Politics - 1 August 2007

2007-08-01 14:09:38 · 12 answers · asked by somber 3

will this lead to the war in Iran, or will the evil facists blame it on the canadian?


I know I shouldnt but I cant help mocking the little conspiracy wackos

2007-08-01 14:07:46 · 12 answers · asked by Adam of the wired 7

2007-08-01 14:06:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

What would you have done?

Before you think, put yourself in his position.

2007-08-01 13:55:27 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

With that blank stare on his face, was it a strong sense of guilt?

2007-08-01 13:44:19 · 31 answers · asked by somber 3

I think if we found a way to get on the moon in less then 8 years who says we can't get a new source of energy in less than 10 years?

2007-08-01 13:42:39 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think she should go with a southerner to balance the ticket.John F. Kennedy had the right idea when he chose Lyndon Johnson from Texas, to be his running mate. Al Gore's choice of Joseph Lieberman has to be the dumbest move in the history of electoral politics.

2007-08-01 13:41:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency.
Everybody in Washington wants to force the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. President Bush wants to require new vehicles to meet federal standards (to be determined) based on how heavy they are. The Senate wants to mandate that every car, pick-up truck, and SUV sold in 2020 average a fuel efficiency of at least 35 miles per gallon — far more aggressive than the 27.5 mile per gallon standard now in place for passenger vehicles. The House could offer an amendment on fuel standards from the floor on Friday. Either way, we’ll find out later this week what’s in store.

Would the market produce “too little” conservation without corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards? At first glance, no. The “right” (that is, efficient) amount of gasoline consumption will occur naturally as long as fuel markets are free and gasoline prices reflect total costs. In fact, a review of market data by Clemson University economist Molly Espey and Santosh Nair found that consumers actually overvalue fuel efficiency. That is, they pay more up front in higher car prices than the present value of the fuel savings over the lifetimes of the cars.

But driving imposes costs on others that aren’t reflected in fuel prices, like environmental degradation. Because gasoline prices do not reflect total costs, consumption is higher than it ought to be. Congress is therefore doing the economy a favor by mandating increased increments of energy conservation, right?

The argument is clever, but wrong.

Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That’s because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled. Moreover, automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply.

Those two observations explain calculations from Pennsylvania State economist Andrew Kleit showing that a 50 percent increase in CAFE standards would increase total emissions of volatile organic compounds by 2.3 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 3.8 percent, and carbon-monoxide emissions by 5 percent.

Another rationale for CAFE standards is that gasoline purchases send money to foreign terrorists who kill and maim with our dollars. Energy conservation, according to many, is our “ace in the hole” against al Qaeda and its ilk.

If there were a relationship between our “energy addiction” and Islamic terrorism, one would expect to find a correlation between world crude oil prices and Islamic terror attacks or mortality from the same. But there is no statistical relationship between the two. Terrorism is a very low-cost endeavor and manpower, not money, is its necessary determinant. That explains why even the lowest inflation-adjusted oil prices in history proved no obstacle to the rise of Islamic terror organizations in the 1990s.

While it’s true that nasty regimes like Iran are getting rich off our driving habits, the extent to which oil profits fuel its nastiness is unclear. After all, Pakistan is a poor country with no oil revenues, but it had no problem building a nuclear arsenal. The same goes for North Korea. Iran without oil revenues might look like Syria. Venezuela without oil revenues might look like Cuba. In short, while rich bad actors are probably more dangerous than poor ones, oil revenues don’t seem to make much difference at the margin.

Finally, we’re told that CAFE helps secure our energy independence. But the amount of oil we import is related to the difference between domestic and foreign crude oil prices. Reducing oil demand may reduce the total amount of oil we consume, but it will not reduce the degree to which we rely on foreign oil to meet our needs.

Regardless, tightening CAFE standards would have little impact on any of these alleged problems. If the Senate’s proposed CAFE standard of 35 mpg by 2020 were to become law, it would reduce oil consumption by, at most, about 1.2 million barrels a day. Given that the Energy Information Administration thinks world crude oil production would be 103.8 million barrels a day by 2020, the reduction would be 1.2 percent of global demand and result in a 1.3 percent decline in price; nowhere near enough to defund terrorists, denude oil producers of wealth, or secure energy independence.

Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency. That’s a job for consumers, not vote-hustling politicians. There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve. Hence, they shouldn’t be tightened; they should be repealed.

2007-08-01 13:36:29 · 16 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama took on President Bush, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and his chief Democratic primary rival on Wednesday in a speech billed as major foreign policy statement by the Illinois senator.

Obama said he will be better focused than Bush on fighting terrorists in foreign lands — shifting away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan — as well as improving diplomatic relations and securing the homeland, according to excerpts from the speech prepared for delivery.

Obama, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., also called for at least two more U.S. combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, and he had tough words for Musharraf, saying in the absence of more action from the Pakistani leader in the fight against terrorists, the U.S. would step in.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291681,00.html

2007-08-01 13:26:31 · 11 answers · asked by HATE MONSTER™ 2

2007-08-01 13:19:59 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-01 13:18:46 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does he not know thats an act of war?

2007-08-01 13:14:10 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

The new Congress takes an old approach to homeland security.


Members of Congress head home this week with precious little to show for their months of grandstanding on the Hill. However, as the clock counted down to August recess, lawmakers were able to get one “signature” bill off to the president, an act purporting to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Those hoping the bill would provide a clear strategic direction for homeland-security policy will find this “signature” as inscrutable as that of a drunken doctor writing in haste. But the bill does clearly show, however, that the way Congress “does” homeland security has changed significantly under it new Democratic leadership.

That’s not to say that everything about the bill is wrong-headed. The so-called 9/11 bill includes several positives, embracing measures that homeland security experts have long advocated. Among these are provisions:

Lowering the minimum amount of security grants that Washington must give each state. Unlike most of the bill’s provisions, this one actually was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, which was rightfully concerned that homeland security grants were becoming little more than vehicles for pork-barrel spending projects. This reform will allow the Department of Homeland Security to focus more money on the highest homeland security priorities.

Requiring periodic strategic assessments similar to the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Reviews. It makes sense to take time occasionally to review whether what’s being done is actually accomplishing anything useful.

Promoting reform and encouraging a modest expansion in the Visa Waiver Program. Efforts to increase opportunities for America’s friends and allies to visit the U.S. while making terrorist travel more difficult are long overdue.

Nor did the final bill include every bad idea incorporated in the original bills offered in the House and Senate. For example, bill conferees dropped a measure that would have expanded union rights over the Transportation Safety Administration. The erstwhile “union protection” provisions would have made it virtually impossible for TSA make timely changes in its passenger screening procedure in response to ever-evolving security threats.

Unfortunately, the bill does contain a good deal of junk. Some requirements will actually make America less safe, needlessly siphoning time, effort, and resources away from the kind of work that actually thwarts terrorists. Among the key strategic missteps are provisions that:

Increase spending based on criteria unrelated to actual security risks. Though they tightened up one state grant program, lawmakers wound up creating new grant programs, beefing up existing (and unfocused) grant programs, and injecting wasteful state minimums into more grant funding formulas. They also adopted a host of earmarks from congressional leadership. In the end, Congress could not resist buying a bigger barrel and stuffing it with even more pork.

Require ports and airlines to scan every container entering the United States. While this initiative “polls well,” most security experts find the idea preposterous. The scanning will produce so much data (and poor-quality data at that) that it will bog down rather than inform security operations. By the time anyone dockside will be able to review pictures of, say, a container of sneakers sent from China, odds are the shoes will have already been stocked, sold, and walking around the country for weeks.

One measure of how far the bill has missed its strategic mark is how found in how very few of its more than 700 pages of provisions pertains in any way to recommendations actually made by the 9/11 Commission. Inspecting every container of frozen fish, for example, was never suggested in the commission report.

How curious that the so-called 9/11 bill can come up with so many frothy original ideas, yet scrupulously avoid so many hard-nosed recommendations from the commission. For instance, whatever happened to the idea of further consolidating the jurisdiction of congressional committees over the Homeland Security Department. The new law studiously ignores this basic housekeeping reform so strenuously sought by the commission.

What Congress cobbled together shortly before recess was pretty much standard kitchen-sink legislation — a hodgepodge of measures styled mostly to please various stakeholders and deliver on campaign promises. Some are good, some bad, and some indifferent. This “new” way of doing homeland security looks an awful lot like the traditional way Congress legislates.

The contrast with how Congress approached homeland security shortly after 9/11 could not be more striking. In the wake of the attack, legislators purposefully created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act (which has actually helped stop terrorist attacks), and reformed the intelligence community. The post-9/11 congresses governed a nation at war.

Until this year.

This year, Congress slaps together a mediocre bill, bats it over to the president, and goes on vacation.

2007-08-01 13:08:31 · 9 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-08-01 13:07:41 · 15 answers · asked by WJ 7

The National Debt has climbed into the staggering billions. Some experts have said that he has "looted" our treasury. Bush is borrowing money from China and other countries to pay for his Iraq War. The U.S. has become a debtor nation. The burden for this debt will fall on the younger generation, because this huge debt has to be paid. Most young people believe that the liberal party will raise taxes, but the truth is, ANY political party will have to levy higher taxes for generations to come, in order to pay this debt. I want to know if the younger generation realizes what a burden is being placed upon their shoulders?

2007-08-01 13:00:10 · 17 answers · asked by Me, Too 6

If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.
One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

Senator Reid had to preempt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader’s failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy.

An optimist might even hope that some of the senators thought it was wrong for the country.

Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focusing only on American casualties — in the name of “honoring the troops” — is now starting to show cracks.

One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless.

But an op-ed piece in the July 30 New York Times by two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution — Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack — now paints a very different picture, based on their actual investigation on the ground in Iraq after the American troop surge under General Petraeus.

It is not a rosy scenario by any means. There are few rosy scenarios in any war. But O’Hanlon and Pollack report some serious progress.

“Today,” they report, “morale is high” among American troops and “civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began.”

In two cities they visited in northern Iraq “American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate” in providing their own security.

“Today,” they say, “in only a few places did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.”

In the last six months, O’Hanlon and Pollack report, “Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists.”

In Ramadi, where American Marines “were fighting for every yard” of territory just a few months ago, “last week we strolled down the streets without body armor.”

Victory is not inevitable, any more than victory was inevitable when American and British troops landed at Normandy in 1945. General Eisenhower even kept in his pocket a written statement taking full responsibility in the event of failure.

But victory is not even defined the same way in Iraq as it was in World War II. American troops do not need to stay in Iraq until the last vestige of terrorism has been wiped out.

The point when it is safe to begin pulling out is the point when the Iraqi military and police forces are strong enough to continue the fight against the terrorists on their own.

That point depends on how much and how long the current progress continues, not on how much the Democrats or their media allies need an American defeat before the 2008 election.

O’Hanlon and Pollack warn that “the situation in Iraq remains grave” but conclude that “there is enough good happening in Iraq that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

But 2008 may have an entirely different significance for politicians than for these Brookings scholars.

2007-08-01 12:59:31 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

There isn't a day that goes by that liberals and democrats don't insist that we're losing the war in Iraq. So what happens when we start making progress? What happens when things start to improve? Will democrats acknowledge it and congradulate our brave men and women in uniform for a job well done? Or will they continue to insist on withdrawl and failure? Kind of makes you wonder why anybody would support politicians that WANT the US to lose in Iraq just so they don't look like idiots!

2007-08-01 12:58:13 · 19 answers · asked by ? 3

A. who hears the call of duty and sees it an honor to serve?

B. Or a socialist elitist who earnestly believes she is entitled to be president?

Discuss. Choose A or B - but back up your answers with evidence.

(See - fair and balanced. I want BOTH sides.)

2007-08-01 12:57:51 · 7 answers · asked by Cherie 6

something I think about. What are your thoughts. For those ofyo who dont know what peak oil is. It is the point in time that Oil production peaks then goes into decline as we slowly but surely run out of it. Prices will go up and as it gets worse the standard of living will go down. It is forecast to happen any time between 2010 to 3020

2007-08-01 12:55:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can't we find space on the White House lawn for:---

A small statue of Al Gore humping a short elm tree?

John Kerry, showing frustration in that long face, while trying to remove that big foot from his mouth?

Maybe one of Jane Fonda saluting the flag with her middle finger?

A large bust of Obama, where visitors could relax in the shade of his ears?

Something in bronze depicting Howard Dean delivering his famous victory S C R E A M?

Perhaps a gold plaque showing Bill Clinton sitting in the Oval Office smelling his cigar?

We might even find room for a memorial to Hilary, --baking cookies in the White House kitchen, with a short peice of chain hooked to Bill's chastity belt.

Come on people , haven't these leaders earned their place in the hearts of all Americans?

And now ladies and gentlemen our National Anthem.

2007-08-01 12:45:40 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

You can put (nearly) anything on your checks. (I am sure obscenties are not allowed.) I need your help in deciding what to put there. My top runners are:

"In GOD We Trust"
"President Clinton -This time with pants"
"The Goracle is full of Hot Air" or
"Vote Republican"

Choose one of the above or give me one of yours--anything vulgar will be reported!

2007-08-01 12:43:02 · 14 answers · asked by Cherie 6

Democrats Scramble to Expand Eavesdropping

In another unbelievable story; the headline is really all you need here. This is the New York Times: "Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping." Yes, you heard right. "Under pressure from President Bush, Democrat leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government's electronic wiretapping powers." Dingy Harry, "in a statement Monday night, said, 'We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security.'" What an absolute hoot! We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us, the Democrats, to fix the problem? There wasn't a problem until you guys came along and tried to dismantle it! Then to accuse the Republicans of gaining partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security? Ha!

Dingy Harry, if you read the whole story here, is blaming Republican in Name Only Republicans "for endangering American citizens by threatening to investigate President Bush and eavesdropping on suspected terrorists"! The chutzpah! They have spent two years trying to nail Bush on this. Now all of a sudden, they're blaming Republicans for it. I'm telling you, these clowns have done all they can to eliminate the power inherent in the presidency during Bush's term. Now they're hastening to restore it in time -- and guess why? Herself: Hillary Clinton. The terrorist surveillance program is now about 50% as powerful as it used to be, and besides, the headbangers now know what we're doing. The whole exposure of this in the New York Times blew the program sky high. The program's been compromised. Thank you, Pinch Sulzberger -- who, of course, doesn't bring his liberal ideology to his newspaper like Rupert Murdoch does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html

2007-08-01 12:42:05 · 7 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Vice President Dick Cheney of falsely portraying her attempt to get Iraq planning information out of the Pentagon.

Clinton been hammering top Pentagon aide to tell her whether or how the military was planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

In a letter to the vice president, she accused Cheney of offering “inaccuracies” in opposing her request.

Eric Edelman wrote to the New York senator last month that such discussion boosts “enemy propaganda.” Clinton called that answer “outrageous” and accused the Pentagon of ducking a serious issue.

Cheney said discussing specific troop movement plans with Congress could tip off the enemy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20077091/

2007-08-01 12:36:20 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

So I posted a question with a media article and majority of the people read it and simply gave an answer. Well an individual pointed out to me that I needed to "check" my source for credability. So I did and I also acknowledged his point. (This question had to do with O'Reilly(yes I know O'Reilly isn't a news reporter) and media outlets claiming their unbiased reporting.)

What it also did was make me wonder this.

Is there ANY media, including up to television, newspapers, scholarly journals, radio, nonprofit or profit, that will report simply the "facts?"

Whether or not it's the reporter, the media outlet providing the coverage, executive management and even the reader.

Think about it, whether intentional or not will there not always be "some" form of bias when media covers politics and news?

2007-08-01 12:29:54 · 8 answers · asked by Glen B 6

My first guess would be to then immediately invade an unstable nuclear power.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/

2007-08-01 12:29:28 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Let us all know.

2007-08-01 12:26:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

If all drugs were legal then we would curb violence in inner cities who's people wage war on each other over territory to sell drugs .

If people bought hammers and began beating their fingers with them I am sure a ban on hammers would happen .

Why is it we ban things that are bad instead of educating people not to .

Seems we have two major products that are legal ,smoking and booze that are real killers .

Its hard to tell people that drugs are killing people when you have legal products doing the same thing .

Does alcohol really want to compete against pot . Does coffee want to compete against cocaine .
The problem when these laws got written is no lobby to protect them existed .

I see a huge difference with something being legal and advocating people using it .

By making it all legal you would eliminate gangs and the need for 1 million prison beds violent crime would go down and police could pursue and watch real criminals .

Why do people fail to see the logic .

2007-08-01 12:20:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/01/obama-would-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/


WASHINGTON (CNN) –Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan

2007-08-01 12:18:09 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

1) You can't speak certain words(like the N word) or express opinions about something you find wrong(like gay marriage) without being labeled and sued

2) They tell you how to run your business such as letting people who do certain things in your establishment or telling cooks of restaurants how to cook by eliminating popular, non-dangerous, ingredients.

3) Want to outlaw things for your own good instead of being free to make your own decisions(guns, cigarettes,...).

4) Take your money to do as they see fit.

2007-08-01 12:17:52 · 18 answers · asked by TJ815 4

How many times have democrats made promises they never keep. They promised the voters that we would get out of Iraq. As usual, Democrats will tell you what you want to hear, and then they get in power and don’t do what they promised. I follow everything the Dems say to get elected and then I do my research. One of many things they have lied about is the middleclass is shrinking, big lie just got to the US census bureau and you’ll see it’s not true. The facts on the uninsured is not represented correctly, most can afford insurance they just don’t want it. How many people don’t have car insurance, I bet that number is higher. Saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that’s BS too. You can look that up at U.S. Department of Labor and US Census.

2007-08-01 12:13:41 · 19 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1