Politics - 15 August 2007

(In regards to anything) Is this a sign of loss of freedom of speech?

2007-08-15 13:25:54 · 30 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

His programs in his state focused on helping the uninsured GET insured USING the private system we have here in America and not turning to a national healthcare non-solution.

He said doing so was cheaper then simply paying hospitals and it encouraged responsibility.

Are there any other great ideas like this kicking around amongst conservatives?

Libs, if all youre going to come with is national healthcare is great, we wanna be just like europe, etc etc. Save it. I already know democrats have NO good ideas for healthcare.

2007-08-15 13:23:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some people seem to think that these three rule the country and are making laws. The fact of the matter is that they are entertainers and are expressing opinions which they have the right to do under the first amendment (the same as with Michael Moore) If you don't like what they have to say don't listen.

2007-08-15 13:22:42 · 22 answers · asked by Ethan M 5

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvide...

I know you conservatives don't like my source but it's video of Cheney himself, can't deny that, and no whining about Move on being biased against conservative
If I had a dollar for every time a conservative whined about someone being biased against them I would be able to pay off the debt George Bush has run up

2007-08-15 13:17:59 · 9 answers · asked by crushinator01 5

2007-08-15 13:13:42 · 29 answers · asked by the d 6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_el_pr/obama_open_government

So many emotionally driven, hypersensitive, overreacting cons have said that liberals blame everything on Bush. I've been saying for years that Bush is only responsible for that which is Bush's. Now Obama says the same thing.

So I want to know, are you guys all confused now?

2007-08-15 13:13:16 · 8 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6

2007-08-15 13:06:36 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."

2007-08-15 13:02:43 · 8 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Also do you think Rove's departure is beneficial to the Democrats. If so, how and why?

2007-08-15 12:58:30 · 10 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

2007-08-15 12:57:25 · 17 answers · asked by somber 3

Is it all Clinton's fault?

2007-08-15 12:57:16 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

war on terror? Almost six full years after nine-eleven and anyone can still walk across. Is this his way of keeping America safe?

2007-08-15 12:50:07 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

This blog excerpt is courtesy of George. From his blog--->


"I'm confused. I can't understand it. Maybe you can.
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head.
Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

2007-08-15 12:45:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

i see a magazine saying he is and then people on Y!A saying he's not.. i need acurate answers.. so if he's muslims thats really cool hope he wins 2008

2007-08-15 12:39:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

this seems to be Republican foriegn policy at work?

I asked "why is pakistan an ally?"... no. 1 reason... because they have the bomb... is that a good reason? espeically since most experts think Osama is there?

I've also noticed that we've talked with N. Korea and made deals with them under Bush when they got the bomb?

and hardly a peep about China and everything they do...

is this why Iran wants it so bad? it seems if you have the bomb... you can host Osama in your nation and the U.S. won't bother you?

here's the question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al4srMY8w2qhr7GjtaFenP_sy6IX?qid=20070814231007AASqbSL

2007-08-15 12:29:48 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you have your PhD?
How many books have you written?

It's funny how liberals always insult someone that is highly more intelligent.

2007-08-15 12:27:25 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

to fund a border fence to prevent illegal immigration?

I mean if he is as concerned about it as he claims, would he not have done so?

2007-08-15 12:25:37 · 7 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7

Here are other questions to consider as well:

Should Christians support the idea of a Jewish state?

Does Jerusalem "belong" to the Jews, and Christians to a lesser extent? Do Muslims have a right to the land as well?

2007-08-15 12:19:56 · 16 answers · asked by Kaye00 1

2007-08-15 12:10:18 · 8 answers · asked by William O 1

2007-08-15 12:05:27 · 12 answers · asked by bush l 1

2007-08-15 11:56:39 · 11 answers · asked by El Duderino 4

A far as I can see, she is only try to do some good in the world.
And she certainly can't do any worse than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration.

2007-08-15 11:45:37 · 16 answers · asked by Penny 1

I'm not against either of them...I just don't think that will ever happen in America. What do you think????????????

2007-08-15 11:44:13 · 34 answers · asked by Daw 1

LMAO !!!

2007-08-15 11:41:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

If the Government is listening to key words and phrases that would indicate mass murder would you still have a problem with it?

If you said no to this question...and yes to the other...please point out why you differ in the answer. I am curious to know your reasoning.

Sorry...about being late on this question

2007-08-15 11:41:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I agree that it is nice and all that. But thinking logically, if all the countries who have socialized medicine have an economy surplus, how can we manage a program with our deficit economy without it being wickedly below par?

2007-08-15 11:35:07 · 14 answers · asked by Conner McMurph 2

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA

Does anyone else remember this? It sort of reminds me of when I was a kid during the 80s and how the US and the Soviet Union constantly demonized each other. Not exactly pleasant memories, but oh the nostalgia!:)

2007-08-15 11:26:14 · 6 answers · asked by tangerine 7

Love or hate Michael Savage, he still has the right to say and think whatever he wants. (Just as Al Franken, Rosie Odonnell etc etc.)

Why did the City Of San Fransisco try to silence his right to free speech?

2007-08-15 11:18:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Unemployment in Zimbabwe: 80%
Price of 1 roll of toilet paper in Zimbabwe: $145,750.00
Inflation in Zimbabwe: 1600%
Other: Mugabes government thugs beat, torture and terrorize political opposition etc.

How long will America hold the UN as a beacon peace?

2007-08-15 11:16:39 · 9 answers · asked by Jonny 2

He said early in his presidency. Is he gonna flip flop on that.
Gross pollution may be a preferrable way the "stay the course"
...ya think?

(note - sarcasm in my voice... hello?)

so what to do?

2007-08-15 11:04:46 · 21 answers · asked by omnimog 4