Politics - 4 August 2007

2007-08-04 16:37:00 · 24 answers · asked by alex m 1

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/08/minnesota_and_the_politics_of.cfm

That state has more money like any state in the U.S

2007-08-04 16:32:46 · 13 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2

2007-08-04 16:15:24 · 10 answers · asked by ShadowCat 6

Senator Dodd referenced Bill O'Reilly's statement from 2005 to the effective of it being OK with O'Reilly if Al Qaeda wanted to attack San Francisco. O'Reilly denied it and accused Senator Dodd of reading his transcripts on Media Matters. Warning, the transcript that follows includes some profanity on O'Reilly's part. Here's how it went down:

DODD: Talking about Al Qaeda attacking San Francisco, blowing up San Francisco. That’s not offensive?

O'REILLY: When did I say that, senator?

DODD: You said it in 2005, I think is correct.

O'REILLY: What forum? When?

DODD: Right here I believe on your show.

O'REILLY: You are wrong. I didn't say it here. You don't know what the hell I said with all due respect. You got it from Media Matters. You didn't hear it and you don't know.

Since Mr. O'Reilly specifically mentions Media Matters, I think it's worth while to see what the Fox News transcripts Media Matters says Bill O'Reilly said on November 8, 2005 on The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

2007-08-04 16:10:38 · 12 answers · asked by El Duderino 4

Why is it so many people are concerned about Arnold running? He can't be president right? To be president, besides being 35 years old, you have to be born in the US and lived here for 14 years or more. So there's no way he can be president right? God, what kind of people would elect him? Body building, acting, then president! Ugh. Please say that this can't happen

2007-08-04 16:06:07 · 9 answers · asked by Shannon! 5

2007-08-04 15:57:19 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does anybody recall, what the reaction of the Politicians and the Public was, after the hole was blown into the S.S.Cole?

2007-08-04 15:53:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

your underware doesn't fit? i seems he gets blamed for everything else sorry I have a hard time typing fingers dont go were I want them to(stroke)

2007-08-04 15:41:14 · 19 answers · asked by and socialism 4

He is guilty of criminal conspiracy, high treason, and he is working hard to destroy america and lying/decieving millions of people

2007-08-04 15:23:13 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-04 15:20:50 · 23 answers · asked by eldude 5

just wondering.

2007-08-04 15:18:48 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-04 15:18:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

If you are an American, that is.
If you are an Iraqi, we already know you don't feel safer. Once again, allow me to apologize on behalf of America for that.

2007-08-04 15:08:32 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

..and stuck a camera and microphone in your face and said. that do you think 911 was an inside job? and then say that did you know the u.s. government planned to commit terrorism in this country and blame it on another country, and finally said BUSH Is a member of skull and bones where he has mock child sacrifice?????


Watch this Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnliRXAIyIo

2007-08-04 15:08:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Story link for all the Miami/Dade liberals who still cant understand...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy

quote 1
Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring — at least for the time being — calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

quote 2
Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.

once again this is the liberal agenda of the pelosi/reid regime run amuck. when you leave that much on the table to be thought out later how is this right?

2007-08-04 15:06:17 · 7 answers · asked by koalatcomics 7

The nation, whether they know it or not, has gotten 2 great lessons in constitutional law this month. First, the Senate tried to force Presidential advisors to testify about Presidential decisions. This violates the balances of powers. Second, the Justice Department seized official documents from a legislator's office and a court has demanded those documents be returned.

While one branch may investigate illegal actions taken by another, they cannot make broad claims to access documents or testimony from the other branch which are not shown to be linked to an illegal act.

Hence, the Congress was correct in demanding that Nixon turn over tapes which related to a known crime that occured. But, the Congress is wrong to demand testimony from Rove or others regarding to firing prosecutors, because there is no underlying crime. (The president has full discretion to fire federal prosecutors and does not need Congress' approval or oversight.) It's a clear case, but libs will lie.

2007-08-04 15:03:10 · 6 answers · asked by A Plague on your houses 5

& why was this question removed it the first place?

2007-08-04 15:02:49 · 20 answers · asked by mike h 3

That Left-leaning liberals and Bush bashers will automatically say it is a conspiracy?

Sad, but probably true.

2007-08-04 14:59:03 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

McCarthyism was vindicated by the VENONA files, so why haven't liberals apologized?

2007-08-04 14:51:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Today, liberals consider any reference to "McCarthyism" as an automatic pass, for any pro-communist or pro-soclialist behavior. The McCarthism oppression, To Kill a MockingBird" and your teachers inspiring you with abortion rights, are the first rites of entering into liberalism & socialism.

What about Jane Fonda betraying P.O.W.'s who thought they could trust her when she sided with the Viet Cong.

Danny Glover having to be separated with a firehose and crowbar, from Chavez.

Timohy Sarandon and Sean Penn running to embrace any enemy of the USA.

Aside from McCarthy's extreme and aggressive style, was he really wrong? Were any of the people he pointed a finger, anywhere as hideous as Fonda, Penn or Timothy Sarandon?

2007-08-04 14:43:44 · 11 answers · asked by ? 7

Won't she feel that she has already reached her goal by becoming the first woman president?
Will she decide to just play it safe, and not make too many waves?

2007-08-04 14:26:18 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-04 14:23:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

-Then it would make sense that capitalist immoral ideas that sell is good for the government.
Think of that the next time you complain about "immorality" being pushed in the "liberal" media, such as "feminism"(great for corporations), abortion, premarital sex, gay lifestyle, etc.
What could be more capitalist than making an easy buck?
Don't try to control them or tell them what to do, that would be "socialism".

2007-08-04 14:15:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-04 14:09:30 · 21 answers · asked by sally 1

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NAUArticles.html

A Few of The 2005 Bush Task Force Recommendations

The recommendations of the Task Force fall into two broad categories
that correspondwith the imperative to build a safer and more prosperous
continent.The Task Force also proposes reforms and institutions within
each of the three governments to promote progress in these areas. The
Task Force has framed its recommendations into shorter-term measures
that should be pursued now, and long-term steps to be implemented
by 2010.
Making North America Safer

Security
The threat of international terrorismoriginates for the most part outside
North America. Our external borders are a critical line of defense against this threat.Any weakness in controlling access to NorthAmerica from abroad reduces the security of the continent as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intracontinental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within North America.
September 11 highlighted the need for new approaches to border management. In December 2001, Canada and the United States signed the Smart Border Declaration and an associated 30-point Action Plan to secure border infrastructure, facilitate the secure movement of people
and goods, and share information. A similar accord, the United States-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement, and its 22-point Action Plan, Building a North American Community
were signed in March 2002. Both agreements included measures to facilitate faster border crossings for pre-approved travelers, develop and promote systems to identify dangerous people and goods, relieve congestion at borders, and revitalize cross-border cooperation mechanisms
and information sharing. The three leaders pledged additional measures at their March 2005 summit meeting.
The defense of North America must also consist of a more intense level of cooperation among security personnel of the three countries, both within North America and beyond the physical boundaries of the continent. The Container Security Initiative, for example, launched by the United States in the wake of 9/11, involves the use of intelligence, analysis, and inspection of containers not at the border but at a growing number of overseas ports from which goods are shipped. The ultimate goal is to provide screening of all containers destined for any port in North America, so that once unloaded from ships, containers may cross land borders within the region without the need for further inspections

2007-08-04 14:08:28 · 14 answers · asked by Enigma 6

I voted for Bush and I will tell you why. John K. has a long face and he is a flip floper(*I think that is a profession that involves constructing beach foot wear.) I wish Bush could run a third term because he knows freedom.

2007-08-04 14:02:37 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

Shock jocks ... only Stern is up front about it.

2007-08-04 14:01:58 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#Passion_and_resurrection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris#Osirian_sacrament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Basic_beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Religious_doctrine_and_Principles_of_Faith

Hmmmm.

2007-08-04 14:00:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Compared to Stalin, Hitler was a amateur in the genocide business. I honestly think we fought against the wrong country.

2007-08-04 13:56:25 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

who had suddenly changed their mind, when in fact they had supported the war from the beginning?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/

2007-08-04 13:54:27 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous