Politics - 16 August 2007

2007-08-16 03:16:37 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 03:16:07 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

The first Diesel engine ever made ran on Bio Fuel made from Peanut Oil. Rudolph Diesel's vision was for it to run on Hemp.
(I suppose if we did switch to HEMP Mexico would still be a major energy supplier.) (The exhaust might make us more docile?)

Existing Diesel engines can run on Bio with minimal problems. New Diesel engines can run on it with NO problems.
Some municipalities use it exclusively in their fleets.

There will always be a place for fossil fuels but if the use of Bio Diesel became pervasive and diminished or illiminated the need for imports, how do you think the Geopolitical Landscape would change?

PS: Please don't speculate that this wont happen because it already is.
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/contentbe/dispatch/2006/04/12/20060412-B1-03.html
http://www.bio-beetle.com/bio_beetle_faqs.htm
http://www.hempcar.org/diesel.shtml
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldiesel.htm

2007-08-16 03:10:53 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 03:09:46 · 20 answers · asked by truthisback 3

2007-08-16 03:09:23 · 14 answers · asked by jammy s 1

It just shows the average intelligence level of you conservatives on this board. The Cheney clip is now on YouTube but was taken from a news network. I'm sure you could view it on Yahoo video as well. Would you still doubt it's reliability? The point is that he realized the negative ramifications that an invasion of Iraq would have on the region as well as the reputation of our country and it's government. But you conservatives are so brain washed that you will not admit that we do not belong in that country...and why is it that not one conservative addresses the fact as to why we can't defeat these punks with machine guns? Are we not the most powerful fighting force on this planet?...and I guarantee that as a liberal, I love my country more than any conservative because I want more freedoms for my people, not government controlled programs like Homeland Security or some suit telling me what to do with my body. You cons have got it backwards...

2007-08-16 03:06:21 · 12 answers · asked by ClashMan 2

2007-08-16 03:05:48 · 3 answers · asked by truthisback 3

Whether we want to be or not , I think we are . And I asked for Christian's responses because we all follow the Bible(at least our interpretation of it )
Here's the deal . Radical Islamists have determined they are in a religious or Holy war , so whether we like it or not , this is a religious war . Sure we may not be outwardly saying it(I think Bush knows though) but deep-down I think most of us know we are fighting one .
So How does that change anything ? Well knowing our enemy is always key to victory . A person who thinks they're fighting for their God(radical islamists) is more likely to do most anything to win . Hence their barbaric bombing of innocent people worldwide . They have rich fighters and poor fighters . People of all walks of life and finances . But the one common denominator is that they're of the Muslim faith , a Radical Islamist Muslim , but Muslim nonetheless .

Do You Agree ?
Does That Change 'How' We Should Be Fighting This War ?
Will It Change To That ?

2007-08-16 03:04:34 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

The FISA law is very clear. (1) It is a limiting statute - if a program is not covered by FISA and it is not illegal under any other statute, then as long as the program is funded, it's legal. (2) FISA specifically defines the types of "electronic surveillance" to which it applies and it applies only to those types. (3) The monitoring of cross-border communications, using satellites (i.e., not in the US), where the target of the investigation is not a US citizen or legal resident, is not one of the types of electronic surveillance - thus FISA does not apply on those facts.

No rational person can read the FISA statute and not come to this conclusion.

Stop calling it "domestic" wiretapping when it is international, and stop calling it "illegal" wiretapping when it is legal.

You might not agree with it - that's your opinion - that it is not domestic and not illegal are matters of fact.

2007-08-16 02:59:06 · 11 answers · asked by truthisback 3

2007-08-16 02:58:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 02:58:49 · 9 answers · asked by asef kazi 1

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/08/14/rutgers-kia-vaughn-sues-don-imus-for-nappy-headed-ho-comment/

A friend of mine and I was having a serious discussion about this yesterday. We are both black women and I told her that I didn't care what Don Imus said, because this man offends everybody. I thought him getting fired was a little over the top but a punishment should have been set in place for his insensitive remarks.

My friend said that he was white and he shouldn't have said that period and he deserved to be fired.

I disagreed with her on that even though I understood where she was coming from. Don Imus is an entertainer. A shock jock. Your average rapper is also an entertainer and what he or she says is shocking too.

Black women are looked down upon nowadays and a big reason for that is because of the way we are portrayed in the media, specifically by rappers and comedians. If we are going to start suing people for devaluing us, let's not just sue Don Imus.

2007-08-16 02:50:50 · 18 answers · asked by Still Beautifully Conservative 5

2007-08-16 02:49:48 · 9 answers · asked by richard q 1

2007-08-16 02:47:45 · 7 answers · asked by richard q 1

I understand why some people are angry about Bush starting the war, but I would like to see them run the country after the war was started. Bush is in an extremely difficult position; if he withdraws our troops, the Iraqi government can collapse and the insurgents might have an easier time getting our troops, but if he keeps our troops there, more will die and who knows how long we will have to stay there. I am not the biggest Bush fan, but at the moment, some people need to grow the hell up and respect how hard it is to be US President at times. It's not a walk in the park, like many who criticize every of Bush's moves think. Even my father, who is a Democrat, almost never has criticized Bush and he has said how hard it is to be US President and he says he could never imagine what he could do if he was President at the current moment.

2007-08-16 02:46:09 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 02:39:39 · 2 answers · asked by ? 2

2007-08-16 02:21:51 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

The San Francisco city government is attacking talk show Michael Savage as a racist regarding his opposition to illegal immigration. Only one member of the board of supervisors voted to block Mr. Savage from being condemmed.

The same board of supervisors commended Hugo Chavez for his democratic reforms for his communist take over of Venezuela. See the document at http://www.savage-productions.com/vote4chavez.html

Why do democrats in San Fransicko support Hugo Chavez and his communist take over of Venezuela, but they do not allow a talk show host to speak his mind about people moving to this country illegally?

Is freedom of speech only free to democrats when it is politically correct? Why can't this person speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the government? Will a lawsuit be the only way to test this illegal activity by the democrats in San Fransicko?

2007-08-16 02:20:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uuAVR631KI

I have tried a dozen times to insert a question about Dick Cheney and it seems to disappear. Only two have popped up so far trying to question ***** commitment to this war .

2007-08-16 02:20:18 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean besides Sen. Robert Byrd.

2007-08-16 02:17:46 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 02:17:15 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-16 02:14:29 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

who funded the destruction of lebanese infrastructure and sent more bombs to do so when they had ran out? and who funded the reconstruction of the same infrastructure after said war?

2007-08-16 02:13:22 · 4 answers · asked by ez f 1

Whats up with Cheney does he think we can win the war or what . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uuAVR631KI

2007-08-16 02:04:20 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is the IRAQ war a repeat of the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict involving Soviet forces supporting Afghanistan's Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the largely Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen insurgents that were fighting to overthrow Soviet rule. The Soviet Union supported the government while the rebels found support from a variety of sources including the United States, Pakistan and other Muslim nations in the context of the Cold War. This conflict was concurrent to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War.

The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 25, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989.

2007-08-16 01:45:20 · 7 answers · asked by Toure M 2

2007-08-16 01:41:44 · 11 answers · asked by Duminos 2

2007-08-16 01:27:40 · 3 answers · asked by Duminos 2

like bringing honor and decency to the white house, to be truthful to the american people, common sense and conservative fiscal policies, compassion for america's underpriliged, leaving no child behind, the patriot act, hunting down osama bin laden, securing our borders, creating jobs here in american for americans, his katrina response, stabilizing the housing market, increasing the prosperity of regular americans so all can keep a roof over their heads, increasing america's influence throughout the world, bringing democracy to iraq, stabilizing the middle east, and making the world safer for us all.

2007-08-16 01:24:03 · 20 answers · asked by ez f 1

it will not happen in spite of the Hype and the dis-information They too will remain here.

2007-08-16 01:18:17 · 11 answers · asked by ThorGirl 4

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel.

2007-08-16 01:10:10 · 15 answers · asked by ThorGirl 4