Politics - 9 August 2007

I've come to the conclusion that war in iraq isn;t about terrorism or oil. neither theory really makes sense for reasons I don't feel like wasting time going into (I'm sure you know the arguements) What I think Is Bush in fact is not a moron and the war is going EXACTLY the way he wanted it too. Thnk about it, a couple of thousand of American soldiers have died, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. I think Bush's major plan was to turn the muslims agianst each other. They may hate us, but it seems they hate each other more. This was in check before the war in Iraq, you didn't see Muslims killing each other much, but now it happens every day. They seem more intent on killing each other then on attacking us. So maybe Bush isn't dumb, maybe he's really a genius who has decided to turn the Muslims against each other. There's really no proof of this just a theory, but it fits.

2007-08-09 06:41:42 · 17 answers · asked by Chuckles 4

Considering the fragmented state of Iraqi politics, should the UN do more to promote reconciliation amongst the numerous factions at odds with each other? Also, with a lack of adequate infrustructure and "nation building" going at a snail's pace, should the UN also get more involved in reconstruction efforts as well?

2007-08-09 06:40:36 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Despite the vast majority of us being anti-war, Bush just ignores us and ploughs ahead.

2007-08-09 06:40:28 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Would you consider it dangerous to ask people to publish their ideas on how to kill everyone in the Democratic Party ?

How About If They Asked How To Kill Everyone In Your State ?

How About Your Town ?

How About Your Family ?

That's exactly what the New York Times reporter did !! And that's exactly what some ******** user on here did !!!

This is one of those issues that's important for EVERY American to understand .

What Should Be Done With Those Who Do This ?

2007-08-09 06:37:23 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 06:33:13 · 22 answers · asked by Page 4

Does the government provide it? The military? Do we pay for it with taxes? Do we have to earn it?

Or are our liberties the inherent right of all Americans, as our founding fathers believed?

I suspect a lot of people here would fail high school physics.

2007-08-09 06:30:05 · 13 answers · asked by goldspider79 3

2007-08-09 06:29:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

By John Stossel
"On, Wisconsin ... run the ball clear down the field!"
It's time to amend the Wisconsin football song so we can cheer on the Badger State's politicians as they move toward health-care socialism.
The Wall Street Journal editorial-page editors are upset that Wisconsin's state Senate passed "Healthy Wisconsin", which will give health insurance to every person in the state. Of course, the Journal editors are right in saying that the plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs" and that the "Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes."
In addition, as the Journal put it, "Wow, is 'free' health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/let_wisconsin_experiment_with.html
So folks, do you think this will work, or will businesses begin closing down and moving elsewhere? This might be the test run that this country needs. What are your opinions?

2007-08-09 06:27:35 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

He opposes a 5cent gas tax to fund rebuilding crumbling bridges nationwide.
Does that mean he was right to cut the funds in the first place and hand our road maintenance over to private sector roads investment for usage-fee in SAFETEA-LU? Because it looks like private sector isn't interested: Can I interest you in a bridge for sale, cheap?

2007-08-09 06:17:52 · 29 answers · asked by oohhbother 7

2007-08-09 06:12:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 06:10:33 · 23 answers · asked by Not so looney afterall 5

We all know that when people are taxed less ON INCOME they spend more on goods and services...WHICH ARE TAXED, thus providing for increased tax revenues. So, doesn't increased revenues mean that americans are paying MORE in taxes? Does anyone see the shell game that is called lowering income tax rates, and RAISING sales tax? Also, does fiscal conservatism begin and end with paying less? Or should it ALSO include SPENDING LESS? I ask because I answered a question and was given a thumbs down for wanting this clarified for me.

2007-08-09 05:44:18 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

That would be a fair and balanced way of representing both sides
of the issues thats for sure. They both represent the extremes of both parties.

2007-08-09 05:42:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 05:42:06 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 05:30:19 · 19 answers · asked by amazed we've survived this l 4

Or a United White person college fund? Or a series of colleges that only admit whites? Or affirmative action that benefits white males? Its seems blacks have all of these things, but if a white man wants to have something exclusively for his race, that is racist? All of this in the country of equal rights? How about instead of giving whites all of these, blacks get over themselves, Get over slavery, and live like regular people now? Or is that too much to ask?

2007-08-09 05:30:08 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just wanted to see my question (above) on the list. Flail away!

2007-08-09 05:24:26 · 11 answers · asked by Who Else? 7

OK, now as much as I would love to hear everyone's opinions on this, I would actually like to try an experiment. So, give me your opinions on the matter but..


Also list your political party. It would be fun to note which party support this idea, and which rejects it.

Now, if people from one party overwhelmingly reject this idea, do you think maybe they know that those of lesser intelligence vote for their party, and they are afraid of losing votes? Let's see.


The test would be one that someone rich or poor, black or white, male or female could equally pass providing they are of the acceptable intelligence.

I am a Republican, and I am for it. Why should someone elect the leader of the free world if they are not smart enough to understand the issues?

2007-08-09 05:21:25 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 05:12:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Like em or not , FoxNews is #1 . That's fact . Ok now , many Democratic candidates have made many disparaging remarks about Fox , and some have even gone so far as to demand that Fox give equal airtime to the left . . . .which is bs anyway imo . (btw , I don't think CNN should be forced to give equal time to the right either)
Edwards and others have refused to even appear on Fox , and most of the Democratic candidates won't participate in a Fox sponsored debate . . . .. . . won't participate on the #1 most watched news in the country .

Considering the above , and the over-whelming popularity of Fox amongst AMERICANS . . . . . Do You Think The Democratic Party candidates are shooting themselves in the foot ?
Don't get me wrong , I don't mind if they do , but doncha think the American public will be wise enough come election time , to see that the Democrats are avoiding confrontation on their views ?
And doncha think a LEADER should be willing to confront ALL sides ?

2007-08-09 05:08:11 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am all for not raising gas taxes, but now we need a solution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070809/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

2007-08-09 05:05:20 · 9 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

I'm very liberal and proud of it, my reactions to the current misunderstanding by so many of the word range from cracking up laughing to sheer frustration. =)

Liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, meaning suitable for a free man/person, doubt anyone could object so far. It is an adjective basically meaning generous, open, unfettered by authoritanism, orthodoxy and tradition. Synonyms include charitable, philanthropic, benevolent, advanced. progressive, open-minded and tolerant. Liberty is the noun basically meaning, independence, emancipation, liberation and autonomy, synonyms include freedom and license.

People vary in the degree to which they are liberal, those with small c conservative/right of centre political beliefs are often pretty liberal but it is true that the further right political belief becomes the more illiberal the person is too. A liberal person can be radical but never reactionary and frightened of change for the common good.

2007-08-09 05:03:47 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

When it is a forum of the people? People write and edit the entries on wikipedia, and people hit the report button on Yahoo Answers. Does the right mean to say that the MAJORITY has a liberal bias? Or PEOPLE have a liberal bias?

2007-08-09 04:59:21 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

It sure appears that the country is so polarized that the good of the whole is no longer a priority, for some of our public.

The media will not acknowledge the conflict, all we see in the news, negativity directed by liberals as if anyone who opposes their views is a criminal.

Are we in the midst of a war of economic preferences? If so, why isn't this the cover story on Time magazine?

2007-08-09 04:56:34 · 14 answers · asked by ? 7

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much. Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view... then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News. But having said all that, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is even more right wing and irrational than most of the commentators on Fox News. And completely predictable... it’s like Pavlov’s dogs.”

—First Lady hopeful Bill Clinton on Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of the WSJ

2007-08-09 04:52:14 · 5 answers · asked by Jasmine 5

I keep seeing people rationalize things we do (such as torture or invading countries that didn't have Al Qeada,) by saying the terrorists do it.... Is that really a good reason to do something? I thought we were supposed to be the good guys, but many people seem to think that since terrorists torture, America should too. Does this mean we should do other things terrorists do, like target civilians, and kill innocents people? where does it start and where does it end? Try to answer without insulting anyone I want to know what people really think.

2007-08-09 04:43:11 · 13 answers · asked by crushinator01 5

Which of the Five Pillars do you feel would be easiest to fulfill, and which would be the most challenging?

2007-08-09 04:41:44 · 4 answers · asked by myragingdemons 1

For instance he said that he went into office in 2001 where the country was headed towards a recession....This is a bold face lie. The national dept was GOING down, people had jobs and people had money to spend.

He also said that he created millions of jobs...but what he didn't say is how many jobs were lost from 9,2001 to when Katrina hit, or the fact that these are SERVICE jobs where people make very little.

WMD..total opposite. Claim that Iraq had Al qaida..wrong and many people KNEW that..but Bush ignored it and did what HE wanted, not what was best for the nation.

Wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive" and then said he wasn't that concerned with him a few months later. How much more are we going to have to deal with him?

2007-08-09 04:25:14 · 16 answers · asked by Fedup Veteran 6

War drums, the war for resources.

2007-08-09 04:21:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

He makes me so proud to be an American. 4.6% unemployment, No major terror attacks since 9/11, Honor & Dignity back in the White House, Saddam dead, Terrorists being killed and Osama hiding in a cave!

2007-08-09 04:19:57 · 14 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4