Politics - 24 July 2007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

2007-07-24 11:04:32 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards..."

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

2007-07-24 10:57:45 · 17 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

Watch this movie and let me explain why there were no explosives
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cd6ibu8dafw...

1. The puffs of smoke they target in the beginning: While the buildings are still up they are filled with air and smoke right? well when they collapse where does that air go? it finds the most convirnient path out. the small targets zoom in to only some of the puffs cuz the resolution isn't good enough, so you can't see all the others.

2. True, they were built in three sections, but they weren't solid concrete and steel, there was a lot of rooms for matinence like heating, cooling, water, etc. Even if it was solid concrete, the mass and speed [momentum] would be way to much for those to withstand. There is no way it would just stop it and send it down to the street.

3. The firemen say they saw a lot of puffs of smoke as they fell down, this proves my first point they there were a lot as the buildings fell, but the movie makes it seem like there were only a few.

2007-07-24 10:50:07 · 12 answers · asked by Jack 1

If you were to charge a flat percent tax to all people, wealthy people would still be paying more taxes then less wealthy people.

Doesn't that punish hard working billionaires like Paris Hilton? Isn't taxing rich people more because they have more money a bad thing?

Isn't that still a redistribution of wealth since, most of the tax money is still coming from the have mores then the have less?

Why is my flat fee tax not a better solution?

2007-07-24 10:47:26 · 9 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

There's no way this guy is still alive. He probably just didn't die in any kind of "honorable" way so they are keeping him as a rallying cry for Al Qaeda.

I bet he either died in one of our bombing attacks or of natural causes

2007-07-24 10:43:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_o...

They also want to outlaw.....lets see....guns, SUVs, trans-fats, religion, military recruiters, Limbaugh, or anything else they don't like.

2007-07-24 10:31:18 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 10:30:15 · 13 answers · asked by melissapearre 1

It doesn't seem like any of the current candidates can draw the sword from the stone. Do you think Arthur will ever emerge from the din?

2007-07-24 10:29:32 · 7 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/sheehan.impeachment.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Michigan, chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

2007-07-24 10:29:01 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

These top Democrats are always saying that they know what the American people are thinking or wanting. Im a Democrat, and an American, and they dont speak for me...on anything. If they spoke for me, they would actually try to do something besides investigate and call names. Of the six things the Democrats promised and ran on last election, they have only accomplished one.

2007-07-24 10:27:36 · 6 answers · asked by ob10830 2

I think basically it will clear out all the cobwebs until we elect responsive leadership. If they promise and dont deliver then we will boot them out sequentially.

2007-07-24 10:23:27 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 10:22:28 · 26 answers · asked by Village Player 7

Does it make a difference at the end of the day who you vote for because at the end of the day whatever party gets in will just do their best anyway.

Maybe voting should be called betting,vote for whoever you think is going to win the election because if the guy you voted for is on the winning side then you can expect more funding for your area.
.
Right?wrong?indifferent?
.

2007-07-24 10:21:30 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

A new poll out today finds that fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. In addition, by 2 to 1, Americans said Congress, rather than the president, should make the final decision about when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.

How should the Democrats in Congress proceed? Your thoughts?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html?nav=rss_politics

2007-07-24 10:21:05 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 10:19:59 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-24 10:18:58 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who would pay for all their social programs?

2007-07-24 10:16:42 · 21 answers · asked by Mr. Perfect 5

2007-07-24 10:15:38 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

It was southern conservative Democrats (aka Dixiecrats and former dixiecrats) who came up with the slogan in support of slavery and then segregation.

When did the Republican Party start using that slogan?

When was the first time the South voted Republican for president and why?

Five points for the first best answer.

2007-07-24 10:10:29 · 11 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

For the war in Iraq:....
Never fight a battle you don't have to win. But if you have to win, never quit, never surrender.

For immigration.....
Se Habla Anglais

For government spending.....
The only people the federal government should be sending checks to, are people who work for the federal government.

For abortion.....
Abortion is murder. If you don't believe me, ask the baby.

2007-07-24 10:08:55 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why does'nt the USA just conquer the world, and remake it in our image?
and then the world would be one big great perfect and succesful country like ours.

And would that be a bad thing? Sure some countries and peoples would resist, but we could quelch them with such overwhelming force, that the rest would soon toe the line and sing our praises.

2007-07-24 10:07:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Chop off the head and the body will fall. Even my kid sister knows this. Why didn't Bush decide to go after the head of al quaeda instead of sparking a fire in Iraq?

2007-07-24 09:59:42 · 16 answers · asked by bbbbriggs04 3

I think it is a symbol of TREASON and SLAVERY. Back during the civil rights movement, klan members used to fly it as a sign of "southern heritage."

If you're so brainwashed as to believe the South seceeded over taxes, read the civil war era documents titled DECLARATION OF SECESSION.

2007-07-24 09:51:39 · 23 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

2007-07-24 09:51:37 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Mrs. Edwards is making a huge sacrifice and giving up tangerines in the name of Global Warming and Conservation...how noble. With such a huge sacrifce on her part - what can we "little people" do to EQUAL her amazing contribution to society?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/No_tangerines_for_you.html

2007-07-24 09:51:25 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

---They have been calling Bush "dummy", and now it turns out that, it has become obvious, that their dummies are DUMBER than this "dummy"

2007-07-24 09:48:21 · 17 answers · asked by big j 5

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_he_me/smoking_ban

They also want to outlaw.....lets see....guns, SUVs, trans-fats, religion, military recruiters, Limbaugh, or anything else they don't like. The libs today are Nazis.

2007-07-24 09:48:16 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

register our young women with selective service? That is one of the most ridiculus propositions I have heard in a while (next to the one by Obama to make sex-ed a preschool issue). Are liberals pandering to the radical feminists? Women are the gentler sex, no doubt. Many do serve their country voluntarily, and I don't disagree with that unless they have children. But will our nation totally be turned on it's head by these types of ideas in the name of equality? Let's face it men in women ARE NOT EQUAL in a whole lot of obvious ways, though they have EQUAL VALUE in a healthy and successful society. The Western societies, under Judeo-Christian influence, have recognized this truth.
Is there something wrong with honoring the weaker sex in our society by protecting them? I say not! Whatever happen to chivalry?

2007-07-24 09:43:54 · 28 answers · asked by fruitypebbles 4

Wow.

Are Pelosi and the Dems now doing everything the Bush and Cheney want them to do ... including making those evil people at Halliburton even richer?

2007-07-24 09:39:47 · 2 answers · asked by Duminos 2

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html
It was highlighted by a clash between the top 2008 Democratic contenders after Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The Bush administration considers the nations regional troublemakers.

Ms Clinton, the New York senator, disagreed, saying such meetings could be used as propaganda purposes.
"Certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria, until we know better what the way forward would be," she said.

2007-07-24 09:35:37 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous