Politics - 11 June 2007

Remember all those Republicans saying it was unpatriotic and just plain wrong for the Senate to block an "up or down vote" when they controlled the chamber?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_go_co/senate_gonzales

Apparently it was all politics on their part. So much for taking a moral stand.

Personally, I think it was fair for the Dems to do it, and it's fair for the Repubs to do it too. But isn't this more hypocrisy from the right?

2007-06-11 13:24:53 · 5 answers · asked by Steve 6

They've been saying Iraq was a mistake but how many have actually claimed partial responsibility without saying, "Bush told us lies" blah blah blah. If Bush is as big of a fool as they say then they should be really ashamed they were tricked by a fool. How many truly honorable democrats are in Congress and openly admit their mistake without passing off the blame on someone else?

2007-06-11 13:12:50 · 14 answers · asked by NONAME 3

There are enough things to criticize Bush about like Iraq and the way he handled Katrina. Why are liberals wasting time criticizing him for not calling the pope "Your Holiness" or calling the government ,"My Government". Why don't these liberals spend time worrying about real problems?

2007-06-11 13:12:46 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Wouldn't the term "right-wing fundamentalist christian values" be more appropriate?

The way they say "judeo-christian values" you'd think jews shared the values and politics of the religious right.

THEY LARGELY DO NOT.

Over 90% of jews in congress are Democrats or side with Democrats. 87% of jews in America voted for Democrats in the last election
http://www.jewishsiliconvalley.org/news_stories/Nov04/11-4-04jewsincongress.html
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9818.htm

Is it because jews and christians both believe in Old Testament stories? That makes no sense either. Muslims believe in the same stories too. They believe in Abraham, and Noah, and Cain, Adam and Eve, and even Jesus. Muslims in fact believe Jesus was the messiah and a prophet. Jews don't even believe that.

Might as well use the term "judeo-christian-islamic" values.

2007-06-11 13:07:25 · 8 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

2007-06-11 12:59:30 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-11 12:58:38 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Regarding the no confidence vote for Gonzalez, Bush said:"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government,"

Last I checked, it was OUR government, not his. He works for us, ALL of us. Isn't he an arrogant little twit?

2007-06-11 12:56:18 · 23 answers · asked by fake_cowboy 4

For example, cons say social programs don't work period. Seems to me cons live in a faith based reality. They will believe certain ideas regardless of the facts.

They say JFK/LBJ's war on poverty did nothing and in fact increased poverty. The FACTS say other wise. The poverty rate was nearly cut in half between 1960 and 1968. It went from 22.2% to 12.8%. The next big drop was under Clinton. It went from 14.8% to 11.3%. The biggest drop of course was probably under FDR. No data for him unfortunately.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

2007-06-11 12:54:58 · 10 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

2007-06-11 12:51:36 · 25 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Ok peace breaks out - I know hard to imagine

Who would lose ?


Ok whoever that is/was - they would "win" the most if we kept on fighting

Now - here is an idea - why don't we just get rid of the people who would lose if peace broke out ?

Fire them - ship them off to an island buy them a spaceship - whatever

Why can this not happen

Lets hunt down the people who would lose big time if peace was to break out and remove them ?

2007-06-11 12:45:07 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-11 12:38:14 · 10 answers · asked by ♥ Mel 7

So-called rogue countries all over the world. Many have high technology. As good as the United States or better. We have spent so much time, money and energy on Iraq and Afghanistan.
So who do you think - amongst all of the 'rogue countries' we hear so much about--are glad for the distraction, and are keeping an eye on us?

2007-06-11 12:30:02 · 10 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

Do they just not want to know, as they may have to give Clinton credit? The horror:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7.32W1GyQMBjpRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2OW9iaDZlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2UEdnRpZANGOTQzXzk1BGwDV1Mx/SIG=127ce0g31/EXP=1181690679/**http%3a//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14096483/site/newsweek/

2007-06-11 12:28:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

bush knows where bin ladin is but he;s using him to keep the war in iraq going on.he;s the worst president this country ever had.good thing he was'nt president during world war 11.we would have been under the nazi flag instead of the american flag.

2007-06-11 12:21:13 · 25 answers · asked by bigjoe8127 1

with social assistance programs, when their solution to the problem of poverty is to do........nothing?

2007-06-11 12:16:07 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

Mon Jun 11, 8:45 AM



VIENNA (AFP) - UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that the "brewing confrontation" with Iran over its atomic ambitions "must be defused," as Tehran failed to provide sensitive information it had promised.

ADVERTISEMENT

A meeting Monday between ElBaradei and a senior Iranian negotiator was cancelled since "the Iranians didn't want to talk substance at this point" on questions about possible weapons work, in an over four-year-old investigation by the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, a diplomat said.


ElBaradei meanwhile told an IAEA meeting: "I am increasingly disturbed by the current stalemate and the brewing confrontation -- a stalemate that urgently needs to be broken, and a confrontation that must be defused."


The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors began Monday in Vienna a week-long meeting that could bring Tehran one step closer to a third round of UN sanctions against its nuclear programme.

2007-06-11 12:07:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hamas-Fatah battles spill into Gaza hospitals; infighting reignites despite Egypt-brokered truce.

2007-06-11 12:02:56 · 4 answers · asked by Atlas 2

Hamas-Fatah battles spill into Gaza hospitals; infighting reignites despite Egypt-brokered truce.

2007-06-11 12:01:53 · 9 answers · asked by Atlas 2

I have an answer I just need opinions to help me develop more of an understanding, I hate war it's too difficult.

2007-06-11 12:01:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

To many of you think that questions that revolve on distorted opinions of parties, President, Pro choice insisting on answers that have very little to none merit are not fun, productive, nor challaging. My first reaction is assuming the writer is a moron, is this how the writers want to be percieved?

2007-06-11 11:54:00 · 17 answers · asked by gag t 1

25 minutes ago



By Bruce Cheadle

ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA (CP) - The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.


The survey by Decima Research, released Monday to The Canadian Press, found that two-thirds of respondents want Canadian troops to come home when the current mandate from Parliament expires in February 2009.


Only 26 per cent of respondents believed the military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."


The results of the poll, conducted May 31 to June 4, were released as Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed an extension to the mission with his Dutch counterpart in Ottawa.


Harper has repeatedly hinted that Canadian troops may have to stay on in Afghanistan's troubled southern provinces beyond February 2009 in order to ensure stability.

2007-06-11 11:47:17 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why Liberals Spread Poverty

Liberals would prefer more people to experience poverty. Their actions demonstrate their massive desire to see more people unemployed, and under paid. One of their chief political goals is to cripple the chance for the impoverished from improving their lot in life and thus become even more dependent upon entitlements that only they (liberals) will dole out. Thus the greatest con in elective politics begins again.
It's called a "surcharge."
You and I would call it a tax increase. One more way and reason for the political class to take even more of the money that you and I slave for by slugging it 9 to 5 everyday.
In their funny little semantic sideshow this "surcharge" would be their answer to resolving the problem of the "alternative minimum tax." This year the "AMT" (another hostile attempt for elected leaders to pick-pocket us) will hit 23 million people. Some making as little as $50,000. The original idea of the AMT was to purposefully inflict pain upon 155 wealthy people a gazillion years ago. But it has never been adjusted for inflation - and you know liberals - they've never found a tax no matter how ill conceived that they've ever had a desire to do away with. So now the liberal congress is about to unload a ghastly holocaust of earnings redistribution on many working class families if the leadership in Congress doesn't take action to care for the AMT.
Their idea?
A 4.3% "surcharge" on "rich people." Particularly those who make $250,000 or more. And one important note - the plan, since it is a "surcharge," would be in addition to the tax rate you already paid last year.
Why they do it makes absolutely no sense - especially to the poor. The data speaks clearly to this matter. When you place uber-taxes on the rich you create higher unemployment, greater poverty, and most importantly for people like me who care about the poor - less money in the treasury to provide the important safety nets for those who truly need them.
When you do the opposite - you get an opposite result. Cutting the top marginal tax rates - particularly on the upper middle, and upper class tax brackets has a stimulus effect. Jobs are created, poverty turns into ownership, and the treasury takes in oodles of dollars.
The liberals' motivations, if impure, make perfect sense. If liberals are in charge of the public sector programs that people become dependent on for day to day living - then liberals can always campaign on the issues of "not taking food out of school children's tummies." Thinking people understand that while offering a hot lunch for a child at school is a wonderful thing for those children who need it. How much more wonderful would it be if that family grew their own economic ability to not be dependent upon the government issued lunches. A family that has the ability to send its own children to school with lunch boxes packed full of Mom's special goodies doesn't need liberals to force feed them the high-carb, mediocre nutrition that one can only get from government processed lasagna.
But Mom and Dad seeing Sally and Johnny off everyday fully independent of state aid - is bad political business for liberals. If liberals can't be the family's provider, then they won't be as likely to need such politicians in place and government might actually begin to address what is best for said family.
If you haven't noticed - this didn't used to be such a partisan issue. It was a Democrat who in fact first demonstrated the soundness of the fiscal propriety of reducing taxes and increasing revenues - John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush followed in his steps and the results have always been the same. Each of them lowered, and in Reagan's case - greatly reduced, the top marginal rates - and the following year revenues poured into Washington in record numbers.
I know... some of you educated in public schools are scratching your head wondering, "How’d they do that?"
Follow the simplicity. Top marginal rates are reduced on the people earning the most - many of whom own businesses. Many of them take the savings and reinvest it - in business, in the market, in expansion, in additional services, franchises, or product lines. Every time they do they are giving work/employment to advisors, consultants, contractors, assembly line workers, systems analysts, and the list goes on. Many of those people have employees, or have to hire additional employees to complete the work that they are hired for. And every employee that they hire, earns a little more than they would have - had that company, small business, etc - not been able to grow.
And one other thing... all those employees pay taxes. (At least those who are here legally.)
Liberals see the economic pie as something that is static, does not grow, and must always be redistributed. Of course they fancy the idea that they know best how to redistribute it all - and in doing so they buy into the Marxian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An utterly immoral viewpoint!
Conservatives see the economic pie as something that is somewhat unlimited and can be grown and that when it is grown - people will actually pay MORE in taxes - but will do so off of greater earnings.
And the lesson of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush confirm that it is true.
If liberals truly cared about helping people - especially the poor - they wouldn't try to thieve more tax dollars from the only sector of the tax base that can help grow the pie. Instead they would abolish the AMT all together, and give increased tax reduction incentives for those who would use their reductions to further expand their business ventures. They should also give the greatest incentives to those who could demonstrate that they had grown their employment base by more than 4% - since that is roughly the record low rate of unemployment we are now experiencing thanks to the "grow the pie" economy now in place.
But they won't.
As long as liberals will live they will attempt to take more of what does not belong to them, even if it means growing the rate of unemployment, seeing the number of Americans who live below the poverty line increase, and reduces the amount of dollars Washington can use to help those who truly do fall through the cracks.
Just remember - raising taxes lays people off, cause poverty to increase, and reduces the resources that are available for government to help those who are in desperate need. Reducing taxes increases jobs, moves people from poverty to ownership, and fills the federal coffers with help for those in need.
Can it be said any more plainly?

2007-06-11 11:46:45 · 8 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

i really dislike hilary clinton, SHE WOULD BE A NOBODY WITHOUT CLINTON, plus she wouldnt even divorce him after what happened which would have showed a stronger person but the reason why she didnt leave him was becuase she needed him to be where she in now, thats the only reason why shes senator now. true?

2007-06-11 11:36:06 · 29 answers · asked by fhsdjfsd 2

Suppose that tomorrow a group of scientists were able to definititively, without question, absolutely PROVE that there was no God. Existence is simply you're born, you live, you die. What change do you think this would have on human society? Do you think people's behavior would be better or worse? Do you think our government would let up the reins to live as we want, or crack down to keep us in line?

2007-06-11 11:33:38 · 24 answers · asked by Bigsky_52 6

Do you think that America deserves to be attacked by terrorist. Not George Bush, but America. Do not include George Bush or any reference to him in your answer, because he is not America.

2007-06-11 11:29:51 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

please put a photo for comparison
no problem to put more than one

2007-06-11 11:26:42 · 13 answers · asked by saye3ba7r 2

It's not a stupid question, in case you're wondering. I was just curious to see if there are any white supremacists with a liberal ideology.

2007-06-11 11:25:42 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

it makes as much sense as the other way around. Democrats must think we use a parlimentary system.

2007-06-11 11:19:06 · 13 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5

i was just wondering if you think teddy roosevelt's foreign policies and intervening in foreign affairs helped those involved? or do you think it just harmed them? especially in asia and latin america

2007-06-11 11:13:25 · 3 answers · asked by tom m 1

2007-06-11 11:12:16 · 14 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5