Politics - 21 June 2007

Remember when America was the country that every other country wanted to be like?

Remember when torture and making people disappear were things that we looked down on as a country, because we had the moral high ground?

Remember when America's intelligence agencies were busier protecting her citizens than monitoring them?

Remember when we had a president who spoke out of knowledge, who you knew actually spent time learning about the tasks at hand?

Remember when racism and sexism were things to be despised and those who reveled in them were marginalized?

Remember when this country went to war as a last resort, to defend ourselves or our allies?

Remember when those who thought dissenters "traitors" were themselves thought lower than fools?

Remember when discussion about politics didn't end with a statement of political or ideological affiliation?

What happened? How do we get back to that America?
Don't you miss her?

2007-06-21 10:28:33 · 26 answers · asked by Schmorgen 6

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/06/cheney_sought_to_abolish_secre.html

The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney proposed to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), the executive branch organization that oversees the national security classification system, after its Director insisted that the Vice President comply with reporting requirements that apply to all executive branch entities.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee who revealed the move today, said in a letter to the Vice President (pdf) that it "could be construed as retaliation" against ISOO.

Is this a knee-jerk response to:
The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that for purposes of securing classified information, the Vice President's office is not an 'entity within the executive branch' according to a letter released Thursday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
He is NOT covered by EP??

2007-06-21 10:25:04 · 10 answers · asked by citizenjanecitizenjane2 4

2007-06-21 10:23:26 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

• Trial lawyer: Before Thompson won his Senate seat, published reports said his private law practice handled personal injury cases and defended people accused of white-collar crimes. And in the Senate, he opposed some legislation intended to rein in escalating jury verdicts and attorneys' fees.
• Lobbyist: Thompson made nearly $1.3 million over about two decades of lobbying both before and after his eight-year Senate stint, according to government documents and media accounts from his successful run for the Senate in 1994.
• Abortion-rights supporter: Every time Thompson got the chance in the Senate, he voted with those who oppose abortion rights. But the social conservatives for whom abortion is a litmus test scrutinize every bit of a politician's record — and Thompson's provides some fodder for opponents to question the depth of his opposition to abortion rights.

2007-06-21 10:19:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

So it's alright for the government to intrude on our private lives with things like who we can marry, abortion, the Patriot Act, and where we can practice dissent (protest zones); but when the government intrudes on us to help the elderly and the least among us with things like health care, welfare and other social programs, that's not OK??

2007-06-21 10:16:53 · 27 answers · asked by shelly 4

It seems like it is. Alot of GWB bashing and global warming chatter. Does anyone know of any non-biased newpapers or magazines I can read?

2007-06-21 10:12:28 · 15 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

I usually don't venture into this area of YA, but I was just curious.. Do your party lines keep you from voting for the person instead of the party? Personally, I find myself looking to the opposite party, even though I was always very supportive of the other...Just based on the person... (I don't want to mention who because then my answers might be limited, or turn into everyone attacking eachother)

Does anyone else think we should vote based on the candidate, and not the party affiliation?

2007-06-21 10:05:28 · 17 answers · asked by ME 5

2007-06-21 09:55:04 · 20 answers · asked by Willowjac 5

Simple question.

Are you here to discuss politics or are you here because you want a bunch of people to tell you how cool your ideas are (presumably for the first time in your lives)?

Some of you need to call Hillary and give her pointers on pandering.

2007-06-21 09:53:06 · 23 answers · asked by Josh 4

Is not that that they are fair or biased - it's the idiots that watch these shows and refuse to differentiate between hard core news and televised editorial. Seriously watch Fox morning news for one hour and then try CNN - if you remove the witty banter they are basically saying the same thing. Instead of the "Fairness Bill" I think news shows should be forced to put an opinion banner every time an opinion is issued so dumb people are less confused - Agree or disagree.

2007-06-21 09:48:14 · 19 answers · asked by CHARITY G 7

Seems they shouldnt have issues with it unless they have the wrong intentions?

2007-06-21 09:41:28 · 7 answers · asked by Cajun_Hunter67 2

Just wondering...

2007-06-21 09:36:36 · 3 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6

clintons clan member, John Podesta, is taking the first shot at taking out the first amendment. I would have thought the clintons would have removed the second amendment first but perhaps they think AMericans will do nothing like a bunch of democrat sheep.

So AMericans, are you going to support the Democrats taking away your First Amendment rights.

THE ATTACK ON TALK RADIO BEGINS IN EARNEST TODAY

This will be a big day for the left in its campaign to rid this country of their nemisis ... those pesky right-wing talk show hosts. Today we'll be hearing about a new study by the Center For American Progress, a Washington left-wing think tank. The man running this outfit is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. This report will condemn what it calls a "massive imbalance" between conservative and "progressive" My guess is that the report will blame the preponderance of liberal talk radio shows http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

2007-06-21 09:29:35 · 30 answers · asked by rmagedon 6

2007-06-21 09:27:22 · 9 answers · asked by abbs 3

It seems you guys know SO MUCH about FOX News. Please fill me in. I am at work so I couldn't see the 'fear-mongering'.

2007-06-21 09:20:51 · 11 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3

14% by the latest Gallup Poll.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/06/what_do_hmos_an.html

2007-06-21 09:20:51 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Immigration
Iraq
Corrupt Politicians

2007-06-21 09:12:20 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I sure hope not. If Catholics, or Scientologists, or Buddhist plowed planes into our office buildings and killed thousands of people, we would go after them too

2007-06-21 09:05:00 · 16 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3

Is this a republican talking point or did some Fox commentator recently say this? Cons seem to be in unison on this and I think they are just parroting someone. Carter was way better than his predecessors.

2007-06-21 09:04:19 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous

What would it be? Flag Burning is mine - What's yours?

2007-06-21 09:02:40 · 19 answers · asked by CHARITY G 7

2007-06-21 08:59:57 · 9 answers · asked by Ringo G. 4

2007-06-21 08:58:20 · 44 answers · asked by Mr. Pahal 1

2007-06-21 08:54:33 · 32 answers · asked by classical_maniac101 3

2007-06-21 08:48:20 · 11 answers · asked by Ringo G. 4

John Edwards is talking about the 2 Americas, the rich and the poor. Thats really something when someone super rich like Edwards is going to help the working class. I never understood the Democrats, which their tax and spend attitude would ever help any working class, or poor people in this country. Lets face most of the senaters are filthy rich they didnt get that way by giving a damn about anyone beneath them. The only good senators are the ones we vote out, then we dont have to listen to their bull about carring for the poor.

2007-06-21 08:47:46 · 13 answers · asked by victor m 3

Its my belief that parents have the obligation to teach their children their values, be it religious values, conservatives values, or even liberal values.

But liberals for some reason seem to call it brainwashing, and all sorts of other silly names.

So why shouldn't parents teach their children the values that they hold?

2007-06-21 08:43:16 · 34 answers · asked by Nickoo 5

2007-06-21 08:41:18 · 21 answers · asked by Marcus 1

It is not socialized medicine... it is socialized insurance... big difference... doctors in canada don't work for the governement...

2007-06-21 08:36:08 · 22 answers · asked by mongoose11225 2

Since 95% of Iranians hate their President and want democracy, they should not be targeted. I am for the CIA or Special Ops assassinating the President of Iran and capturing the Ayatollah, making it look like the doing of Iranian Communists, but not killing the Ayatollah, as killing him will cause a religious problem and he knows important things. And then we use drone aircraft to strike the highest risk nuclear facilities when people are not working there. And then we go home without killing any Iranian civilians. The civilians don't need to be killed because of their horrible leader.

2007-06-21 08:26:23 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-21 08:22:41 · 29 answers · asked by Sleeck 3