Politics - 13 October 2006

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm just curious.

2006-10-13 18:14:24 · 14 answers · asked by Jay S 5

I received an email today from a group please read and comment:

a.. USA supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians?

b.. As late as 1998, the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan ?

c.. There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea , but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get that out?

d.. UNOCAL, a giant oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea?

e.. UNOCAL spend $ 10,000,000,000 on geological &nb sp; studies for the pipeline construction, and courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin?

f.. All leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998?

g. In 1999, Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company in Argentina?

h.. John Maresca, VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and

2006-10-13 17:53:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

There were thousands of military famalies who did NOT betray their loved one's sacrifice and bash their country. They supported the military's mission then as they do now. So why all the fixation on one loony biotch?

2006-10-13 17:49:55 · 16 answers · asked by robertbdiver 3

Anti-war is not an acceptable answer - unless accompanied by an explanation of how to advance peace in the Middle East in the next 30 years.

2006-10-13 17:49:24 · 5 answers · asked by RealistProse 2

An empty greyhound bus.

2006-10-13 17:48:12 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-13 17:47:29 · 7 answers · asked by jayanta d 1

most americans tend to believe that the "stay the course" plan by Bush has failed miserably. What would you suggest we do? Are there any good plans?

2006-10-13 17:46:35 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Your opinion please!

2006-10-13 17:42:30 · 25 answers · asked by agsa4350@sbcglobal.net 2

2006-10-13 17:39:21 · 10 answers · asked by IAMDQUEEN 2

2006-10-13 17:38:30 · 19 answers · asked by ka_daz 2

Lou Dobbs not only run for President of the United States of America but also to win! Folks we need him more than ever so that our country will be lead in a new and better direction. We may need a whole new "American" party to run under.

Everything I have learned about Lou Dobbs from watching him is that one of his major goals in life is to save the middle class in this country. http://www.loudobbs4president.com/

We dont need president who be WHORE COORPORATION ... NOT UNAMERICA ,open border, free trade ,outsourcing NOT STAND UP FOR AMERICAN.

Hillary is joke only house wife talk like a man and pro mexican and china everything for coorporation.
be senator new york even she is never from new york and we dont need LIBERAL politician destroy us


http://www.geocities.com/lakebumcoastie/draftloudobbs2008.html

2006-10-13 17:37:44 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-13 17:19:33 · 2 answers · asked by ka_daz 2

God forbid!

2006-10-13 17:10:50 · 14 answers · asked by Sally Pepsi 4

Later, he added, “She was very, very gutsy (courageous) originally on the war in Iraq, and she has tried to rival Al D’Amato”—the former New York senator—“in being Senator Pothole.

2006-10-13 17:01:44 · 1 answers · asked by karmathecatdx 1

Quit complaining about not finding the WMDs! Saddam needed to be shut down anyways. (Plus, the WMDs are probably in Iran or one of the other radical Muslim nations....pick one. He knew we were coming to look for them. Why keep them around when your neighbors will hide them for you?)

If the humanitrian resons were not motivation enough in Iraq, then why does everyone care about Darfur? Same thing, but the democrats just can't blame going there on oil.

2006-10-13 16:57:03 · 24 answers · asked by honk2goose 4

Some of you libs think the Iraqi people should have changed control on their own. So, I ask you how the above two are possible.

2006-10-13 16:45:57 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've looked up several Repulican's explanations over how it "benefits" everyone and have yet to see any true benefit. Recently I saw someone try to use the analogy of going to dinner, and yet that one also made little sense.
I mean how do you know that rich people with more money in the pockets are going to invest it into jobs? Isn't that a personal decision that they are to make on their own? Also, does that really matter.
I mean you can point to how the economy got better when this stuff was implemented a while back, however that could have been mere chance as well. Also, personally that really doesn't matter to me. Let the economy suffer a little in order for things to be a little fair around here. Why don't we just say ok, every person takes 40% of their income and gives it to taxes??? Yes, the rich pay more, but they also make more! Really, should some CEO sitting in an office make more than someone, lets say who works on a hot roof all day. Any input from any side....?

2006-10-13 16:40:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Oh Nancy! Oh Gephardt! Don't tell me you knew Saddam had WMD in your Senate intelligence committee meetings all the way back to 1998! Bush misled!

LOL! Liberal clowns!

2006-10-13 16:35:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Doesn't everybody have the opportunity to work hard (2 jobs if they have to) in order to succeed, maybe start a small business, etc? Why is it that the losers in this economic competition complain that the winners have won?

If you think the rich have a great deal when it comes to taxes, why not work 2 jobs and become rich too so you can have that same great deal? Otherwise, it sounds like just a bunch of whining to me.

2006-10-13 16:34:40 · 10 answers · asked by Brand X 6

Doesn't it though? How easily he can mislead them and lie to them and they actually believe it? I mean after all there are still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we will eventually find them when Bush finds a way to plant them there! They will believe him and secretly talk about how they know they got planted there and say that it was necessary to keep the republicans from looking like the bunch of jack asses they are! Right? Oh buy the way this question is for liberals only!

2006-10-13 16:29:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Peace talks and negotiations with countries like North Korea and Iran are fairly worthless. These leaders are not rational and their agendas are fairly insane. The world needs to agree to either need to cut them off at the knees economically and impose very strict sanctions on arms, food, money, goods, travel, basically everything in order to topple the current radical regimes, or blast them back to next Tuesday (probably the only option that will get their attention and make them comply). Coddling North Korea and Iran like bad children will get us nowhere, maybe blown to pieces, but that’s about it. So quit blaming Bush, and start looking back to Clinton. His unilateral approach was crap and the "Agreed Framework" was a joke. Hell, the Norks used our money to build their shiny new nukes. We gave them nuclear power plants for god sakes! What did we expect? Maybe they will make some extra cash when they some of their nuclear goodies to the Iranians. What do you think?

2006-10-13 16:29:06 · 18 answers · asked by honk2goose 4

What Kind of Party? With what kind of Ideologies, How far from the Bipartician and Monopolitical Republicrat Party ?

2006-10-13 16:23:23 · 16 answers · asked by Zenko 2

Would you personally want to live under the rule of Saddam?

If you say no, why do you think the Iraqi people would?

2006-10-13 16:22:34 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-10-13 16:19:53 · 13 answers · asked by Brand X 6

I am tired.... I sold my Plasma TV. No more TV!

Technology is cool but content suc ks

2006-10-13 16:17:03 · 9 answers · asked by Zenko 2

Maybe big ketchup can embolden the enemy again?

2006-10-13 16:16:39 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.

Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.

A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.

An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.

2006-10-13 16:15:29 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Maybe she could do a tease of some sort?

2006-10-13 16:11:15 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

How can a disagreement over how to protect ourselves from terrorists be construed as "liberals loving terrorists?"

I take all answers seriously. All I ask is that you limit your responses to the realms of logic and reason.

2006-10-13 16:11:11 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

if they had ANY brains, they'd send a reliable source to do the test...."slam dunk" right guys?

2006-10-13 16:04:53 · 15 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1