Politics - 8 June 2007

Just so everyone knows, I did my four years in the military and my husband is still in. We are hoping our children will enlist, too because we feel there is much more to come of the present war. I think it's possible for it to come to the U.S. I hope people like Cindy Sheehan are front and center when that happens-with their little signs and T-shirts!

2007-06-08 15:02:00 · 17 answers · asked by Jiggity 2

The man's been out of office for 7 years and people still curse and insult him. Don't you just get so tired of it?

2007-06-08 14:44:50 · 25 answers · asked by Gemini 5

in Politics?

2007-06-08 14:42:44 · 15 answers · asked by vegaswoman 6

you would sound at least a little intelligent? Try something new. I know you guys aren't that......oh, who am I kidding?

2007-06-08 14:39:04 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

If so why all the questions about feeding vomit to Republicans and doing horrible things to the president. It seems that the Liberals (AKA Socialists) have nothing to offer but anger and useless questions that have no point.

2007-06-08 14:38:05 · 13 answers · asked by Ethan M 5

Is this a sign of the rapture?

2007-06-08 14:34:04 · 12 answers · asked by DEPRESSED™ 5

Is cream style corn better for republicans as its is a prechewed, nearly vomited byproduct of actual corn?

2007-06-08 14:32:30 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-08 14:28:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-08 14:27:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Yanno?

2007-06-08 14:22:14 · 31 answers · asked by flushles 3

2007-06-08 14:21:43 · 12 answers · asked by DEPRESSED™ 5

If a person loses their job and needs to go on welfare, what is the longest they should be allowed to use the service? I say 6 months max. That is plenty of time for a person to search for a new job and save up some cash. Anything more than that leads people to abuse the system. There are too many young people having children because they know that as soon as they get knocked up at 17 they can move out of their parents house and into the projects, get a welfare check, get WIC, food stamps, free health care, etc. It's a good life! You'd be surprised how many people on welfare have digital cable, a computer with high speed internet, a cell phone, car, etc. If people realized that their were on their own if they had a baby at 16, there would be less people doing it. With welfare laws today, there is little consequence for their actions.

2007-06-08 14:20:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Something cheesy and greasy...Kinda like Condoleezza Rice

2007-06-08 14:06:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

democrat/liberals why do you demand that the american people provide for the worlds poor,when their own governments,country,people will do nothing for their own people?

2007-06-08 14:02:48 · 2 answers · asked by truckman 4

I just baked a chicken in barbecue sauce in the oven, and it looks all burnt.

2007-06-08 14:02:11 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

...cause I am really starting to believe that.

2007-06-08 14:02:05 · 25 answers · asked by LostSock 5

What are people's real opinions on the amnesty bill and the war in Iraq.Do you oppose them or are for them and why? Detailed answers please .I really want to know what actual people think of the situations that are happening to us. SERIOUS answers only.Really think about it! Feel free to throw in any other major thing in politics you wish to share your opinion on.

2007-06-08 13:51:26 · 12 answers · asked by Lindsey C 2

2007-06-08 13:48:21 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-08 13:42:08 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

George"John Wayne"Bush and the other puppet Tony"The Pit Pony"Blair are controlled by the New World Order.They need to create terrorism,invade other countries,bang on about emissions so we live in fear as in the cold war and the days of the nazi's.Stability is no good for capitalism.What we need is to fight back.These people are a bigger threat to the world. Your opinions are welcome

2007-06-08 13:30:10 · 23 answers · asked by golden 6

Socialism vs. Capitalism. What do you think is better and why?

2007-06-08 13:14:11 · 6 answers · asked by Gman 3

2007-06-08 13:09:31 · 25 answers · asked by ? 6

Do his time kicking and screaming like Paris. Will this be another double standard being set?

2007-06-08 13:05:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-08 13:04:17 · 8 answers · asked by LIL_TXN 4

I hear liberals say the ONLY reason the US went to war with Iraq was because Bush wanted to steal all their oil and keep it for himself. This is an interesting theory, but why is it that the same liberals that accuse our President of this offer zero facts to back it up? They will say "well, not I dont have any proof...but can you come up with a better explanation?" It is hard to argue with that type of reasoning. In fact, the only thing close to evidence the libs can provide is the "secret" meeting between oil executives and the Bush administration prior to the invasion and the fact that US soldiers protected the oil ministry. Apparently they can't imagine that this meeting was part of how to use Iraqi oil to benefit Iraq during reconstruction and oil was the most valuable asset Iraq had to rebuilt itself. So, if you have some evidence, why not put it forward? Lets see these totally unbias BBC stories and links to commondreams.org. I enjoy reading your insane talking points

2007-06-08 13:00:24 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Or have us finish the job now?

2007-06-08 12:58:29 · 21 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-06-08 12:56:55 · 28 answers · asked by vegaswoman 6

2007-06-08 12:45:47 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

People on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?

The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.

There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

All sorts of people can have all sorts of beliefs about what tax rates are best from various points of view. But how can people work themselves into lather over the fact that some taxpayers are able to keep more of the money they earned, instead of turning it over to politicians to dispense in ways calculated to get themselves re-elected?

The angry left has no time to spend even considering the argument that what they call "tax cuts for the rich" are in fact tax cuts for the economy.

Nor is the idea new that tax cuts can sometimes spur economic growth, resulting in more jobs for workers and higher earnings for business, leading to more tax revenue for the government.

A highly regarded economist once observed that "taxation may be so high as to defeat its object," so that sometimes "a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

Who said that? Milton Friedman? Arthur Laffer? No. It was said in 1933 by John Maynard Keynes, a liberal icon.

Lower tax rates have led to higher tax revenues many times, both before and since Keynes' statement -- the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, and the recent Bush tax cuts that have led to record high tax revenues this April.

Budget deficits have often resulted from runaway spending but seldom from reduced tax rates.

Those on the other side may have different arguments. However, the question here is not why the left has different arguments, but why there is such anger.

Often it is an exercise in futility even to seek to find a principle behind the anger. For example, the left's obsession with the high incomes of corporate executives never seems to extend to equally high -- or higher -- incomes of professional athletes, entertainers, or best-selling authors like Danielle Steel.

If the reason for the anger is a feeling that corporate CEOs are overpaid for their contributions, then there should be even more anger at people who get even more money for doing absolutely nothing, because they have inherited fortunes.

Yet how often has the left gotten worked up into high dudgeon over those who inherited the Rockefeller, Roosevelt or Kennedy fortunes? Even spoiled heirs like Paris Hilton don't really seem to set them off.

If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.

Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.

It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.

2007-06-08 12:43:59 · 23 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-06-08 12:38:18 · 28 answers · asked by Dull Jon 6