Politics - 11 July 2007

2007-07-11 10:20:10 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

30, would he replicate his former ambitions? If he did, what demographic group would be his prime target market for support? Which country would he seek out as his host? Would he try to form para military units as his core once again or shoot for backing from international politicians/business professionals? Would his oratory still be the same pathos impregnated nationalistic theme, or changed more to a ethos based one world order type of "logical" message? Finally, would Adolph use an imagined & trumped up scape goat as bait once again to promote his agenda?

2007-07-11 10:19:33 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-11 10:19:20 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I've heard much talk about experience as it relates to the current crop of presidential candidates. What past job do you think is the most relevant on a candidates resume? A look at the past several presidents reveals usually governors and vice presidents get elected:
George Walker Bush - Former Governor of Texas
William Jefferson Clinton - Former Governor of Arkansas
George Herbert Walker Bush - Former Vice President
Ronald Wilson Reagan - Former Governor of California
James Earl Carter, Jr - Former Governor of Georgia
Gerald Ford - Former House Member/Succeeded to VP and then President (Never elected)
Richard Milhous Nixon - Former Vice President
Lyndon Baines Johnson - Former Vice President
John Fitzgerald Kennedy - Former US Senator

The leading current crop of candidates in both parties are either present or ex members of Congress and even one former city mayor is running? Is there such a thing as experience for President? Or is vision and intelligence more important?

2007-07-11 10:19:03 · 5 answers · asked by David M 6

2007-07-11 10:16:47 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-11 10:13:34 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I recently posed a question for global warming deniers - if humans are not the primary cause of the recent acceleration of global warming, then what is? I provided evidence that it's not the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or water vapor. I was provided with not a single valid alternative scientific explanation.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX&r=w

Also, the scientific consensus is against global warming deniers. In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Is science the arch enemy of global warming deniers? How can anyone be in such denial as to ignore all evidence?

2007-07-11 10:12:05 · 18 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I'm talking long 3, 4, 5 webpage articles at times.

2007-07-11 10:09:38 · 23 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush suffered a fresh blow on Iraq Wednesday, as another Republican senator joined a growing party revolt against his war strategy, declaring it at odds with reality.

Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine decided to co-sponsor a proposal written by a senior Democrat that would set a binding deadline of the end of April next year for US troops to be brought home.

"We have arrived at the crossroads of hope and reality, and we must now address the reality," Snowe said, after a period of reflection on whether to support new Senate challenges to Bush war policy. ( Note: Four years ago all Republicans were close. What happened?)

2007-07-11 10:08:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

He obviously has a warm place in his heart for the latinos and latinas

He would have been much less dangerous to the world running the Mexican armed forces (no offense meant)

And his Spanish is better than his english.

2007-07-11 10:01:24 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

No it's not. This behaviour you see in the media happens every four years.
Our "BIG2" will begin trying to discredit eachother trying to get their candidate elected.
Remember, Todays politicians in the DNC and RNC care about only ONE THING. Getting their candidate elected into office. They don't care about the country or it's people.
All this said, I'm happy to see more people on here speaking out for unity among all rather that jumping on the partisan bandwagon

2007-07-11 09:59:05 · 15 answers · asked by The prophet of DOOM 5

Check out this formerly posted question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070711134739AAX5mJB&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTBUWPhp70SK0mLDnYPY3UfFxvCTBQ8TxnfDmueVY9i7c_KDh3baiXNuXFmNjxgijw--&paid=answered#Q8MrUmPvVGVrx27V_l3WL7_e10J86YpEALEY_vDGQe.qBK0ITLM6

Did you notice those describing themselves as liberal, more independant, or, in any case, not likely to buy much into the present government's agenda were also less likely to get their news from the television? And that those describing themselves as conservatives regularly watched TV News?

So are conservatives more likely to watch TV, or does TV make you a conservative in the long run?

2007-07-11 09:58:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean sure there are alot of pissed off Arabs now who would gladly attack us, but isn't it obvious now that terror is just bush saber rattling and lying to the American people?

2007-07-11 09:52:11 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

between African Americans and Jewish Americans?

Statistics:
Jewish Americans 1% of Americans, 13% of Senate Seats
African Americans 13% of Americans, 1% of Senate Seats

2 Jewish representatives are Republican, 9 are Democrat, Sanders is a declared Socialist and Lieberman is a declared Independent / Neocon.

Barack Hussein Obama is of course a Democrat.

Source CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

I would think both groups of Americans (Jewish and African) would have a relative same level of acceptance among the general population with a majority (perhaps 2/3, maybe more) of Americans accepting candidates of either persuasion.

Will African American representation in the US Senate ever catch up to their population? And what role does AIPAC play as far as Jewish representation in the Senate is concerned?

This is a serious question - serious answers only.

2007-07-11 09:48:41 · 9 answers · asked by Jason A 3

The smart ones know what conservatism stands for today and what it stood for in the past and just deal with it.

The dumb ones think it was pro-diversity liberals who were the slave owners and traditional conservatives who freed the slaves because they assume the Republican Party was always conservative and southern. They confuse party with ideology.

Let me ask you this: You guys claim to be for state rights but then proudly claim Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and the northeastern Republicans who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HOWEVER, these guys used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to fix problems. How can you logically claim to be for state rights, but support radical, progressive, and liberal Republicans like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Rockeller?

2007-07-11 09:42:08 · 9 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

What do you think? Should radio talk shows give equal time to both sides of an issue?

I know this would wreak havoc on Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure there are others as well, so give me what your thoughts are on this issue.

The White House is against the fairness doctrine. Anytime the White House is against something, it makes me wonder.

2007-07-11 09:41:26 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Scientific explanations with evidence please. "Natural cycles" does not cut it - those are caused by specific factors like the sun.

The sun and cosmic rays have been proven not to be causing the current acceleration in global warming:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Nor do volcanoes, which contribute just 1% the greenhouse gas emissions that humans do annually:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Atmospheric water vapor concentration is dependent on global temperatures. It will amplify global warming, but it won't initiate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor

Please don't deny that global warming is happening, because it's been directly measured:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

So if it's not humans, as most scientists have concluded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

not the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or water vapor...what's causing it?

2007-07-11 09:39:01 · 17 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

To all the dittohead cons who think it's because of abortion or gay marriage, go read about the election of 1964. These were not the issues back then.

In 1964, the Republican Party could have nominated pro-civil rights liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller for president. Instead, they nominated conservative Republican Barry Goldwater who was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats ran liberal Democrat LBJ.

Guess which side the South voted for?

Ever since then, the CONFEDERATE South has become increasingly more Republican while the yankee Northeast has become more Democrat.

2007-07-11 09:32:59 · 16 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

They are for "state rights" and "traditional" southern values just like the Dixiecrat Party of the past.

I recently asked them if they were for "state rights" or centralized federal power. They all jumped in and proudly claimed to stand for state rights. But when I ask them how can they be for "state rights" and yet claim heritage to northeasten radical / progressive / liberal Republicans like Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller, they were speechless.

They all tripped over themselves answering my first question but avoided the second one like the plague.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070711112351AA5tw37&r=w

2007-07-11 09:21:54 · 11 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

How many can you name?

2007-07-11 09:17:25 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

We have a group site with us immigrants in UK,Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Hong Kong and everywhere. Non US all attack Americans and its foreign policy and Bush and Iraq war. They watch BBC, Aljazeera and canada TV and they all have nothing to say about their countries but America. Most of them are on democrat side and most of them like Michael More film. Is US media killing its own image in the world?

2007-07-11 09:15:02 · 18 answers · asked by fedup 3

2007-07-11 09:04:02 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

I tend to be pretty left wing towards most politics, but I find this behavior deplorable. I am all for impeaching Bush and Cheney, but I think her behavior as of late is very egotistical.

2007-07-11 09:02:38 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

...go with this one where you will...

2007-07-11 08:55:42 · 12 answers · asked by patzky99 6

Here is a link to one of the video's

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/07/10/blitzer.lieberman.interview.cnn

The long and short of it is is that he believes we can win this war... that congress should not stand in the way of allowing us to win the war.

I do agree with lieberman on this front... how about you?

2007-07-11 08:55:20 · 10 answers · asked by Mr. Perfect 5

And which one arranged the Iran-Contra scandal where General Oliver North disgraced himself? And which news channel now regularly features North as if he's a fountain of wisdom and ethics?

2007-07-11 08:54:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why not all of them??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

2007-07-11 08:50:10 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Try to socialize thinking? I mean they can't think on their own, so when will they try to tell us that thinking is bad for us and we should just leave that up to the government.

2007-07-11 08:47:53 · 10 answers · asked by mbush40 6

Why are they NOT demanding the same thing with Vitter?

2007-07-11 08:44:58 · 15 answers · asked by captain_koyk 5

After all, what he does with his penis is certainly his business and not under Congress's jurisdiction. The President is as entitled to have sex as any other man on earth. Adultery, while morally reprehensible, is not illegal in Washington, D.C. Yet Clinton was interrogated under oath about his adultery. How would Republicans have reacted if he'd invoked executive privilege and refused to answer questions?

Think they'd have just shrugged their shoulders and walked away like they want Dems to do over this federal attorney issue?

Certainly the President is allowed to have privacy about the activities of his penis, if he's allowed to have privacy about his reasons for firing his subordinates, yes?

2007-07-11 08:43:36 · 8 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6