Politics - 11 July 2007

Dis-cuss.

2007-07-11 18:04:18 · 2 answers · asked by flushles 3

in past years many people with weak political views have complained about president bush. those people dont watch the news or keep up with the current events but they say "down with bush" or "i hate him". so one day i asked a little 10 year old boy why he hates bush he said because my dad hates him...so i go over to his dad and ask "why do you hate president bush and he said "because he is a bad president' at that point i was in tears laughing of how people never think for themselfs. so in my opinion people should keep their mouths shut and stop following the crowd of people who hate him...MY opinion on president bush: Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die. that makes him weak to his country... what are your opinions on him?

2007-07-11 18:02:33 · 7 answers · asked by BeccaToThe10thPower 2

And it only took him only 5 years to do it.

Does that make Bush more evil or is Saddam more evil?

2007-07-11 18:00:24 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

What do you think?

2007-07-11 17:50:12 · 3 answers · asked by SoldierSide 1

Many Pro-Life people also support the war in Iraq which was not justified and has killed over 1/2 a million civilians.

2007-07-11 17:46:46 · 12 answers · asked by Gregg H 1

I do. But if he were the press secretary on the Titanic, I am afraid he would say, "Keep your seats, it wasn't an iceberg, just some turbulent ice water!".

2007-07-11 17:43:48 · 11 answers · asked by oatie 6

My stylist, the makeup guy and the two designers my company works with are all Liberal and they are excellent at their work! My boyfriend is a Republican, though, and he can't tell a shawl from a wrap! He just knows about drinking beer and watching football. He's great in other ways, though.

Anyway, how come Liberal guys are so gifted with fashion?

2007-07-11 17:31:45 · 20 answers · asked by giannasanmarco 2

Are you absolutely sure your insurance will cover you for whatever health crisis may come your way?

Do you not see 45 Million people not having medical insurance as a problem?

Do you think the HMO or PPO restrictions are a fair business practice?

Even if you saw the documentary 'Sicko' and still think it's self-serving propaganda....did it bring up any issues that you think are credible concerns?

Do you think something needs to be done to fix the 'profit over patients' component of health insurance companies decisions?

I feel that "Sicko" accomplished one good thing.
It brought this health insurance coverage problem to the forefront and now we really can't ignore the fact that things need to be fixed here!


Maybe now we can accomplish something substantial!

2007-07-11 17:26:38 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bush vs. America
by Jack Lessenberry
George W. Bush is more and more frequently referred to as “the worst president in the history of America” by those who know the background and pay attention to what’s going on. However, that description may be too mild.

We may need an entirely new classification. For more than five years we’ve had an administration that has shown consistent contempt for the rule of law, for the Constitution, for Congress, for the American people and for the facts. They’re squandering trillions of dollars, the effects of which will be felt much more severely in the decades to come.

They have failed to catch the mastermind of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and instead have helped increase that nasty band of thugs with our ham-handed tactics. We have ruined Iraq, doing far more damage to it than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of. Hundreds of thousands are dead.

All for a war which we are doomed to lose, in a country we’ll leave once somebody in Washington calculates that the voters won’t put up with any more dead Americans, a number which will reach 4,000 in three months or so.

So far, the corpse count hasn’t excited many Georgetown or Ann Arbor cocktail parties, because in this war, those fighting are mostly inner-city blacks, jobless rural whites and Hispanics who are trying to earn their way to citizenship.

Eventually, however, even the liberals may start to get uneasy. Last week, in what should have been a sudden epiphany for the half-asleep, this administration gave us a sharp lesson in just how thoroughly corrupt it is.

That was when Our Supreme Leader announced he was commuting the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in the slam after being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby, you may remember, was the former chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Libby leaked to the press, presumably at his master’s direction, that the blond bombshell Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent. This was printed, which destroyed her effectiveness and career, as they intended it would. Why did the Bush administration want to do that?

Simple. Her husband, a former ambassador named Joseph Wilson, had angered the Bushies by telling the truth publicly, which was that his investigation revealed that Saddam Hussein had never tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Libby was tried, convicted and duly sentenced by an experienced and fair federal judge. Previously, the Shrub had said he would do nothing till the appeals process had run its course. Something, however, happened to change his mind.

After five years of trying to govern by propaganda, George Bush suddenly decided that a strong dose of George Orwell’s doublespeak is exactly what was needed instead. “I respect the jury’s verdict,” he said, and in his next breath showed he didn’t respect the jury, or the judge, in the slightest, by adding, “I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

Never mind that our intellectually challenged and allegedly dyslexic prexy never set foot in law school, or that the Constitution gives the responsibility for determining sentences and punishment to the courts. That doesn’t matter because, as he sees it and likes to say, “I am the decider.”

But why now? The normally cautious New York Times openly speculated Bush could be worried about what Libby might say once he realized he was at the tender mercies of the guards and his fellow convicts.

For a little perspective, let’s compare this with what actually happened in Watergate, the only scandal that ever actually brought a president down.

What few remember now is that Watergate actually was sort of a comic-opera bugging episode in which a band of Cuban exiles, under the supervision of whacked-out former spy Howard Hunt, tried to bug the Democratic National Committee offices one night in June 1972. This was immensely stupid, since it was perfectly clear the Democratic nominee, George McGovern, was going to lose by a landslide.

They were caught in the act; Hunt was stupid enough to have the White House’s phone number in his pocket. Eventually, Nixon ordered an illegal and clumsy attempt at covering the mess up - and taped himself doing it. Yes, he did other bad stuff, but what I just told you was the essence of why he had to resign. That, and the fact the tape showed he was a real potty-mouth. In that long-ago time, Americans never imagined Their President could possibly be a man who would say “**********.”

George W. Bush is a man who has constructed secret prisons and authorized torture - not only here but in other countries. He started a war and lied about why. He has invaded our privacy illegally, authorizing wiretaps in a way forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When all that was needed was to ask a secret court for rubber-stamp permission, he didn’t even do that.

What America - what all of us - needs to ask now is this:

• Why isn’t Congress - right now - authorizing committees to investigate what this president and vice president knew and when they knew it? (House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers: Your move, sir.)

• Why aren’t journalists in America demanding an investigation to what seems to be an organized cover-up and obstruction of justice?

• Why doesn’t someone - Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, say - demand the White House explain its strategy for the Iraq War?

That strategy seems to consist of having our soldiers drive up and down the roads, getting blown up, until one day the insurgents adopt democracy.

We have a world crisis and a sick democracy at home, and our puppet masters are cleverly amusing us to death with Paris Hilton.

2007-07-11 17:25:21 · 11 answers · asked by Trevor S 4

Why is it okay for Michael Moore to criticize other?,.... and yet when he gets criticized he gets emotional.

2007-07-11 17:08:09 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

that the same basic ideas used by Planned Parenthood were used by the Natzis?
i heard it somewhere and wasn't sure

2007-07-11 16:59:51 · 11 answers · asked by ginagirl 2

I used to think it was Oliver Stone and his whacked-out conspiracy theories but Moore has him beat hands- down! Should Moore be arrested for calling his propoganda "Documentary"?

2007-07-11 16:59:49 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

do u realize your mistake or do you still think you were right. its ok if u realize your mistake

2007-07-11 16:54:04 · 16 answers · asked by joneill1186 3

2007-07-11 16:53:57 · 10 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_whitehouse_opposeraise_070516w/
White House opposes 3.5 percent pay raise

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:47:40 EDT

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay

2007-07-11 16:45:44 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

.
seems to me that politicians are just a bunch of over-the-hill or soon to be over-the-hill characters who carry their brains in their pants. and not just a few either. Probably most or ALL of them.
They're all nuts.
Horney little pencil-equipped viagra-ingesting sillies !!

2007-07-11 16:44:55 · 3 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

2007-07-11 16:43:12 · 23 answers · asked by nothing 1

When Clinton granted clemency to tons of people who did way worse things?

2007-07-11 16:32:27 · 22 answers · asked by ginagirl 2

I think we all know the answer.

2007-07-11 16:28:42 · 17 answers · asked by Matt M 2

'Steeling' oil would be sooo easy, the oil is not in the cities and towns, its in the desert. If the 'evil bush warmachine' wanted oil the war would have been bloodless, all we would have to do is roll in, secure the oil fields build a perimeter and thats it. No one can stop the US army in the field, 1000 yard kill zone, oil galore. But thats not what we went in for, we went in to take down an evil dictator in order the scare the bejesus out of Korea and Iran, and now we are proving we can build a successful Muslim Democracy. If we wanted oil we could have oil, whats not to get?

2007-07-11 16:26:43 · 17 answers · asked by ben s 2

al-Qaida has been able to totally rebuild and is now strong than it was pre-9/11.

Gee could it possibly be because our brave forces are in Iraq fighting a civil war when they should have stayed hunting down OBL?

Noooooo....can't be.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

2007-07-11 16:22:18 · 8 answers · asked by George W. B 3

I was wondering when a president talks about things like abortion and the death penalty if the big issues are actually there own opinions or are the safe opinions or opinions most widely heald? Any insight? I am also curious what Obama and Clintons takes are on big issues such as abortion and others? Thanks for your answers

2007-07-11 16:10:12 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

The Islamic Terrorists are the fascists. Most people believe fascism is putting the state before the people. This is a common definition. But; there are several things that charaterize all fascist states which are the basis for Islamic Terror. Firstly fascism depends on the fear/hatred/attack of a specific group, for Franco it was the Communists, for Hitler the Jews, for Mossolini the British, For the Islamic Terrorists America and the Jews. Second is the objective of gaining or regaining power for the fascist state. Franco wanted the old Spanish Empire, Mossoulini wanted to rebuild the Roman Empire, Hitler wanted Barbarosa's Holy Roman Empire, the Islamic fascists wan the old Muslim Empire, the Caliphate, the Islamic State. Just as we were during the early 20th Century we are again at war with Fascism, and we must not rest untill it is once again swept from the face of the earth. Why do liberals not see that fascism is the mark of our enemy: Islam, I mean terrorism.

2007-07-11 16:08:04 · 22 answers · asked by ben s 2

Do they feel threatened by scientific facts?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758838.ece

2007-07-11 16:02:13 · 24 answers · asked by flushles 3

Why is that libs?

2007-07-11 15:56:57 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-11 15:56:36 · 2 answers · asked by shoppinggirls3 1

it seems to me that if you love Jesus you cannot be for war. Jesus said bless those who curse you. Turn the other cheek, and love thy enemy.

How does all this fit in with invading the middle east. Bush did run on the strength of his love of Jesus, but he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches.

Shouldn't the people of faith be looking to jesus for a Jesus-like answer instead of grabbing the 16's and loading the lads onto the battleships?

2007-07-11 15:50:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

... engagement.

That's an admission that his people messed up royally and would NEVER be allowed to follow the failed decisions that were made by Reno and Clinton's ATF.

Right?

So, why wasn't Clinton charged?

2007-07-11 15:48:32 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

after all ,and still republicans stick with the skinny,you got be insane,what do you really think?

2007-07-11 15:47:37 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Another "Jaysus" Republican preaching morals to others while he's dipping his stick in the honey (prostitutes, no less). I remember this guy preaching about the "sanctity of marriage" a few years while he was pushing the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

So why hasn't he resigned yet? Being a "John" is a crime...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/vitter.madam/index.html

2007-07-11 15:47:25 · 9 answers · asked by The ~Muffin~ Man 6