Obamy does,

2007-08-01 13:08:12 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

He should know the war on terror is a never ending battle.

2007-08-01 13:05:55 · 21 answers · asked by Steve 3

2007-08-01 13:05:40 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-01 12:48:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-01 12:42:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Before you start lecturing I know that liberal has become a slander in many people's minds. However, it is just a word which describes a particular political ideology. Do you not just add fuel to the fire by allowing yourself to be riled by a mere term, no matter what context it is used in? Wouldn't you be better served to attack the content of what is being said in conjuction with that term? I am not trying to challenge anyone here and I am not trying to be glib. I am just honestly curious. The reason is because I do not feel the same level of animosity in myself when someone uses the term conservative.

2007-08-01 12:26:44 · 13 answers · asked by Bryan 7

2007-08-01 11:40:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.infowars.com/articles/militar...

2007-08-01 11:37:37 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war.

President Bush enacted into US law an ‘Executive Order’ on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", and which says:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004."

According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they state, are written ‘so broadly’ as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:

"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."

To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word ‘services’ has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the ‘enemy’ and therefore threatens the ‘stabilization of Iraq’.

In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:

"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself, authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."

It is interesting to note, too, that this is not the first time that the United States has unleashed the brutal power of their government against its citizens to further their war aims and stifle domestic dissent, as during the European conflict of World War I they enacted a law called The Sedition Act of 1918 and which "...forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war."

It is curious to note that after the enactment of this new law there has been no protest by any of the other political leaders in the United States, with the exception of the only Muslim member of the United States Congress, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, and who compared President Bush to the Nazi War Leader Adolph Hitler by stating the attacks upon the World Trade Center could be likened to the burning of the Reichstag.

Today, as the United States faces an imminent economic collapse, while at the same time its war bill has reached the staggering amount of $648 billion, one of the last freedoms the American people have had to protest their leaders actions against them, and other peoples in the World, has now been taken away from them, the freedom to speak and write in opposition to what is being done to them.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.", said the great British writer George Orwell, but, and sadly, liberty has been lost to the once free people of the United States who are no longer allowed to tell their leaders, or each other, what they don’t want to hear.

With this being so, the American people should, likewise, contemplate their ‘new’ future, and as, also, stated best by George Orwell, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

2007-08-01 11:35:29 · 5 answers · asked by gaia_fanatic 3