Politics - 1 August 2006

Are they saying that it is good to remain firm eventhough you are wrong?

He says stay the course eventhough the course is wrong and these republican maniacs say that's a good thing????

2006-08-01 05:58:48 · 11 answers · asked by Luis T 3

2006-08-01 05:55:21 · 16 answers · asked by masoom_fraudia 1

2006-08-01 05:53:43 · 9 answers · asked by whydothedumboutnumberthesmart? 2

Because it's backed up by Russia and China or because he only likes "spreading" it in 3rd world countries w/o allies? COWARD!

2006-08-01 05:53:15 · 9 answers · asked by Kookoo Bananas 3

2006-08-01 05:52:56 · 18 answers · asked by whydothedumboutnumberthesmart? 2

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/A1289B43235C9E61862571B1001F2F83?OpenDocument

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-6643.pdf

2006-08-01 05:49:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-01 05:41:27 · 5 answers · asked by Zelda Hunter 7

Not the rich, the average person.

2006-08-01 05:39:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

honestly my god! we are not the only ones in iraq right now, has ANYONE forgotten 911??? cause honestly i think you have. give me your opinions because this ticks me off to no end that you guys would bash a guy that had to put together a nation and fix it after katrina and just because the economy is slipping a little we bash him? not right at all.

2006-08-01 05:36:54 · 25 answers · asked by dancerchicka 2

As a liberal, should I bite my toungue or try and save my brother, I honestly think he would be better off with the Moonies, what are your thoughts? HELP!

2006-08-01 05:34:01 · 15 answers · asked by Dr.Feelgood 5

These people have already said that they would love to destroy Israel and the United States. I really fail to understand how you can get behind these guys.

2006-08-01 05:32:48 · 18 answers · asked by Ethan M 5

they claim to be optimistic, what happened to being realistic?

2006-08-01 05:27:19 · 12 answers · asked by Luis T 3

2006-08-01 05:21:55 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-01 05:17:43 · 31 answers · asked by White Man 2

I would say generally...again GENERALLY ...Liberals tend to become a way more emotional and often use name callings and cursing. Conservatives listen and calmly debate without getting all warped up, and still be LOGICAL AND COURTEOUS....

2006-08-01 05:12:08 · 18 answers · asked by American Superman 3

2006-08-01 05:05:47 · 12 answers · asked by mmm 2

Our country has done some awful things. It has left poor people to rot in a hurricane. This country outsources American jobs to save a buck. There is a large population of people who dont have health care, but in Canada they have free healthcare. I just watched Oprahs series about schools in crisis and how awful some schoos have become. When we evacuated Americans out of Lebanon we had people signing promissary notes to pay back the ticket home when other countries evacuated their citizens no questions asked. We are a nation get fatter, dumber, greedier and more dangerous. We are the biggest producers of pollution, we are the largest drug consuming nation in the world. Democrats and Republicans have not solved any of these problems. So how can you be proud of this country? One story in particular that has really pissed me off was the HBO special on a animal humane rescue operation that showed how awful people treat dogs. It was sick! This Priest killed and tortured innocent animals.

2006-08-01 05:04:05 · 10 answers · asked by Sundown 1

2006-08-01 05:02:34 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

It seems like, in general, people that live in big cities are more liberal than people that live in small cities. New Yorkers, for example, are in general more liberal than people that live in Des Moines Iowa. People in Boston are more liberal than people that live in Lincoln Nebraska, and people in San Francisco are more liberal than people in Bismark North Dakota. It's not an exact relationship. Obviously, there are conservatives in big cities, but in general it seems like big cities are more liberal. I'm not judging or advocating that trend, just observing it. What are the reasons for that?

2006-08-01 05:00:33 · 13 answers · asked by berrydoo 1

2006-08-01 04:57:59 · 36 answers · asked by Jack 2

in afaghan, Iraq, India,Spain, USA, and UK every where....Sponsoring terrorism!Why they believe other religions are not good and they are their enemies?

2006-08-01 04:55:10 · 10 answers · asked by jayakanth_p 1

2006-08-01 04:54:47 · 25 answers · asked by American Superman 3

First he chokes on a pretzel, then falls off a bike, now stumbles off AFO.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060731/480/c04dcda6b53d4ebab672171896129098;_ylt=AmP5di3O2PiJzH8iTwr_6ygDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4Y20zOW1jBHNlYwNtZXBo

What a dumb moron, idiot!! LMAO Too bad he didn't fall and break his neck.

2006-08-01 04:51:20 · 15 answers · asked by Kookoo Bananas 3

If you are, check out this link and watch the thing on C-SPAN tonight!! This will have their big dog, Alex Jones on there. Take notes on what they talk so you can debunk them (unless this changes your mind or something).

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cspan_talk_radio_mass_mobilization.htm

Just a public service announcement.

2006-08-01 04:49:25 · 9 answers · asked by DEP 3

Hizbullah is a 100% lebanese resistance,but iran support it ONLY with weapons.
so if ur land was occupied by different religion group would u do the same as hizbullah is doing????

CLEAR ANSWERS PLEASE.

2006-08-01 04:48:47 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-08-01 04:47:59 · 17 answers · asked by White Man 2

Back in the spring of 2006, there was speculation that they would push to IMPEACH President Bush once they got into power.

2006-08-01 04:45:07 · 28 answers · asked by Moe C 1

Paul Krugman, in a May 27 article in the New York Times titled "Stating the Obvious", wrote that "the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other promises; ... The people now running America aren't conservatives: they're radicals who want to do away with the social and economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are concocting may give them the excuse they need."

Two days later, Peronet Despeignes, reporting in the Financial Times of London, wrote that "The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44,200 trillion [the deficit is currently at about six trillion dollars] in current US dollars."

That's trillion with a "T". To put that terrifying figure in perspective, Despeignes reported it to be the rough equivalent of four years of US economic output or 94% of all US household assets, and that "closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase."

The next day, on his Public Television show "Now", Bill Moyers was blunt. The Bush Administration, he said, kept news of this impending debt from the public "lest it throw the fear of God into Congress and the financial markets and cost them the tax cut for the rich." Moyers went on to say that "we are watching the country's future slip deeper and deeper into a black hole of red ink."

And two days after that, Noam Chomsky, in an interview on C-Span televised on June 1, stated flatly that the tax cut was calculated to lead to a "fiscal train wreck".

"At some point", Krugman wrote, "Bond markets will balk - they won't lend money to a government, even that of the United States, if that government's debt is growing faster than its revenues, and there is no plausible story about how the budget will eventually come under control."

But that's the very point of massive tax cuts: breaking the bank so as to kill social programs. It was a point made very well by Press Secretary Ari Fleisher when pressed on the issue. Congress, Fleisher said, would have to reform programs accordingly. He didn't say "kill", which would have been more appropriate.

Corporate America has spent billions lobbying for deregulation of its activities and for privatization of everything from the health system to education to national parks and forests to Social Security -- a situation that would lead to ownership and control by the corporate sector and a tiny handful of the super rich of virtually every aspect of society.

With no cash in the federal till -- due to massive tax cuts along with huge deficits, and ultimate inability of the government to borrow further -- there would no longer be much to argue about. The corporate sector would win by default, so that everything needed by the masses would have to be obtained through them at any price they would want to charge.

As the deficit balloons, the rightist program to privatize public lands is also moving right along. Free marketeer Terry Anderson, whose published plan to give each citizen "shares" of the public domain, said shares being sellable on the open market to those with the wealth to scoop them up, has been made President Bush's adviser on public lands issues.

Late last year, fellow free marketeer and Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, a product of the anti-environmental "Wise Use Movement", revealed plans to "outsource" to the private sector 3,500 jobs in the U.S. Park Service. This raised no eyebrows, and by January, 2003 the estimate had risen to more than 11,000 positions - an eyebrow-raising 72%. Soon thereafter President Bush revealed that as many as 850,000 positions, now federal, could become privatized. It was a declaration of war on public ownership and government by the people, framed as an argument for fiscal efficiency.

With country and culture in the hands of a very few, democracy perishes.

2006-08-01 04:42:38 · 7 answers · asked by tough as hell 3

2006-08-01 04:39:42 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I used to think this was far-fetched, but now that I've been hearing more about "false blips" and "Northern Vigilance" I'm starting to think that Dick Cheney had the means, motive and opportunity to mastermind 9/11.

MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Cheney was Commander in Chief on 9/11 calling the shots via Secret Service.

MOTIVE: Peak Oil
9/11 made possible what Dick Cheney called, "The war that won't end in our lifetimes." This is a war that is chasing the last remaining hydrocarbons across the globe. The "war on terror" is in reality an energy war and 9/11 was its pretext.

OPPORTUNITY: 9/11 War Games
Cheney was managing multiple war games and terror drills on 9/11 that paralyzed U.S. Air Force response.

2006-08-01 04:37:24 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous