Politics - 4 June 2007

After the US leaves and the violence is lessened enough for serious reconstruction efforts to take place. Should reconstruction efforts be duel monitered closely by the countries where in it's taking place and by some other N.G.O.? Maybe a new one based on making reconstruction efforts as rapid, sustainible, affordible and of the highest quality possible and to moniter for curruption fraud and waste? Are there any N.G.O.'s like this already? Would this be a way to shape up reconstruction efforts as much as possible? What else would do it better then it's being done today?

2007-06-04 06:33:26 · 2 answers · asked by Stan S 1

2007-06-04 06:30:52 · 12 answers · asked by NONAME 3

...why do we have to placate them at all? Every country that placates them gets MORE violence from them. They live in the very countries they often with to destroy, how can their mainstream feel safe given what their fringies do, and that they don't police themselves?

2007-06-04 06:26:59 · 2 answers · asked by SQD 2

Why are they obligated to show impartiality?

They are not mainstream media outlets. Complain all you want about ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. - these outlets and publications claim to be impartial, so if you think they're not, complain away.

But why do private citizens and non-media corporations have ANY obligation to express both sides of any story?

2007-06-04 06:22:19 · 12 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6

When they say things like:
The voiceover blamed their deaths on "the American Army and their leaders, who do not care for the feelings of the soldiers' families."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_mi_ea/missing_soldiers_video

2007-06-04 05:59:35 · 14 answers · asked by NONAME 3

People Stay . . . . just a little bit longer
We want to play. . . just a little bit longer
Now the promoter don't mind. . . and the union don't mind
If we take a little time , and we leave it all behind
And sing. . . . . One More Song

Oh won't you sta-a-a-a-a-ay , just a little bit longer
Please Please Please say you will . . . . SAY YOU WILL

Oh won't you sta-a-a-a-y , just a little bit longer
Oh please please sta-a-a-ay , just a little bit more (yeah yeah)

Now the promoter don't mind. . . .and the roadies don't mind
If we take a little time and we leave it all behind and sing. . .

ONE MORE SONG

Kinda weird but don't you feel like a 'roadie' on this Yahoo Concert Tour ?

2007-06-04 05:55:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-04 05:54:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm not an American, but i do know the basics of US politics. Personally, I I think that the amount of conservatives on this site outweighs the number of liberals. Many say that the Liberals are unpatriotic towards the USA, quoting stats (such as the unemployment rate, etc) and claiming the economy is on the decline, and saying it must be fixed. However I disagree. To me if the Liberals are saying these things then that shows to me that they are more patroitic to theirs and your country as they obviously strifing to constantly improve their country. Now people say that the conservatives are happy with these stats, and so must be patriotic - to me that indicates that the US Rpeublicans are happy to sit at a "good enough" rate, as opposed to the Democrats who, to me, trying to improve all the time.

If anything I'd say that the Repubs are the unpatriotic ones.
So to all conservatives, after seeing this point of perspective, you have to admit it does make sense, does that change your view

2007-06-04 05:52:22 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

Fred Thompson is an actor.

Many actors are gay.

Fred Thompson has non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma is most common among patients suffering from AIDS.

AIDS is very common among gay men.

Therefore... Fred Thompson probably has AIDS?

Don't be too critical; I'm new at this nonfactual conclusion-jumping thing, so any pointers you could offer would be helpful.



(P.S. I don't think he has AIDS; I'm trying to make a point here.)

2007-06-04 05:52:14 · 13 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6

"George W. Bush is genious and he will lead America to victory. Those who oppose him are pure evil."

2007-06-04 05:48:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-04 05:43:46 · 2 answers · asked by geyamala 7

Liberals do not hate the US military. They want them home safely. THESE people never worried about that:

HERE IS THE LIST OF BRAVE REPUBLICANS WHO PROUDLY BELIEVE IN SENDING OTHERS TO DIE FOR BUSH'S LIES IN IRAQ:

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked> Max
Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got
assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL
for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with an 'anal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.

2007-06-04 05:41:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-04 05:41:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please read the news here
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailgeneral.asp?fileid=20070604225411&irec=1

2007-06-04 05:38:52 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

I hear liberals refer to an anti-American protester as "brave" and "so strong" when they say my President is a murderer or planned 9/11. Since when is a dirty, unemployed hippie burning an American flag a sign of bravery? This isn't North Korea, Iran, or pre-liberated Iraq. Nothing will happen to these people, yet calling America a fascist country is still considered inspirational by liberals, as if the idiot doing it is risking life or limb. I've heard libs claim Rosie is brave for her comments about what "really" happened on 9/11. I heard libs say Michael Moore is brave for showing an anti-American film. This is a sign of character strength for liberals? What if someone said "I disagree with Bush, but respect the democratic process that elected him." Would that be a sign of weakness to liberals because the person didn't mock America or burn a flag? Libs should visit Walter Reed and see what strength really is. Fighting honorably for a belief is bravery libs dont understand.

2007-06-04 05:38:39 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Check out what this death row inmate had to say:

"I know I'm not innocent," said Knight, who believes his appeals have been exhausted. "They think they're killing me. They think they're punishing me. They've already punished me. I've already had 16 years of punishment. They're releasing me. They're letting me go. That's helping me out. That's the way I look at it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277613,00.html

2007-06-04 05:32:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-04 05:30:21 · 22 answers · asked by geyamala 7

OTHER THAN YOUR MOTHER\FATHER LAND?

you may give reasons if you wish

2007-06-04 05:29:46 · 29 answers · asked by J 3

In terms of Bush's place in history, I think he'll be remembered among the greatest presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, and a fellow Republican by the name of Abraham Lincoln. Now, it's impossible for me to list ALL Bush Accomplishments with such a short amount of space (and time), but I'll list a couple of things this great man has done.

1) Bush has reestablished good Christian Values in the White House, and America at large (Lord knows we needed it after the Clinton administration).

2) Bush has made us safe from terrorists through his audacious military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3) Bush has continuously fought for Middle Class Americans by cutting taxes. A move that also saved the Economy!

4) Bush has raised educational standards for our kids by starting the "no child left behind" program.

I can go on and on with Bush's accomplishments. There are too many of them to mention because he's one of the best Presidents Ever!!

2007-06-04 05:28:55 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just answered a question from a person who was so ill informed they must have thought welfare programs were part of infrastructure. I say this because they asked why conservatives were against taxes on infrastructure and called them socialist?

Maybe I'm not a real conservative (by their definition) because I'm not against improving infrastructure. I'm also not against HELPING someone through a hard time, but I don't want to take them as dependants permantly..

2007-06-04 05:26:58 · 13 answers · asked by namsaev 6

Let us know Please.

2007-06-04 05:25:46 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

We all know, of course, that Republicans outnumber Democrats by a 5:1 margin in the military according to the Liberal Militarytimes.com. We also know that Republicans tend to be real men and Liberal men tend to be effeminate. We also know that the Iraq War has had unusually low casualty rates--lowest of any American ground war. And, finally, we know that 65,000 died in Vietnam, nearly 20 times that in Iraq, and that there were many Democrats in the Vietnam War due to the draft.

So, if Dems were fighting in Iraq, how many soldiers would we have lost? I say it would be 5 to 6 times more--right? Around 20,000 to 25,000 instead of 3,500.

2007-06-04 05:11:44 · 38 answers · asked by Kim 1

WOuld we be further along in the global war on terror if we had engaged Saddam , rather than deposed him? In hindsight, he was very effective at keeping terrorists out of his country...Al Qaeda and the rest have entered since he was removed.

2007-06-04 05:09:50 · 11 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6

Isn't it failing in the US when many don't get the healthcare they need?

2007-06-04 05:06:35 · 12 answers · asked by leech 2

Either one, we're in for an unparalleled era of American growth!

2007-06-04 05:06:17 · 19 answers · asked by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6

I mean, they're favorite pasttime of dreaming up terrifying scenarios of how Bush will destroy the world will be gone forever.

2007-06-04 05:05:13 · 15 answers · asked by Bill W 【ツ】 6

From: Islam_delenda_est:
"The Democrat Party has been hijacked by the extreme left. It consists mainly of seditious weasels"

THAT reminds me of:
"Acuse others of what you do"- Karl Marx.


Lest you forget, rabbid fundamentalists and gun nuts who like to hate moderately liberal fellow Americans do not a mainstream make.

Is that why so many are fed up with politics?

Is that why the far right is in rapid decline?

2007-06-04 05:04:26 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have been trying to find out on what details did Bush go into Iraq for. i mean come on there were no terrorist from 9/11 from there and if he really wanted to spread democracy why not go to Burma where the have put a democratically electecd leader under House Arrest for over 20 years now. The Iraqis were safer without us. We lost too many good men and women out there.

2007-06-04 05:02:22 · 21 answers · asked by varunbg 2

I read an article about one of the recent speeches Hillary gave. She talked about her village theory again and about shared prosperity.

The article included these quotes, which I found interesting. What do you think?


Soviet dictator Khrushchev once said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

Norman Thomas once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

2007-06-04 04:55:15 · 12 answers · asked by Jasmine 5

Ok I think we've held of long enough. It's time to unleash Chuck on um.... It will all be over in a few days now. Unfortunately he will kill everything in sight be I think it’s worth it.

2007-06-04 04:50:44 · 13 answers · asked by Jerbson 5