Politics - 6 August 2007

One told my friend at a barmitzva [dont know how to spell that] .. that he was going to die at a young age..crazy right?? I never been to a physic but i want them to tell me about my future career.

i do think that lady silvia browne on montel is real.

2007-08-06 14:43:24 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.reformk12.com/archives/000094.nclk

2007-08-06 14:42:37 · 21 answers · asked by junglejoe 2

A black mom in Washington DC fought to get black kids into decent school?

She forced Top Democrats KENNEDY, Durbin and Landrieu to confront their racism they showed by being against black kids.

She took out national ads.

ON TV she compared Kennedy to Bull Connor --- the police chief who sent dogs after Martin Luther King, Jr.

She compared Durbin to George Wallace.

She published a full page ads that stated the refusal by Dem Senators to let black kids go to the same school as their white kid.


http://www.paschoolchoice.org/reach/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=570531

2007-08-06 14:39:31 · 10 answers · asked by junglejoe 2

Hillary first supports the war, then not. Kerry was made from that SAME mold- BOTH flip floppers!

2007-08-06 14:37:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

more money for this....

more money for that....

but are your children learning??????

2007-08-06 14:35:33 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

It was signed into law yesterday by President Bush.

2007-08-06 14:20:54 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

How do you feel about a first women president? I think Hilary is a very smart women and a lot on the ball. I just hope she follows through what she promises. education for one. Others have not.I work with young people out of high school & it saddens me some can't even count change or read instruction & follow them. Our country needs a STRONG leader for education.

2007-08-06 14:20:10 · 17 answers · asked by yorkiedog28 3

Two prominent polls carried out by Zogby International and the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies indicate that anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high. The survey, by Zogby International, was done in six "US friendly" countries of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In these six "friendly" countries, only 12 percent of those surveyed expressed favorable attitudes toward the United States. America's leaders have surpassed Israel's as objects of anger. Asked which foreign leader they disliked most, 38 percent named George Bush; Ariel Sharon was a distant second at 11 percent.

2007-08-06 14:09:57 · 15 answers · asked by GL Supreme 3

Expiring tax relief, big spending on the agenda for Congress.


When Republicans passed major tax relief packages in 2001 and 2003, we predicted that a booming economy, new jobs for millions of Americans, and an increase in investment and innovation would result. The past several years have proved our theory correct: When government gets out of the way, the American people will get to work.

The 2001 and 2003 tax reductions have spurred more than five years of uninterrupted growth. The economy grew at a robust 3.4 percent in the second quarter of 2007. Productivity growth has averaged 2.8 percent since 2001, considerably above the average of each of the past three decades. Since August 2003, our economy has created more than 8.2 million jobs, and the current unemployment rate is just 4.5 percent, lower than the averages of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Wages have been on the rise, and real after-tax income is up 9.9 percent since President Bush took office, an average of nearly $3,000 per person.

The tax relief has helped produce an economy that has generated higher than expected tax revenues for the federal government. Tax receipts have risen 37 percent over the last three years and are projected to increase another 7 percent this year. These rising tax receipts have, in turn, helped drive down the deficit, which is projected to drop significantly in 2007 for the third year in a row. The deficit this year is expected to measure just 1.5 percent of GDP, considerably below the average of the last 40 years.

The tax relief we passed has had exactly the effect we intended — it has spurred growth and innovation and created jobs and opportunities for millions of Americans. But continuing this growth requires continuing the policies that have produced this growth in the first place. Failing to extend the tax relief we have passed would result in a de facto tax hike that could cripple our economy and undo much of the progress we have made over the last few years.

Lowering taxes on income and investment encourages people to work more and invest more, because they get a greater return on their work and investments. This extra work and investment creates new jobs, increases productivity, and encourages innovation and development — in other words, produces economic growth, as we saw with the 2001 and 2003 tax relief.

Raising taxes, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. As rates increase, the rewards of labor and investment decrease. People see more of their income and the returns on their investments eaten up by taxes, and this gives them little incentive to work more or invest more. Without new labor and investment, economic growth grinds to a halt, and the economy stagnates.

Unfortunately, Democrats have approved a budget that fails to extend the bulk of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief — most of which is set to expire in the next few years — resulting in a staggering tax hike of at least $736 billion. Most notably, the Democrats’ budget fails to extend the lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends and most of the income tax relief we’ve passed, the two provisions that have done the most to spur the strong economic growth of the past several years.

In addition to this massive tax hike, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are also proposing another growth-stifling tax hike to pay for alternative minimum tax relief, this one a 4 percent tax hike on higher income Americans and small business owners. Almost 20 million Americans will be liable for the AMT this year if Congress doesn’t act. While Republicans strongly agree that the AMT must be fixed once and for all so that it doesn’t target millions of middle-class families, paying for an AMT fix with a tax hike is not the answer.

Raising taxes on these Americans would place a particularly heavy burden on small businesses, most of which are taxed at the individual level. Small businesses employ half of all private sector employees and have been responsible for 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs created annually over the last ten years. Burdening successful small businesses with significant tax hikes, as the Democrats’ plan would do, would jeopardize future economic growth and job creation.

The success of Republican tax relief policies is clear. In contrast, raising taxes — by allowing tax relief to expire or by passing burdensome new tax hikes — would threaten the progress our economy has made and discourage future growth. Democrats should remember the millions of taxpayers who have benefited from the tax relief we’ve passed and work with Republicans to extend the tax relief and reject new taxes.

2007-08-06 14:06:52 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-08-06 13:59:14 · 11 answers · asked by Ethan M 5

BUSH OR CLINTON

2007-08-06 13:54:33 · 19 answers · asked by diamondbaby_19 2

Im more than a little bored and disgusted with the two party system. Both parties are filled with coruption and hair brained agendas. Right now third party candidates only siphon votes from one or the other of the main two parties. (Example.. Perot, Nader, Liberatarians etc.) Do you think this will ever change?

2007-08-06 13:45:52 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-06 13:44:18 · 15 answers · asked by anonacoup 7

The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.

Warrantless "National Security" Searches

The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.

The warrant clause was designed to give the American people greater security than that afforded by the mere words of politicians. It requires the attorney general, or others, to make a showing of "probable cause" to a magistrate. The proponents of national security searches are hard-pressed to find any support for their position in the text or history of the Constitution. That is why they argue from the "inherent authority" of the Oval Office--a patently circular argument. The scope of such "authority" is of course unbounded in principle. Yet the Clinton Justice Department has said that the warrant clause is fully applicable to murder suspects but not to persons suspected of violating the export control regulations of the federal government. [52] If the Framers had wanted to insert a national security exception to the warrant clause, they would have done so. They did not.

The Clinton administration's national security exception to the warrant clause is nothing more, of course, than an unsupported assertion of power by executive branch officials. The Nixon administration relied on similar constitutional assertions in the 1970s to rationalize "black bag" break-ins to the quarters of its political opponents. [53] The Clinton White House--even after the Filegate scandal--assures Congress, the media, and the general public that it has no intention of abusing this power.

Attorney General Reno has already signed off on the warrantless search of an American home on the basis of the dubious "inherent authority" theory. [54] The actual number of clandestine "national security" searches conducted since 1993 is known only to the White House and senior Justice Department officials.

Warrantless Searches of Public Housing

In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional. [55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]

The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants. [57]

The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants. [58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling. [59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people. [60]

Warrantless Drug Testing in Public Schools

The Clinton administration has defended warrantless drug testing programs in the public schools. In March 1995 the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether public school officials could drug test student athletes without a warrant or any articulable suspicion of illegal drug use. The Department of Justice sided with the school authorities, arguing that the privacy rights of individual students were outweighed by the interest of the school in deterring drug use by the student body generally. [61]

Solicitor General Days, arguing for the government, claimed that the school district "could not effectively educate its students unless it undertook suspicionless drug testing as part of a broader drug-prevention program." [62] Days maintained that the Fourth Amendment's requirement of individualized suspicion would "jeopardize" the school's drug program. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter expressed skepticism about that claim and pointed out that if the Supreme Court followed the Justice Department's reasoning, America's public school students might well end up receiving less constitutional protection under the Fourth Amendment than do convicted criminals under correctional supervision. [63]

The Clinton administration supports warrantless drug tests in other contexts as well. Thus, when Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole said, during the 1996 campaign, that he would subject welfare recipients to warrantless, suspicionless drug tests, President Clinton quickly followed suit with his own approval of such an initiative. [64]

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]

2007-08-06 13:37:56 · 7 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-08-06 13:34:39 · 14 answers · asked by eldude 5

Do neo-cons ever take responsibility for their actions?

2007-08-06 13:30:50 · 10 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

Previous post:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtFDVkexJcnWmN2u7eU6QBvY7BR.?qid=20070806172107AAwnzyD

They do not understand the difference between a president and a dictator. They must be neo-cons...

2007-08-06 13:26:22 · 8 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-06 13:25:59 · 15 answers · asked by eldude 5

2007-08-06 13:22:24 · 25 answers · asked by the d 6

Gonzales is the only overseer of Bush's warrant-less wiretaps. Gonzales! LOLOLOLOL

2007-08-06 13:21:07 · 19 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-06 13:18:31 · 12 answers · asked by ? 2

2007-08-06 13:06:04 · 16 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The government is falling apart and people have bad food, little fuel, water and electricity is on the brink of failure across the country. Is this Bush's definition of success?

2007-08-06 13:02:55 · 13 answers · asked by michaelsan 6

Which candidates / politicians deserve a pie in the face?

2007-08-06 12:57:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

DailyKos traffics in HATE -pure and simple. The democratic presidential candidates, once again, reveal to us who they really are: A bunch of leftwing communists haters. They refuse to come before the moderates in their party by avoiding the Democratic Leadership Council's convention. Liberalism is a terminal cancer; the democratic party is infected in a big way. Hey all you moderate dems, do you STILL feel you have a seat at the table in your party?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_el_pr/snubbing_moderates;_ylt=Aj.dfYvvF3gwKLk9RjNrrxSs0NUE

update: The media white washes who these people are and what dailykos represents, while simultaneously trashing Bill O'Reilly for uncovering the hatred that is Dailykos. Fair?

2007-08-06 12:55:30 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Both have polarized the country and none that are running are great leaders by any means. Most of them on both sides are Kerry quality at best.

2007-08-06 12:51:24 · 29 answers · asked by ? 6

Terrorism became a part of life during the 1972 Olympics so this will be a problem for many years to come. If the argument is the President needs to consolidate power to fight terrorism, should all future Presidents do the same?

2007-08-06 12:35:27 · 19 answers · asked by donronsen 6

2007-08-06 12:20:41 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

1 pic) http://www.shawneemasoniclodge54.com/Steps%20of%20Freemasonry.jpg
2pic) http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cornerstone.jpg
3pic) http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/bestvintage/photogallery_02.html
4pic) http://www.infowars.com/exclusive_new_bg.htm
5pic)http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00158/images/bonesmen.jpg
6pic) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Statue_of_George_Washington_at_The_Washington_National_Cathedral.JPG
7pic) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/IAO-logo.png/225px-IAO-logo.png
8pic) http://www.takver.com/history/lh_gifs/secsoc06.jpg
9pic) http://nmazca.com/3142857/dc_pentagram.gif
10pic) http://www.kt70.com/~jamesjpn/images/illuminati-witchcraft.jpg


(movie) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4854686992345665111&q=riddles&total=3677&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

2007-08-06 12:20:22 · 4 answers · asked by RON PAUL for President 2008 2

2007-08-06 12:15:23 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous