Politics - 2 November 2006

2006-11-02 08:15:34 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have been told that the "peaceful and tolerant" religion of Islam has been hyjacked by the radicals and misinterpreted to fit their agendas.
I wonder, however, why the aledged, vast majority of Muslims do not condemn, at least publically, the actions of these terrorists.
In my opinion, this implies, however minor, an underlying support or at best, sympathy by the Muslims for the terrorists' tactics and agenda.

I have also been told that the Democratic Party has been hyjacked by the likes of Michael Moore and the Hollywood elitists, Air America and the like - and, likewise, I look for the condemnation from the vast majority of true Democrats.

Has the Democratic Party truly been hyjacked - or are we seeing their true colors?

2006-11-02 08:14:47 · 14 answers · asked by LeAnne 7

The amendment aims to protect egg havesting. Well, I can tell you from experience that it is a long and painful procedure, and it is risky, and sometimes deadly.

So who are the likely candidates when money is put as a lure for those thousands and thousands of eggs that will be needed for the research? Why low-income minority women, most of which are black in Missouri.

But of course, Michael J Fox does not tell you this in his shake Ad.

2006-11-02 08:10:19 · 4 answers · asked by french_war_veteran 1

You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

2006-11-02 08:08:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-02 08:08:18 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-02 08:07:14 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I though comedians are suppose to be funny.

These dirty dems are so hilarious its not even funny.

2006-11-02 08:04:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why are they so critical NOW? Is it because it's the other side talking like a fool for a change, and they incapable of applying equal standards to representatives of both parties?

2006-11-02 08:02:24 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrylousytshirt.htm

2006-11-02 08:01:42 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

No. They wouldn't.

Like sheep to the slaughter......

2006-11-02 08:00:09 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

2006-11-02 07:55:43 · 8 answers · asked by Ronnie 2

I'm so tired of the partisian retoric. I know very few people who are totally left or right. We need a middle party that listens to the people and not special interest. Everyone I know is sick of both sides and I wonder why they being the leaders of the 2 parties can't seem to understand. I'm thinking libertarian but I'm not that sure that in a world of curruption and greed that it is feasable.

2006-11-02 07:50:53 · 2 answers · asked by bess 4

It's the same thing with democrats. They say they're against something like racism, but rather they perpetuate it through politics. It's funny that Robert Byrd, a democrat, is a former KKK recruiter.

2006-11-02 07:48:36 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

**also, I am a Christian, I share many beliefs that Republicans share, but I realize the politicians are usually lying to get the poor to middle class Republican's votes. Since Republicans are for the rich, how else could they get poor people to vote for them? I worked 7 years for a hard-core Repulican; he's on the Electoral College in my state, close friends with Roy Blunt & Matt Blunt, has connections with George Bush, and I'm here to tell ya, they are far from Christians!

2006-11-02 07:46:48 · 11 answers · asked by Sunnie 5

2006-11-02 07:41:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I should know, I am a war veteran from the French Royal forces

2006-11-02 07:38:52 · 8 answers · asked by french_war_veteran 1

u know that these days middle east is so importann for tthe politic powers in the world. i want to know the major importace of this part of the world.

2006-11-02 07:37:27 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know they are out there in bunches as I have talked to them and read their postings here on Yahoo.

2006-11-02 07:30:33 · 15 answers · asked by Gone Rogue 7

... but ended up making a horse-faced a s s out of himself? Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that he really didn't mean to insult our troops, his supposed decision to insult Bush was a really bad one. An analysis by ABCNews said it best: Kerry's problem is that he is thoroughly convinced that he is smarter than George W. Bush, even though his academic performance at Yale was worse than Bush's. In other words, he was outsmarted by Bush "the idiot" in 2004, and it's still eating him up inside. He doesn't understand how this "idiot" from Texas beat him.

Perhaps it would benefit Kerry to finally admit to himself that he is not nearly as bright as he believes, and may in fact be dimmer than GW Bush.

2006-11-02 07:30:05 · 7 answers · asked by The Truth Hurts! Ouch! 5

Just curious.

2006-11-02 07:26:31 · 19 answers · asked by Tiny 2

With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them --
although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals.
The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer
to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes,
raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding
was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour,
bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea --
keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect --
who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud,
and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to
cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes --
more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return,
they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted
the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much
we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea.
Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape
weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next
U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page,
so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence,
North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence,
lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil.
He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy."
This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann,
not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel
"that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention."
If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan.
But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers
(and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes
like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea
cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in
1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented
the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day
The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce.
In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action.
Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
THIS ARTICLE BY ANN COULTER::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

2006-11-02 07:25:18 · 11 answers · asked by just the facts 5

The election is not about Kerry, if anyone is holding Kerry's dumb goof, I am sure that there are quiet a bit more goofs Bush has uttered only since having the bought the office.

2006-11-02 07:23:29 · 11 answers · asked by me_worry? 4

2006-11-02 07:21:09 · 6 answers · asked by Sunnie 5

All sects about all nationalities and ethnic groups and religions of the Undocumented Immigrants

2006-11-02 07:19:02 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Which is it? Elite or welfare? Both?

2006-11-02 07:16:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I ask a question. "How do you really know the person you vote for when it comes to politics, after all we are fooled by family and friends we think we know." One answer was "thats why I vote the issue". How do you vote issues when it isn't an amendent or law and know that person you chose will not change there stand? Concerns?

2006-11-02 07:16:23 · 4 answers · asked by edubya 5

2006-11-02 07:15:23 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have to write an essay on democratic and republican views..

Are you republican or democratic??

What are your views on:: the war..abortion..the government handles things..things like that

Thankx a ton!! ♥

2006-11-02 07:14:33 · 10 answers · asked by kayteebby ! 2

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/0...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/02...

So finally Kerry is really saying what he thinks about the military. His latest insult to the military doesn't include the previous racist remarks.

2006-11-02 07:09:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Because the votes could fall into the wrong hands...So if at all possible vote in person.

2006-11-02 07:06:44 · 11 answers · asked by Bob 2