Politics - 24 July 2007

Paris Hilton...Al Gore Jr...Brittany Spears??

2007-07-24 14:49:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 14:48:30 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

and not be apologetic to fellow Americans.... especially now we know what a catastrophe he has been and created.

2007-07-24 14:42:20 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

Warrantless Wiretapping

The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. [65] President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. [66] The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." [67]

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps. [70] The cost of that makeover is expected to be several billion dollars. Any communications carrier that fails to meet the technology standards of the attorney general can be fined up to $10,000 per day. The passage of that law prompted Attorney General Reno to marvel at her newly acquired power: "I don't think J. Edgar Hoover would contemplate what we can do today." [71] That is unfortunately true. In the past, law enforcement had to rely on the goodwill and voluntary cooperation of the American people for investigative assistance. That tradition is giving way to a regime of coercive mandates. [72]

2007-07-24 14:36:43 · 7 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-07-24 14:34:53 · 29 answers · asked by XMIrish 3

Both China and the Saudis are buying up the US wholesale. We're even borrowing back our own money to finance Bush's war. Do you think this will have a happy ending for the American wage-earner?

2007-07-24 14:25:31 · 4 answers · asked by Noah H 7

How about it?

2007-07-24 14:22:56 · 10 answers · asked by flushles 3

Is this the real reason for telling everybody to shut-up about the war, "we will arrest all dissenters."
Plus the announcement that Al-Qaeda is growing and he is NOT going to stop the war. Pushing fear on America so that we will not "resist" it too much.

2007-07-24 14:22:39 · 15 answers · asked by Enigma 6

It is almost like the republican party is the loud speaker for the terrorists. After all if a terrorist says it is important, then republicans tend to think it must be. For instance the most repeated proof that Bush has offered for terrorists in Iraq is a quote of bin laden saying how important the Iraq war is.

2007-07-24 14:13:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

"Ultra Imperial Supa Dupa Mega Ruler"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgcBQIoXPJZoIBPNQ70OtG3sy6IX?qid=20070724180213AA7CiSA&show=7#profile-info-5c73d387d9bc7df805fde7e40ab0520aaa

Please, are you guys really serious? Do you honestly think hes going to become a dictator? Have you ever heard or checks and balances, or the constitution? And who would enforce it, the US Military isn't going to become Bush's private mercenary army, don't forget they are American husbands, wives, fathers, sons, mothers, daughters as well.

2007-07-24 14:11:25 · 14 answers · asked by Serpico7 5

2007-07-24 14:10:11 · 20 answers · asked by chadman 2

but fortunately, that meeting was canceled...

2007-07-24 14:06:05 · 7 answers · asked by reagonontherock 2

Democrats Can't Handle the Good News

Very good news is coming out of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this hasn’t caused a change of heart among the Democratic leadership. It hasn't even given them pause. One wonders if they are capable of hearing such news anymore.
The Times Online reports that Al Qaeda is facing rebellion from within its ranks. Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a persons face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of Al Qaeda are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood.
Some of these junior Al Qaeda members are said to be repulsed by the gratuitous, barbaric violence. One said, I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done.
The good news doesn't stop here. Al Qaeda is not only facing internal dissension, but evidence is also emerging that other ethnic forces formerly friendly to Al Qaeda are changing their tune. Iraqi locals are denying Al Qaeda the sanctuary they need to operate. Lt. Col Stephen Michael, commander of a 700-troop battalion in Doura, says, Al Qaedas days are numbered, and right now he is scrambling.
This news, says the Times, comes out of Doura. But it is part of a wider trend that has started in other Al Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.
Along the same lines, The Washington Times reports that U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders in Taji, Iraq, to join forces against Al Qaeda and other extremists, which represents an extension of a policy already implemented in Anbar province that has transformed the security situation there.
This isn't some flimsy handshake deal. Tribal leaders agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from Sunni and Shiite extremists. It's also significant that tribal forces approached U.S. forces to initiate this agreement.
Al Qaedas inhumanity is not the only reason things are beginning to change in Iraq. The reports clearly indicate that the increased number of U.S. forces in Doura has made the locals feel it's less dangerous for them to turn toward us. These reports are direct confirmation that the surge strategy is working.
The Washington Times also reports -- surely much to the chagrin of war naysayers who have gloated that we have been greeted not as liberators but occupiers -- that U.S. soldiers walking through Sunni villages have been greeted warmly, with locals shaking the soldiers' hands and kissing their cheeks. Just a month ago, according to Sgt. Richard Fisk, every single one of these people was shooting at us.
Has any of this good news coming out of Iraq prompted Democrats to rethink their opposition to victory?
A brief survey of recent headlines reveals quite the opposite. Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would press forward on legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, despite the Democrat's failed efforts last week to pass such a bill. He also said Republicans who voted against withdrawal of our troops were engaged in partisan gamesmanship. If that isn't a textbook case of psychological projection, Ive never seen one.
Meanwhile, Senator Russ Feingold told NBCs Tim Russert that he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq War and his assault on the Constitution. While Reid didn't readily warm to the idea of a censure, he did say that the president already has the mark of the American people that hes the worst president weve ever had. How’s that for rising above partisanship and supporting your commander in chief during wartime?
Elsewhere, that great patriot from San Francisco, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided President Bush’s call for congressional Democrats to rise above partisanship. Like Reid, Pelosi said the American people have lost faith in Bush and she will continue to cause Congress to vote to end this war every chance she gets.
Speaking of partisanship, news reports around the web demonstrate that while the Bush administration and our armed forces are doing everything they can to accomplish serious, non-partisan business in Iraq in furtherance of the nonpartisan goal of promoting our national security; Democratic leaders are bogging down the administration in frivolous investigations over matters that aren't even arguably illegal.
In other news, Democratic presidential candidates are traveling the country trying to outdo each other in the nonpartisan activity of pandering to illegal immigrants for their votes (Obama has gone so far as to court La Raza). Other party leaders are trying to develop strategies to unburden the party of its image as the party of abortion. Of course, they're not doing anything to unburden themselves of the party's moral failure on it.
That concludes our report.

2007-07-24 13:54:59 · 21 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

If President Bush and Dick Cheney both died, do you know who then would be our President? If this happened I believe we would be in tougher times than we are now !! The next person in line is pretty scary???

2007-07-24 13:52:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 13:50:34 · 27 answers · asked by Robert B 2

The Democrats are playing down the attack that is being planned again on the USA. Bill Clinton as well did this while he was in office. Americans Democrats are going to allow us to be attacked again, just as Clinton did. Nancy Pelosi is with are enemy, Pelosi won't speak to the President. But she'll talk to are enemy. Al Qaida has made a threat on the United States, so beware.

2007-07-24 13:44:29 · 18 answers · asked by ? 1

2007-07-24 13:41:47 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 13:37:41 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is he a terrorist or is this what we have been warning about the Patriot Act and the freedom strictions in the US today?

2007-07-24 13:33:20 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Don't misunderstand me, this question has nothing to do with race or the colour of someones skin..... I just don't like the idea of a nation that believes in reincarnation being the proud owners of multiple thermo-nuclear weapons!!!!!

2007-07-24 13:20:15 · 10 answers · asked by Just Me Returns 2

2007-07-24 13:15:47 · 15 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

I keep seeing the "radical lefts" mantra that "Bush Lied" about the war. If he did lie then how is it that Hillary didn't lie? She said all of the same things, she voted for the war, she had access to the exact same reports Bush did. So left wing anti Bush Haters - did Hillary lie too?

2007-07-24 13:09:43 · 28 answers · asked by netjr 6

With out a military confrontation.. but peacefully.

2007-07-24 13:04:18 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you think somewhere on the horizon they'd find an answer and stop asking the same question 9000 different ways?

2007-07-24 12:51:41 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think "Ann Coulter is a Poster child of naughty old conservatives" like kathy Griffin said.
What do you think?

2007-07-24 12:46:49 · 12 answers · asked by SpinUpSide 2

What?

2007-07-24 12:45:18 · 21 answers · asked by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6

2007-07-24 12:43:07 · 20 answers · asked by Work Hard, Make Money, Enjoy Life... 3

Please anser the following numbered questions.
1. SHould president Bush be impeached? Yes or No
2. If yes, for what?
3. If yes, what will YOU do to be proactive in YOUR government?
4. Do you think Bush has ties to the Ladin family? Like Oil?
5. Did you know the Ladin family was flown out of the country along with other Saudis 2 days after 9/11?
6. Did you know that 14 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's?
7. Do you know how much of our country they own? (pssst it's billions)
8. Is it a coincidence that Bushkin has lengthy oil industry ties to the Saudi's, and they go unpunished for 9/11 involvement?
9. Does ANYONE in our government have the guts to do ANYHTHING?
10. Are we so overworked and scared that we have ceased being proactive?
11. Does our government fear us? Or are we, Americans, the ones living in fear?
Yeah....I'm dang mad....can't wait till November 08...bye Bush. And ...need to go change my party affiliation to Dem!

2007-07-24 12:39:36 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 12:34:48 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 12:33:48 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous