Politics - 2 June 2007

Re electing criminals is good politics?

2007-06-02 05:16:55 · 8 answers · asked by underdog 1

the frist every african american women ticket condie is very skilled in the world and she would bring back trust in the white house and congress while winfery will be a great vp in her own right their programs inlcude health care for all americans inlcuding the ederly immgration terriosm foreighn affiars and tax breaks the south will support this ticket and the majority of the northeast and the midwest and west states

2007-06-02 05:15:37 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_re_af/somalia_us

so just the suspicion of Al-Queda is enough for us to bombard anyone anytime?

2007-06-02 05:13:14 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

This question is for Conservatives only.

I know Liberals will give me a crappy answer about how bad of a President Reagan was and how Clinton was the greatest President who ever lived, when Clinton just tried to show how cool he was and have sex with White House interns and intentionally not captured Osama over 5 times and got us involved with 2 conflicts (Kosovo and Somalia), and then pulled us out soon after the mission started, then lied to the nation on national television, then admitted he lied later on. Reagan helped end the Soviet Union, was an honest and true Conservative, and made the 80's some of the best years in American history.

2007-06-02 05:11:06 · 18 answers · asked by American 1

Specifically Iraq. Do you think that America as a whole would gain more respect by leaving Iraq either now or within a few months, or alternatively democratize and stabilize the country there which could be done in a few years? Option A would appear to give insurgent factions the upper hand and allow them to run amock committing genocide against other factions in Iraq and take dictatorial power. Option B would appear to give the maliki government a chance to succeed, factions would be brought to the table, al-Qaeda would be kicked out, but at the expense of some more American lives. So what is it, let Iraq stay a quaqmire fomenting al-Qaeda initiatives there? Or let it become a stable government allied with the united states and the international community?

Proof we're kicking out Al-Qaeda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053100455.html?hpid=moreheadlines?hpid=topnews

2007-06-02 05:07:55 · 4 answers · asked by Serpico7 5

hint
katrnia
abramoff
borders
iraq
vet hospitals
prison camps

2007-06-02 05:00:50 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

Would you vote for him?

2007-06-02 04:59:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

and 2008 for STAY THE CORPSE of bush lies AGAIN

2007-06-02 04:58:58 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

so he can blend in win NEY as they bend for the soap

ha ha ha ha ha hah ahahah

2007-06-02 04:52:44 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Take your "demo" hat off for a moment......Hillary is a socialist....Do you want your freedoms taken away ??? Well ??? Do you ???...Then vote for her or any other democrat....if that`s what you want...Also, do you want to be taxed more to support the new "illegal citizens" and lazy Americans ??? Vote dem...Look into it.
Hillary is your dreamgirl...or is she ?

2007-06-02 04:50:55 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

cause she is going to kick there *** 2008

2007-06-02 04:50:12 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

oprah would dilver the the black votes in the south while hillary concentrate in the northeast but the bittle would be in the south with health care tax breaks tightening up the ports and protecting new orleans from natural disaters

2007-06-02 04:49:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

compared to bush's WMD LIEs

2007-06-02 04:41:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

condie and rudy would defend the war on terriosm stay in iraq still mission accomplish defend the pariot act and making sure domestic programs don't get left out and repealing the tax cuts the south is in there corner and they will carry the northeast excrept pennslyvina and ohio

2007-06-02 04:35:27 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-02 04:30:24 · 6 answers · asked by Darrell 4

2007-06-02 04:23:13 · 15 answers · asked by Darrell 4

Sort of like a dictionary of the left.

2007-06-02 04:12:59 · 6 answers · asked by Darrell 4

Does it conflict with that of the prime minister?

2007-06-02 04:10:32 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think Government controlled healthcare sounds like a very bad idea.

2007-06-02 04:02:39 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

Simple question - Do you think the Democrat and Republican parties represent and do the will of the people? I'm taking a poll for a research project, so a YES or NO will suffice.

*Please refrain from the bashing one or the other or ranting and raving. I only need a YES or NO answer. Anything else will show you're an extremist for whatever party you support...that and the inability to follow the simplest of instructions.

Thank you.

2007-06-02 03:57:29 · 24 answers · asked by ark 3

I will always be a staunch Republican but I hate the whole damn amnesty plan! They are giving this country away to foreignors.....Does this statement make any sense to you? It doesn't to me. I was a life-long democrat until Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, I dumped the dems and became an independent. Why would I continue to support a party who puts the interests of profits ahead of the working people in this country? That one act turned me away from the democrats and a President who up to that point I thought was doing a great job. I now vote the person and the issues and party be damned. Is America truly that full of lemmings that we continue to support a party that goes against its own base?

2007-06-02 03:30:15 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

A taco has some value......George W.Bush can start a nuclear war and talks to an IDIOT GOD. Is it the same GOD that Jim Jones and David Koresh talked to?

2007-06-02 03:24:51 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

For most of the recorded history of civilization, wealth has been controlled by the state. In feudal systems, a king or other ruler owned and controlled everything. In a socialistic system, a ruling elite or committee owns and controls everything. In either system, individual aspirations were limited to the good graces of the rulers. In other words, the common person could only advance in life as far as the people at the top would allow.
About 400 years ago or so, a new economic system started to evolve called merchantism. This was a system of international trade by merchants in the markets, in today's world it would be WalMart or KMart. This international trade fell outside of the scope of control of the kingdom in which the merchants resided. It was the first time in history that individuals, common people, were able to acquire wealth and power without being born into a gentry. It was the first time that common people were able to acquire the means to educate their young, to buy the home of their choice, to wear the fine clothes of the elite. Merchantism created a class of people that never existed before, the middle-class.
The success of merchantism in lifting people into prosperity was the basis for the eventual evolution of capitalism. Capitalism is individual ownership and control of wealth. In a capitalistic system, each individual is afforded the same power that was once limited to the king or other such ruling class.
Only under capitalism are the individual liberties and freedom on which this country is founded guaranteed. Only thru capitalism can the populace control its government. Once individual control of wealth is ceded to a government, the government has the power to coerce its populace. Once you depend on your government for your basic needs, you have lost your freedom.

You don't have to go far to see what I am talking about. Venezuela has recently adopted a socialistic government. Just this week, the government banned an opposing TV net from broadcasting. All power in Venezuela has been ceded to the government. Individual freedoms are being eliminated.

2007-06-02 03:04:43 · 21 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5

2007-06-02 03:01:25 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

A lot of Republicans don't like Bush, which does not bother me too much. The country is still mostly Republican. It is laughable when Democrats make such pathetic attempts to make fun of Republicans. Republicans are typically more rich, more powerful, and more militant, so they are hard to make fun of them. If you go down South and make fun of Republicans, you might be killed or beaten up. If you make fun of Democrats, they will do nothing back. Democrats are typically more poor, more unhappy, more unpowerful, and afraid of using force against enemies, which is bad.

2007-06-02 02:55:21 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-02 02:47:42 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-02 02:36:33 · 15 answers · asked by underdog 1

2007-06-02 02:27:45 · 19 answers · asked by underdog 1

i mean Israel came and they started attacking Palestinian ppl and when the Palestinian ppl started fighting back with wat ever they got...like stones and even them selves ..when they started fighting back the whole world turned against them..why not turning against Israel at first ..why?

2007-06-02 02:25:33 · 10 answers · asked by someone 3

Doesn't she realize there will always be a way to get weapons? If people dont have guns they will just gouge your eyes out with dull butter knives and I for one want a quick death. How does people like this suggest we protect ourselves?

2007-06-02 02:24:30 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous