Politics - 10 August 2007

2007-08-10 14:21:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 14:19:57 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

If most gays are born that way, and are not attracted to the same sex, do they have the ability to comprehend that straight people are attracted to each other and why?

I know that on my own behalf, I can't imagine being attracted to someone of the same sex and am wondering if they feel the same way towards us. Not being able to understand how straight people can be attracted to each other because it's something that they're incapable of feeling? Just wondering, and it would really be interesting to read some responses.

Thanks. :)

2007-08-10 14:17:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does she wear them to bed???

2007-08-10 14:16:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/10/can-obama-sing/

Asked if Obama himself had a favorite song he would like to sing, the presidential frontrunner broke out into an admirable rendition of “Mexico Lindo y Querido,” a song by Latin pop artist Maria Jose Quintanilla. The song, which translates into "Beautiful and Beloved Mexico," is a popular song south of the border.

Is he AUDITIONING for them? Why not an AMERICAN song?
Does he want to be President of Mexico or the USA?

2007-08-10 14:15:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

to reclaim their "conservative" base? Are the social and christian conservatives tearing the GOP apart? Should the GOP just stop trying to legislate people's morals?

2007-08-10 14:13:56 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 14:13:51 · 13 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

But who should his running mate be?

Cheney is probably the most evil, but I don't see Cthulhu as a Republican.

Hilary maybe?

2007-08-10 14:13:12 · 3 answers · asked by Mayor Adam West 7

2007-08-10 14:07:53 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

considering the recent bank-bail-out?

2007-08-10 14:04:54 · 9 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_221230933.html

Two Marines cleared of charges in Iraqi deaths

LOS ANGELES — All charges have been dismissed against two Marines accused in the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, the Marine Corps announced Thursday.

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, of Canonsburg, Pa., was charged with murdering three brothers. Capt. Randy Stone, 35, a battalion lawyer from Dunkirk, Md., was charged with failing to adequately report and investigate the Nov. 19, 2005, combat action in which women and children were among the dead.

The decision could provide ammunition for political opponents of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown.

In May 2006, the congressman created a firestorm by saying Marines had killed innocent women and children “in cold blood” during the attacks. Murtha said U.S. troops overreacted and that nearly twice as many people were killed than first reported.

2007-08-10 14:04:29 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

how has Bush gotten this far without getting canned.
Clinton showed this penis to a clerk, but Bush showed his penis to the world. go figure

2007-08-10 13:59:37 · 5 answers · asked by Eric the Great *USA* 4

2007-08-10 13:59:04 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-10 13:52:38 · 15 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

Your rating:

1. Very important (Historically).
2. Fairly important.
3. Not very important.
4. Not important at all.
And why?

And will you be voting?

2007-08-10 13:50:55 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know in general they don't want government anywhere that isn't expressly acknowledged in the constitution and such but what about things like gay marriage, abortion, foreign policy, ect...?

2007-08-10 13:49:06 · 8 answers · asked by TJ815 4

I do not understand how anyone could support Bush especially after his last 7 years of political failures. Under the Bush administration America has fallen to it's lowest depths and the constitution has been raped almost to it's death. The facts are so bluntly abundant I don't see how anyone could support this tyranny under this dictatorship.
On this continued path we will soon have no liberties and freedoms left, all gone in the name of terrorism. Whats so sad is that most Americans will proudly give up their Liberties and Freedoms for the deceiving promise of security. Now do you really think that our government can truely provide complete security? No way, No how. There will never be security as long as their is hate and no matter what we do their will always be some kind of hate that exists.
Bush has raped the constitution, spied on HIS citizens illegally, abused HIS powers of executive order and continually LIED to the American people.

It's time to IMPEACH BUSH!

No to the NWO

2007-08-10 13:25:54 · 12 answers · asked by Chaoticfreedoms 3

If America were really threatened, and really under attack we we would have no problem finding troops. There would be line-ups around the block at recruiting offices. The military would have to triple its recruiting staff to accomodate citizens wanting to join! Americans would be desparate to contribute to any effort to protect this country.

But Iraq never attacked America. They never had WMDs, nor did they pose any threat to us. This unjust and unnecessary war has turned people off the armed forces.

The threats against us now can be solved through political and diplomatic actions.

A draft would only anger Americans and cause more instability. And it would be stupid, because if we really needed more men in the Army we would have no problem getting them.

What do you think?

2007-08-10 13:25:06 · 19 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1

In response to recent market drops, the Federal Reserve increased the money supply.

The Fed said in a statement, "'The Federal Reserve is providing liquidity to facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets."

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070810/bs_nm/centralbanks_dc_4

2007-08-10 13:10:15 · 16 answers · asked by Steve 6

For example, one con said giving gays the right to marry is not about equal rights but "special rights." He said gays never had that right to begin with since this nation was founded.

Well I can think of a few rights people did not have when this nation was founded too:
- the right not to be owned
- the right to marry of a different race
- the right for women to own property, vote, and hold office
- the same rights for minorities, etc,etc

You know who else are big "traditionalists"?

TERRORISTS! They're as backward as they come.

2007-08-10 13:08:14 · 10 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3

Now that Bush is succeeding in Iraq the UN comes back in to try and take partial credit.
Libs deny the surge is working, and it is working or the UN would not be coming back into the picture. Libs will give all the success to UN, and say Bush was not successful. To bad the Democrats will only be known as quitters. Dems did everything they could to prevent winning the war on terror.

2007-08-10 13:03:16 · 12 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-08-10 13:00:02 · 10 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-10 12:56:04 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-10 12:52:21 · 17 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-10 12:50:44 · 9 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-08-10 12:37:44 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Shouldn't the voters consider the most competent candidate over the candidate that most follows the party line? Isn't it time to end the partisan control of federal agencies?
With all the "broken" federal agencies, shouldn't the next president be considering removing the thick layer of political appointees from the upper ranks of federal agencies and replace them with merit based appointments?
All the upper tier candidates in both parties having been debating ideology, who's the most liberal and who's the most conservative. None are talking about who is the most competent. None are discussing how they will fix our broken system of partisan government.
Does America simply want to elect the most conservative or the most liberal candidate? Or, do we want the most competent candidate regardless of ideology?

2007-08-10 12:36:55 · 14 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6

2007-08-10 12:36:30 · 4 answers · asked by Valdez 1

Although India's Muslims are ONLY 12% of the Indian population, they constitute the world's second largest muslim population. A reality which is even more saddening when one considers the fact that they were all supposed to leave India in 1947 and that India should theoretically not have a single Muslim living there.

At the rate that they are breeding, estimates indicate that by 2050 they shall possibly be 50% of the Indian population. This will have catastrophic consequences for India's already depleted and underdeveloped resources, infrastructure. But more importantly it shall cause great social and religious conflict, a civil war with another masses of killings and may even possibly bring about another partition of the country.

Do you agree with me that it is about time the Indian government starts to introduce incentives for Muslims to emigrate from India, in an endeavour to preserve Hindu demographic predominance and to preclude any possible future genocides???

2007-08-10 12:25:31 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

Am I the only one who is having a hard time finding a candidate to support based on the current choices available? While I can find something to support in almost every candidates purported platform, none of them offer enough substance for me to throw my support behind them wholeheartedly. Are these politicians truly the best that America has to offer? Is there anyone you would like to see announce their candidacy who has yet to do so? In your opinion, are their any politicians out there who are truly for the people? I don't care what their political affiliation is, as long as they have the best interests of America, and her citizens at heart.

2007-08-10 12:15:54 · 7 answers · asked by What's The Point 3