Politics - 18 June 2007

The terrorists in the grassy knoll?

2007-06-18 13:35:39 · 18 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-06-18 13:14:56 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-18 13:10:29 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm sure many of you read this already.

It is the first post of June 18 edition of the Yankee Commentary

http://www.yankeecommentary.blogspot.com

2007-06-18 12:43:13 · 7 answers · asked by RICARDVS 4

2007-06-18 12:35:33 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-18 12:22:30 · 1 answers · asked by Jen 1

2007-06-18 12:19:33 · 19 answers · asked by gone 7

After the billions spent and the lives lost, how much beating into the ground will this subject take until we just declare victory?

2007-06-18 12:16:14 · 26 answers · asked by healing wings 5

Cause i kinda like them bald!
what about you?

2007-06-18 12:14:11 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Republicans BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
Democrats believe that government is responsible for each person.
Republicans BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
Democrats believe that no one is equal and need government to make it fare by giving special privilege to those that lack drive.
Republicans BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
Democrats believe that if Democrats don’t own it, the government should control it
Republicans BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
Democrats believe that if you make more than they do, government should take it
Republicans BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
Democrats believe that government is responsible for everyone’s personal responsibilities such as healthcare, retirement, welfare, food stamps ECT
Republicans BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
Democrats believe that America is bad and needs to be more like France and the UK.
Republicans BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
Democrats want nothing to do with the rest of the world. They don’t want freedom in the Middle East

2007-06-18 12:13:06 · 15 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

There are some scientists who have a theory that the radiation from cell phones are disrupting the internal navigation that bees use to find their way back to their hives. If bees go into extinction, this could cause worldwide famine. Many other plant and animal species would also go extinct resulting from plants not being able to reproduce from not being pollenated and animals that survive on eating these types of plants which would also reduce animals higher up on the food chain, including humans.
MY CONSPIRACY THEORY IS SCIENTISTS ARE BEING PAID BY BIG CORPORATE AGRICULTURE AND CELL PHONE COMPANIES TO PUT THIS FALSE INFORMATION OUT AS AN EXCUSE TO RAISE FOOD PRICES AND NEWER, MORE EXPENSIVE CELLPHONES.
Virtually everyone I know in my neighborhood has a cell phone and the crab apple tree outside my window was buzzing with bees a couple of months ago just like it always has. Now the tree has tons of apples just like normal. So this scare that's being put out there makes me skeptic.

2007-06-18 12:10:49 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is it just more smoke and mirrors? The generals say one thing and the politicians say another. What is the truth?

2007-06-18 12:08:15 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

does this not cancel out any "point" he's trying to make?
You Moore-ons out there: you want to be on the same bandwagon with Castro & Co.?

Unfortunately we can't kick him out of the country but if we did he'd have a nice cozy shanty awaiting him in Cuba.....

2007-06-18 12:06:57 · 16 answers · asked by suzyq 3

I'm between Obama & Clinton at the moment, but at this point, I don't care if the next president is a democrat or a republican. As long as they use their God given common sense concerning the international community, and respect the lives and rights of their American subjects. All of them. Not just the straight or the wealthy.

2007-06-18 12:03:45 · 15 answers · asked by aristocrat1.0@sbcglobal.net 1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_e_mails

2007-06-18 11:58:15 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think that all Conservatives and Republicans alike should all be round up and treated like many suspected communists were in the middle of the 20th century. Non of these right winged religious segregationists care about the basic and/or average individual. Their loves are Christ (lol .. such hypocrisy), Corporate $$$ and CONTROL. It's time we shed ourselves of this vial form of thought and type of people. Conservatives, like Religion, have done nothing but promote segregation for the lower classes and cultures, as well keep the majority of us poor. I can't wait for the democratic back-lash ... we're all long overdue!!! Bush should and must be tried for war crimes, the world needs to see this happening if North America is ever to regain the good reputation it had before the Bush DICTATORSHIP!

2007-06-18 11:41:59 · 25 answers · asked by AJD 3

dant. I can't stay with any party that doesn't have a spine! The amnesty B S was the last straw. If either party straps on a set of grapefruits,and takes a constitutional stand, I may choose a major party! Until then I'll be an independant an keep my guns loaded, for the inevitable revolt, that this govt. is pushing for!!!!

2007-06-18 11:36:05 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-18 11:31:50 · 15 answers · asked by Good Egg 6

Deficit Deceptions
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 15, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Journalism: President Bush has been criticized unmercifully by politicians of all stripes and media of all types for failing to rein in federal spending and letting deficits "soar." But is the criticism fair?
________________________________________ ________________________________________
The answer, in a word, is no. It's fashionable these days, for Democrats and even some Republicans to style themselves as "fiscal conservative" to advocate the end of government red ink.
Some of them mean well, to be sure. Certainly, no one wants to see a budget deficit forever — or one that expands to a point that it impairs our government's ability to function.
But we're so far from that right now it's easy to think those who push for the immediate elimination of the deficit have another agenda entirely. Unfortunately, it's hard to have a rational conversation about it. It never comes down to facts, of which there are plenty, but to fears, of which there are always more.
Let's start with facts.
Last year, the deficit hit $248 billion. Sounds like a lot, but in a $13.6 trillion economy, it's not. It's the equivalent of a $900 dollar credit card charge for someone with a $50,000 income.
As a share of GDP, the budget deficit last year was 1.9%. That's down from 3.6% in 2004 and below the long-term average of 2.5%. This year, says the CBO, the deficit will be about $177 billion, or 1.3% of GDP. If current trends continue, the deficit will be erased by 2010-2012 at the latest.
By the way, those "surpluses" in the final years of the Clinton administration were a fluke. If you don't believe it, go back and look at the Clinton administration's own forecasts. They never saw the surpluses or record tax revenues coming.
They were a creation of an unusually powerful upswing in the economy, pushed by a number of factors: Fed interest-rate cuts, the advent of the Internet and the boom in Big Box discount retailers, such as Wal-Mart. It was a perfect storm of economic growth.
Those who accuse President Bush of "spending" the surpluses and creating "soaring" deficits miss the point. Bush took office just as both the stock market and the Internet boom were collapsing, taking the economy with it. As we've noted before, the stock market alone suffered losses of more than $7 trillion. The negative wealth effect from that hit alone was enough to tank the economy.
The year 2001 was one of both recession and a major terrorist attack on our nation, which killed 3,000 people and destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars in potential output.
Let's go to logic 101: Given such a situation, what should Congress and the president do? Sharply cut spending to ensure that the deficit remains small, and risk sending the economy into a tailspin?
Or keep spending, and maybe even increase it a bit, knowing full well that any discretionary spending that was made today can be cut tomorrow?
No, we don't like pork-barrel spending. Nor do we like big government, an issue we've written much on in the past.
That said, does the spending of the past six years really constitute unusual "big government?" We would argue, no. Using the most meaningful measure of the size of government — spending as a share of GDP — we see that in fact we're today right where we were in 1996 — about 20.3% of GDP. And it's declining. This year, spending as a share of the economy is expected to fall to 19.9% of GDP.
If you look at the chart, you'll note that's actually below the average of 20.7% of GDP since 1970. Spending boom? Hardly.
Then where did the deficits come from? As we noted, the economy's decline in 2001 had a far bigger fiscal impact than first thought. Revenues in 2000 were 20.9% of GDP; by 2004, they had plunged to 16.3% of GDP, lowest since 1959. This year, revenues returned to 18.6% of GDP, above the long-term average of 18.2%.
So it was falling revenues, not higher spending, that caused the deficit. It may well be that by keeping spending within its normal range as a share of the economy, Bush kept a mild recession from becoming a very nasty one.
For those who argue the deficit is such a bad thing that we need to raise taxes to get rid of it, this too is wrong.
As Nobel-winning economist Edward Prescott has noted, workers are highly sensitive to tax rates. They work and earn more when rates fall, less when they rise. It's common sense.
That was the choice President Bush faced in 2001. Keep spending money during a time of extraordinary uncertainty, and cut taxes. Or do nothing or even boost taxes and risk the consequences. Given the current five-year boom we're in, he chose wisely.
As we noted before, an extensive analysis by the Heritage Foundation found President Bush's tax cuts each year boost real GDP by $75 billion, employment by 709,000 and real personal income by $200 billion. The benefits are huge and ongoing.
Are we Pollyannas about deficits? Not at all. Long term, we agree there's a problem. It's a result of entitlement spending. If we don't control that, we're in big trouble. In just the next 10 years, Medicare and Social Security costs will jump from 8.5% of GDP to 10.7%, as 76 million baby boomers start to retire. We have to fix that — something, by the way, Bush tried to do but got little help.
Still, we've had deficits in 24 of the past 27 years. During that time, real GDP has grown 122% to $11.5 trillion, 46 million new jobs have been created, bank interest rates have fallen from almost 20% to about 8%, 42 million new homes have been built and per capita incomes have almost tripled.
In short, none of the dire things predicted about deficits came to pass. We're the wealthiest country in history, and we're putting more distance between us and our nearest competitors each day.

2007-06-18 11:25:25 · 15 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

2007-06-18 11:14:48 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm sure that the liberal elites who summer in Martha's Vineyard are deeply troubled by the lot of the underprivileged. Each morsel of Lobster Thermidore that they eat, no doubt weighs heavily upon their conscience...right?

2007-06-18 11:12:59 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-18 11:09:19 · 28 answers · asked by Chief Yellow Horse 4

Trait A ).---apt, ingenious, resourceful; acute, astute, discerning, insightful, knowing, perceptive, perspicacious, sagacious, , savvy, wise; cerebral, erudite, highbrow, knowledgeable, learned, literate, scholarly, well-read; educated, informed, schooled, skilled, trained; creative, inventive, judicious, prudent, sage, sane, , sensible, sound, wise; crafty, cunning, foxy, shrewd, ; logical, rational, reasonable
Trait B ) brainless, dense, doltish, dopey, dorky [slang], dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless, oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thick, thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded, witless, feeble minded, , simpleminded; foolish, idiotic, imbecile, imbecilic, moronic; ignorant, illiterate, uneducated, uninformed, unthinking; absurd, asinine, balmy, cockeyed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, dotty, harebrained, insane, kooky, loony , lunatic, mad, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, screwball, silly, unwise, unreasonable .

Which do you think best suits Bush a/b

2007-06-18 11:06:56 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

as equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things from a government they lead

2007-06-18 10:57:53 · 17 answers · asked by rmagedon 6

that way we really know whos calling the shots up front

2007-06-18 10:28:28 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you believe gays should be allowed to get married? Why or why not.

2007-06-18 10:19:20 · 22 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

I mean even after all of the facts and millions of people dead...Hitler making speeches saying he wants to kill all of the Jews...how can people deny the holocaust?

2007-06-18 10:19:08 · 24 answers · asked by Lindsey G 5

lower poll than bush and look at all the mistakes there doing

2007-06-18 10:11:43 · 25 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2

LOL - Does the GOP have a whole buch of Jesus' - one for each pretend Christian candidate?

2007-06-18 10:10:45 · 8 answers · asked by captain_koyk 5

oil plays some part in every thing we do..or own..so why are liberials so anti oil...when will they stop using oil or products that use oil ...its time to leave thier homes and move into mother natures..and leave the modern world to the Americans...

2007-06-18 10:10:41 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous