Politics - 8 October 2006

Isn't this enough proof to leave Iraq to the Iraqis?

"About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/27/1910540-ap.html

2006-10-08 07:53:27 · 20 answers · asked by rian 3

2006-10-08 07:42:17 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

Thousands of innocent civilian men, women and children have died at American hands in this war on terror and in President Bush's misguided war in Iraq. Innocent civilians are being killed as part of our political and military strategy; therefore, the U.S. is a state terrorist- by definition.
Right?

2006-10-08 07:42:05 · 17 answers · asked by ideogenetic 7

You see it all the time. Ignorant red staters like Fox, etc. Do you think they must feel that way, because they are unable to accept they're currently a minority? I mean it's quite contradictory. The CEO's of Exxon and the large portion of big business and laywers that are Republican are college educated. You can't have it both ways.

2006-10-08 07:40:01 · 21 answers · asked by MEL T 7

Why do Libs claim that conservatives a racistst? They're not. In all other arenas, Liberals mess up the economy etc etc. If we make healthcare public, the quality of it will go down. ANYONE WHO NEEDS TREATMENT GETS IT IN THIS COUNTRY. You don't want to destroy the quality of care just because you want to redistribute the cost. Democrats don't understand that.

2006-10-08 07:28:56 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just curious to see the make up of views here.

2006-10-08 07:24:07 · 22 answers · asked by dstr 6

2006-10-08 07:23:49 · 20 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5

2006-10-08 07:14:48 · 26 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5

If there are any LD debaters out there, then help me! I think you all would know the topic (a just government should provide health care to its citizens.) I just went to the UPenn tournament yesterday and I had an opponent (he was aff; I was neg) who gave a general observation that "the negative position's burden is to prove that the job of a government is to deprive its citizens." I didnt know how to respond, so I dropped it, which of course ruined my entire case. Also, I had another one on the aff that said they're not providing "socialized medicine" (which is where everything is controlled by the government) but the gov. could indirectly give money or something. I need to think of blocks for both of these. HELP!

2006-10-08 07:13:53 · 4 answers · asked by Me 2

http://www.bushwacker.net/diversions/jokes/Seal_of_the_Republican_Party.jpg

2006-10-08 07:13:38 · 16 answers · asked by Dr.Feelgood 5

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvFhOlpCYOTqNp3jlQsVKMDsy6IX?qid=20060822160123AAtxLIY

2006-10-08 07:13:36 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Soros Blows Fuse, Rants At Cavuto for Getting "Personal"
10/05 05:23 PM, The Markup, Videos

I think Bill Clinton started a trend: Lefties appear to have decided that when a Fox News host turns up the heat, the best course of action is to rant like a madman and slam the network:


CAVUTO: Here's what I'm asking you though, alright? Now your Quantum Fund is registered actually in Netherlands Antilles. So what I'm curious about is when you advocate that the well-to-do should pay more in taxes (CROSSTALK), do you see where some would say, "Wait a minute..."

SOROS: Let me say two things. First of all, I pay taxes. My fund is in Curacao. The foreign shareholders don't pay taxes. I pay taxes on my income from that fund. My management company is located here. We pay taxes. So this is a lie. A lie that I have seen in print, and I've seen it repeated, so...

CAVUTO: So your taxes in this country... are they at the 35 percent rate?

SOROS: I would like to discuss policy. You are now falling into the trap of your colleagues at Fox who shall remain nameless because I think they are so disreputable, I wouldn't want to mention their names!

CAVUTO: Mr. Soros, I don't think...

SOROS: I respect you. That's why I came here, alright? Let's not get personal.

CAVUTO: What I'm asking you...

SOROS: Let's talk about policy!

Soros continued to rant about how America is losing its principles. He also told Cavuto that Bill O'Reilly is especially "disreputable" (or possibly "dyspeptical"). I guess those colleagues won't "remain nameless" after all.

2006-10-08 07:11:47 · 16 answers · asked by Jean R 3

I think they are. I do not silence people who want to say things I don't want to hear. Only whiny little brats would do that.

What is so racist about the minuteman project? Do you really think they wouldn't try to protect the Northern border if we had the same problem with Canada?

2006-10-08 07:11:03 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 07:10:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 07:09:08 · 13 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5

2006-10-08 07:08:42 · 10 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5

2006-10-08 07:06:00 · 12 answers · asked by fireburn 1

2006-10-08 07:02:27 · 12 answers · asked by shut up dummy 6

still vote for Hillary?

2006-10-08 07:02:12 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-08 06:56:20 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Saturday, Oct. 7, 2006
Do you remember how many times during the Clinton years Democrats told us everyone lies about sex and that Republicans were shamefully distracting the Clinton administration by harping on White House cover-ups about sex with an intern?

Well, we have far worse distractions now being promoted by Democrats about far less important matters and during far more dangerous times.

When Clinton was president he lamented, "I just want to get back to the work of the American people." That deserves to be echoed by Democrats today, because we need to have a genuine debate on the issues that really matter – the war against the jihadists, the economy, marriage and abortion, and other vital issues – before the November elections.

Will Democrats, if they regain control of either – or both – houses of Congress, use their newfound majority to further stifle the president's prosecution of the war on terror? Will they de-fund our soldiers in Iraq and demand a timetable for withdrawal? Their incessant criticisms of Iraq being "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" imply that they would.

Likewise, would the Democrats undo the partial reform measures aimed at sealing our borders? Would they try to roll back tax cuts? The public is entitled to know what the Republicans stand for and what the Democrats stand for, and the media are supposed to be the vehicle to make sure that we do.

But the media seem uninterested in these issues. Their sole focus seems to be to try to embarrass, if not emasculate, President Bush and the Republicans and return the Democrats to power.

Don't tell me the media and the Democrats are morally outraged about any aspect of the Foley matter, because that dog just won't hunt. They have absolutely no moral standing to complain about anyone else's laxity over deviant sexual behavior.


You know the drill. You've read and heard the Democrats' sordid track record on these matters. They not only didn't condemn Democratic congressman Gerry Studds for his actual sex – not perverted flirting – with a page, they gave him ovations. Congressman Barney Frank remains a respected Democrat even though an aide ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. The Democrats told us that Clinton's defilement of the Oval Office was a private matter. They champion the advancement of the radical homosexual agenda and safeguard partial-birth abortion.

"No, no, no," they cry. This is about Republican hypocrisy. The GOP pretends to be the party of values and yet embroils itself in this salacious scandal.

But Republicans are not guilty of hypocrisy here – they immediately purged Foley when they discovered the extent of his disgraceful misconduct.

And if Speaker Dennis Hastert had dropped the ax on Foley earlier, based on what he was told about the initial e-mails, you can be sure that the ACLU, the gay lobby, and apparently indignant Democrats would have cried homophobia at the top of their lungs.

It's the Democrats who are the hypocrites. Here they are castigating Hastert for not taking action that they would otherwise describe as homophobia.


This should be a non-scandal because it doesn't involve the Republican Party, or, in fairness, even its House leader. Based on the facts we know now, it involves Foley alone. Let's put the brakes on this rush to judgment against Hastert until we see what facts the investigation reveals.

The real scandal is the Democratic Party. As I point out in my book "Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" – and document in detail in their own words – the Democrats are unhinged in their Bush hatred, trying to parade under a false banner of being a "values" party themselves, and have no real political platform at all, except for opposing the Republicans on everything, most of all on the war on terror.

And the real disaster would be if Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House or Harry Reid becomes the Senate majority leader. Can anyone really see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid as responsible war leaders in Congress?

Democrats have disingenuously told us they couldn't wait to make this election a referendum on President Bush's policies on national security and the war in Iraq. But they have done everything they could to avoid this discussion because they still have no policies of their own to offer on the war – and they have even less to offer on the economy, which is robust and booming.

They will ride the Foley incident as long as they can, but eventually, sometime before the election, they'll have to give us some answers. Too bad for them. They don't have any.

2006-10-08 06:51:23 · 8 answers · asked by Jean R 3

I am a Viet Nam vet. I just read answers about giving up rights at the airport. I listened to cry babies who didn't want to slow their trips.

You have never had a enemy on your soil , dictating or killing at random.

As an American fighting man , I am hurt by the weekened people that had never had to fight for their freedom. We that have would be willing to give up a little time. Some gave a lot , Some gave all. Who will stand up for National Security? Will YOu?

2006-10-08 06:48:15 · 22 answers · asked by ? 6

Besides Canada, since it is pretty different country from the U.S.. is America still friendly place for its citizens and the world?

Do you feel the Americans are still warm and polite, and generous?

If there is (are) something you feel comfortable/ uncomfortable about dealing with the Americans, what is it?

2006-10-08 06:46:40 · 14 answers · asked by davegesprek 1

2006-10-08 06:34:14 · 16 answers · asked by Doctor Shiraz! 1

2006-10-08 06:31:33 · 21 answers · asked by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5

He is the one who knew about the e-mails to the interns in Washington from Mr. Foley.

2006-10-08 06:24:58 · 10 answers · asked by Patches 5

President says that the requirement written into law would disqualify too many able people. After Brownie, he still has not learned that qualifications count. Talk about arrogance! Hey Bushie, you're doing a heck-of-a-job!

2006-10-08 06:23:44 · 7 answers · asked by murphy 5

What do the Republicans seem to think the biggest problem facing the country (america) is? How will they fix it?


What do the Democrats seem to think the biggest problem facing the country is? How will they fix it?

2006-10-08 06:18:36 · 26 answers · asked by brownskirtsandsandals 2

Who do YOU trust?

2006-10-08 06:17:03 · 24 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5

2006-10-08 06:05:38 · 11 answers · asked by Doctor Shiraz! 1