Politics - 14 June 2007

In Europe, or the UK at least, there are 2 types of liberal
1) Economic liberalism: which is concerned with deregulation of markets, removal of trade restrictions and as little government control as possible. Your basic free marketeers which is why it confuses me when some Americans call all 'liberals' socialists.

2) Social liberalism, which is primarily concerned with the preservation of civil liberties, social justice (a better deal for the poor etc), and as little government interference on your private affairs (who you can and cannot marry, what your religion is). But it’s the American conservatives who like to describe themselves as the small government side.

It seems that somehow what Americans call liberal is something completely different from what the UK would term liberal. Like the way football is a completely different thing on each side of the Atlantic.

This begs the question, what the hell does the word 'liberal' mean in America?

2007-06-14 14:17:57 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

They always talk about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press when it suits them. When it comes to Fox News or Rush Limbaugh they want to supress it. Why is that? Just look at Drake trying to supress Fox News because he cannot handle the truth.

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

Do you think it's possible to determine someone's political slant by the type of car they drive?

For example, what type of car would a Libratairian drive?

2007-06-14 14:13:41 · 3 answers · asked by GIVRO 3

Whenever I prove something negative about Liberals they point out misspelled words. Can there be any more of a stupid and obviouse lack of intelligence. Why cant they just admit they are wrong or dont answer. Also Liberals are supposed to be compassionate. Maybe I'm learning disabled or a evil christian conservative put a hex on me. Liberals should be more understanding.

2007-06-14 14:12:21 · 19 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5

why

2007-06-14 14:11:12 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Reid seem to think hes the hog with the big nuts and he is not only going after Petraeus, but other Generals he doesnt approve of as well. Harry Reid, is one of many draft dodgers in our government who hasnt a military clue! If we would allow our military to just kick butt unrestricted we'd of finished the job in my opinion

2007-06-14 14:01:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

running in 08, should I just start drinking heavily?
Again?

2007-06-14 13:59:22 · 11 answers · asked by reagonontherock 2

Angelina Jolie's true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.

Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called "A Mighty Heart."

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Ironically, Wednesday night's premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282173,00.html

2007-06-14 13:50:31 · 39 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-14 13:49:13 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

is like Rosie O'Donnell being critical of Albert Einstein.....

2007-06-14 13:44:44 · 8 answers · asked by reagonontherock 2

You spent the 80's tryinging to get every guy fired who ever chose to asked out a female coworker (and you call yourselves 'prochoice'). Then you spent most of the 90's defending Clinton for sexually harassment. You want to ban cigarettes after spending the 60's smoking pot. You say Bush wont admit to mistakes but you've never admitted you were wrong when you said (in the 60s and 70s) there would be mass starvation by 2000 or the Iraq oil fires would take years to put out then they were put out in less than 3 months.
You call Conservative Hypocrits which demonstates you dont understand the meaning of the word. Making a mistake is not hypocrisy unless you criticise others for doing the same thing. Correction is not critism. If a parent who smokes teaches a child not to smoke, thats not hypocrasy. Its called compassion. "dont do what I've done before you get addicted".

2007-06-14 13:42:51 · 11 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.
Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.
For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.
Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.
But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.
Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. Hmmm, what other factors might be at play? Well, there's always...
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet

2007-06-14 13:34:34 · 12 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-06-14 13:32:15 · 1 answers · asked by allihandro20 1

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.
Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.
For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.
Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.
But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.
Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. Hmmm, what other factors might be at play? Well, there's always...
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet

2007-06-14 13:31:08 · 10 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Would he rather attack Generals and undermine the military?

2007-06-14 13:30:58 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm hoping for any rational Democrat, to explain to me, how he knows better whats going on from a military standpoint, than the commanders who are actually there in the field.

Please keep in mind that I asked for a rational answer, name calling doesn't count.

2007-06-14 13:17:13 · 28 answers · asked by Jon B 3

2007-06-14 13:12:09 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

I’m in the service industry and go to peoples homes on a daily bases. I can tell who is Republican and who is Democrat just by the way they wine. Seems the Republicans are more outgoing and happy. Guess that’s why miserable and liberal sound alike, because they are

2007-06-14 13:04:11 · 22 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Now be honest liberals, has some mean, conservative confused you with logic today?

2007-06-14 13:01:04 · 1 answers · asked by Pro-Choice Dumbass 1

2007-06-14 12:42:31 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

I wanted to go on a trip to Charleston SC, so I couldn't justify taking money from savings. Instead, I took a second job for a few hours a week conducting voluntary political surveys for about 3 months.

At least 10 times during my temporary employment there, I had people say "I will only take your survey if you tell me your political affiliation. Are you a democrat or a republican?" I would refuse but then they would say "you tell or I hang up." We only were paid for the surveys we completed so I said "republican." They would say... wrong answer and hang up. 10 TIMES!!!

Finally I started telling people I am a democrat when they ask because that was the only way I would be paid. This is a pretty good reason to lose respect for liberal democrats, no?

2007-06-14 12:39:38 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have seen this several times. It irks me. Is the world that college professors live in any less real than the one everyone else does?

Most of them have a Ph.D. That doesn't happen overnight, and it sure as hell doesn't get handed to you.

Many of my professors had distinguished careers, and were either retired or only on the faculty as adjunct professors. Some of my distinguished professors were a: judge, police officer, prosecutor, FBI agent (retired), budget analyst for the CRS, anthropologist with 20 years of field work all over the world, foreign service officer (retired)... the list goes on and on!

On the side, these people did things like go on diplomatic missions to Israel and Palestine, or fight FGM in Africa. I think that my professors lived more in the real world than most of us who spend time debating these things on Y!A. Can we give them a little more respect?

2007-06-14 12:24:04 · 12 answers · asked by lei 5

BBC Reports EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme Has Actually Increased CO2 Emissions
On several occasions I have pointed out how much better foreign media are at presenting reports either skeptical of anthropogenic global warming or addressing the failings in government sanctioned solutions.
Last week, the BBC did a report on the European Union’s carbon trading scheme failing so miserably that CO2 emissions in the region have actually increased since the strategy was implemented.
Regardless of the answer, BBC.com presented some of the findings on June 5 (h/t Willis Eschenbach):

2007-06-14 12:23:07 · 2 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-06-14 12:16:05 · 10 answers · asked by Page 4

When House Republicans passed legislation last December that secured our borders and put a premium on strict enforcement of our immigration laws, the American people had hope that their elected leaders had heard their demands.

Sadly, the legislation that is currently leading the debate in Washington shows our Senators have turned a deaf ear to the public. Despite last week’s action stopping it from coming to the Senate floor for a final vote, efforts are being made to tinker around the edges with this legislation and pass it later this year.

The better course of action is for our elected leaders to follow the no-nonsense direction being called for by hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens: Secure Our Borders Now!

The current Senate legislation is a mirror image of the approach passed by Congress in 1986 when it forced on us amnesty for illegal immigrants in exchange for border security.

The result of that misguided approach then is an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States now.

The American people are fed up and won’t be misled again. This Congress will be judged on their actions, not their words.

Congress must stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our border. Once we know who is in our country then we can take the next step in immigration reform.

The supporters of the current Senate legislation have stated that “triggers” are in place that prevent a “pathway to citizenship” until the borders are secured.

The problem is the bill’s “triggers” are basically meaningless since amnesty occurs regardless of whether the triggers are pulled. And besides, most of the triggers either are already in place or authorized by current law. For instance, Immigration and Customs Enforcement already has 27,500 detention beds, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is on schedule to have 18,000 Border Patrol agents in the next two years (they currently have almost 15,000 agents) and DHS is already required by law to build over 700 miles of fencing along the border (the 370 miles required by this “trigger” is actually a cut). In short, these “triggers” do not lead to true border security; but rather, greater insecurity for American families and businesses.

The current “comprehensive” immigration bill is purposely designed to permit the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants to legally live and work in the U.S. from day one and eventually to become permanent residents and then citizens. This is not the outcome the American people desire.

Until Congress passes legislation that starts and ends with securing our borders and puts a premium on strict enforcement of our immigration laws, we must make our voices heard. But understand, in order to hear our voice, you must take the time to listen to what we're saying.

Should our Senators do that, they would hear the five principles that guide the American people’s resolve on immigration.

First, the American people want to secure our borders and provide additional resources to federal and state authorities to strengthen border patrol efforts. Period.

Second, they want to strengthen enforcement and stiffen penalties on those immigrants who ignore the rule of law of this country.

Third, they want to enforce current laws that prevent employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Fourth, they oppose all efforts to reward illegal immigrants for illegal behavior. Fifth, but every bit as important, they want to keep the door to America open. We understand our success depends on legal immigrants. Look at how our nation was built. We just ask that those wanting to live here obey our immigration laws, assimilate into our society by learning English, and embrace our common identity as Americans.

We further ask that those we have entrusted with leadership meet the expectations of the American people by passing straightforward legislation that secures our borders and enforces current immigration laws. Not too much to ask, now is it?

2007-06-14 11:57:48 · 9 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

One of my favorites "Some call this civil war; others call it emergency—I call it pure evil."—Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007

2007-06-14 11:57:33 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Afaganistan 18M 99%
2 Albania 2.3M 75%
3 Algeria 22M 98%
4 Bahrain .220M 99%
5 Bangladesh 100M 85%
6 Cameroon 6.2M 55%
7 Central African Republic 2M 55%
8 Chad 4M 85%
9 Dahomey 3M 60%
10 Egypt 51M 93%
11 Ethiopia 27M 65%
12 Gambia .4M 85%
13 Guinea 4.3M 95%
14 Guinea-Bissau .81M 70%
15 Indonesia 161M 95%
16 Iran 48M 98%
17 Iraq 14.5M 95%
18 Ivory Coast 5M 55%
19 Jordan 3M 95%
20 Kuwait 1M 98%
21 Lebanon 3M 57%
22 Libya 3M 100%
23 Malaysia 14.5M 52%
24 Maldive Islands 12M 100%
25 Mali 6M 90%
26 Mauritania 2M 100%
27 Morocco 24M 99%
28 Niger 4.5M 91%
29 Nigeria 100M 75%
30 Oman .75M 100%
31 Pakistan 90M 97%
32 Qatar .18M 100%
33 Saudi Arabia 10.5M 100
34 Senegal 7M 95%
35 Sierra Leone 3M 65%
36 Somalia 5M 100%
37 South Yemen 1.5M 95%
38 Sudan 22M 85%
39 Syria 11M 87%
40 Tanzania 15M 65%
41 Togo 2.1M 55%
42 Tunisia 7M 95%
43 Turkey 66M 99%
44 U.A.E .32M 100%
45 Upper Volta 6M 56%
46 North Yemen 6M 99%

2007-06-14 11:41:25 · 22 answers · asked by Dina W 6

George Bush wasted $40 million taxpayer dollars arming the Palestinian "Presidential Guards" who, with the backing of Israeli Artillery and Airstrikes launched an abortive coup to overthrow the elected government of Palestine.

End result a Hamas Victory. That's two failures in a row for Israel.

2007-06-14 11:35:29 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush?

2007-06-14 11:31:52 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

I see your truuuuuue colors shining through ...

2007-06-14 11:31:01 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous