Politics - 23 August 2007

At one point in Jared Hutchins' young life, the Beatles were a big problem.

"I had to stop listening to them for a while," said Hutchins, who lives in Cumming, Georgia, and plays the piano, guitar and harmonica. He said the group's world view "had a negative effect on me," and made him irritable and angry.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/22/gw.teen.christians/index.html

2007-08-23 10:57:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

....so much is made of the assertion that Bush went AWOL and lost his flight status. So many people move right on and then call him an idiot. Ever stop and think about the fact that to lose flight status, you have to GET flight status in the first place? Any idea what it takes to get flight status in a 60's era jet fighter?? I think anyone who wants to say Bush is stupid should go to a local airport and take and pass what is known as a "First Solo" course. If you can comprehend the aerodynamics, flight rules, mechanics and systems required simply to takeoff and land a little fluff-muffin Cessna, then you posess1% of the competence required evaluate the intelligence of someone cleared to command a blindingly complex flying brick!

2007-08-23 10:42:38 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Domocrat or republican claim?

Mine tied,
1. People who still think we found WMDs in Iraq.
and
2. Some dude who said Clintons Balanced Budget and surplus was due to Regan/

10 points for the most outragous claim you can prove someone made.

2007-08-23 10:38:26 · 18 answers · asked by Chuckles 4

He speaks fluent Spanish and he seems to be sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants. Mi country es su country.

2007-08-23 10:26:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apqn58TxRLYB3YGHhl7wlSvQ7BR.?qid=20070823140144AACgP1h

This question is ridiculous, and no one even points it out. The reason it is ridiculous is:

There WHERE WMDs in Iraq in 1998. Clinton used political and economic pressure to have them destroyed, and the program stopped. Later, Bush tried to say there was a new WMD program in Iraq. This program was the reason we went to war, and evidence of THIS program was never found.

So you see:

Clinton was telling the truth when he said Iraq had WMDs.

Bush was lying when he said Iraq had WMDs. Or maybe not lying, but did not have accurate information.

2007-08-23 10:18:11 · 6 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7

Self-help, do it yourself magazines? Do you think they'd benefit from such magazines and books?

2007-08-23 10:13:31 · 16 answers · asked by Glen B 6

They've been buying votes from poor people most of my life. If that was taken away, who would vote for them?

2007-08-23 10:02:57 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

"There I am and suddenly an explosion is heard, someones leg falls in front of me. Oh wait, I don't need to picture it, I remember it. I was there. Yeah it's hell over there, but if you think it will save more Iraqi lives by us pulling out then your out of your mind.

You try picturing this: 15 kids surround you with smiles on their faces as you hand out goodies in front of a new school that was built by our servicemen and women. Or their parents laughing, shaking your hand and thanking you for helping them. Wait I'm sure you can't, because the liberal media won't show you that part of what's going on over there.

Get a clue. Not only will more people die if we leave that country, but even more terrorist will be created. "

2007-08-23 09:57:30 · 23 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

2007-08-23 09:51:17 · 42 answers · asked by TRUE PATRIOT 6

...she would get the same treatment from the Right that Bush got from the left?

And that nothing would get done because of partisan bickering?

2007-08-23 09:42:54 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

--The Saigon regime was set up as a proxy for the French
-the Vietnam conflict was a popular revolt against this dictatorship (i.e. this was a CIVIL WAR, not "communist aggression)
--Following the American departure, the civil war continued until the Saigon dictatorship fell.
--Other than a couple of relatively short, minor conflicts, Vietnam has been at peace since.

Does Bush EVER check his facts? Or does he just go ahead and lie for the fun of it?

2007-08-23 09:42:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

What do you think about Sen. John Warner's speech calling on President Bush to set a timetable and begin withdrawal from Iraq?

2007-08-23 09:40:30 · 7 answers · asked by What's The Point 3

Viable answers include: partisanship, government intrusion, poor education, strained diplomatic tensions, the possible growth of terrorism, loss of family values, etc.

Horrible, unexcuseable answers include: liberals, conservatives, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Rush, Michael Moore, etc.

2007-08-23 09:39:57 · 41 answers · asked by razorj06 2

hes not doing such a bad job.
Just like hoover, all the mistakes hayes did jumped back at him, and everyone said it was his fault.
Most everyone who "hates" bush only "hate" him because its the thing to do. Just because he has a texan accent and can't say some things doesnt mean hes a bad guy.

What do you all think.
And for the people who hate bush, tell me some reasons ^_^

2007-08-23 09:37:12 · 20 answers · asked by meghanlovesben 1

I think the news media was in on it as a pretext for a north american union and new world order takeover of the world. Its a one world powerful evil. and were already there

2007-08-23 09:34:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

Teddy Kennedy was a "Legacy" at Harvard, which means he got in just for being a Kennedy. Yet he was expelled for cheating. So apparently, "Daddy getting you in" doesn't mean you get a pass on academic standards once you're there. Somehow though, lefties insist that Bush's "Legacy" status at University means he didn't earn the degrees. How often do Harvard and Yale hand out unearned degrees? If they did it for Bush, how do we know that they don't do it for a LOT of people? Wouldn't this mean that degrees from Harvard and Yale are basically worthless?

2007-08-23 09:32:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists, not by the bush administration, we invaded iraq because we were tipped that there were weapons of mass destruction there and they had the intent to use them against us, and also terrorism was linked to the government. We demolished their government--which is exactly what needed to be done--and now we are responsibly staying to clean up the mess we made. And that means fighting the insurgency long enough to build a stable government, and training their forces to do the job so we can leave them on their own. Americans are not the bad guys, we are taking care of what needs to be done.

How can you argue with this?

2007-08-23 09:31:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bush is smarter than them.
Has more power than they can dream of.
More money than they can ever earn with their GED's
Flew Jets and got an honorable discharge



I always laugh at the losers trying to bash a man they will never be good enough to shine the shoes of.

2007-08-23 09:28:34 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who gives a muth@#$?YOU BOTH ARE THE SAME CREATURE.EGO DRIVEN INCOMPETENCE

2007-08-23 09:27:02 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am white and to be honest the discussion comes around some time about reparations , affirmative action , calling Negroes African Americans and everyone always says they ought to just go back to Africa if they do not like it here . They need to stop complaining and get a job or just go back to Africa .

If you have also heard this then be honest and say so .

2007-08-23 09:26:36 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Are there no Republicans who are more appealing? We get only Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney and Rudolph "Self-proclaimed Hero" Guiliani? Where's the likeable non-idiotic candidate that has a chance?

2007-08-23 09:23:21 · 9 answers · asked by P.I. Staker 3

After all, nearly every single one of them were using "Bush's unjust war" to their advantage. Once he begins pulling troops out this fall they'll have nothing to fall back on. Will this ensure a GOP candidate in '08?

2007-08-23 09:14:56 · 13 answers · asked by Karma 4

While I support most of the Democrat's political views, I am just annoyed by the fact that they back down from Bush so easily.

All it took was one "You're hurting the troops" from Bush, and the Democrats agreed to keep financing the Iraq War without a withdrawal deadline.

It was the same with the war itself. I'm sure half the Democrats who voted for it did so because they afraid of being labeled soft on terrorism.

I just hope they're not wondering why their approval rating is lower than Bush's, or why people questiion if they can handle national defense.

2007-08-23 09:07:06 · 26 answers · asked by ThatOneDude 3

2007-08-23 09:05:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Many standing in the convention center orthe superdome had gold teeth in thier mouth, they had Jordan's on their feet, thick gold chains around their necks and other expensive clothes.

Now there is nothing wrong with having fine things, but if they could afford all those items, why were they considered 'poor' and 'underprivileged'?

How could they afford all of that expensive stuff.

This is not a racist question. I just would like someone to explain to me how they could afford that stuff but were still considered 'low income.'

2007-08-23 09:05:38 · 11 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3

I mean since they are doing such a great job leading their country, can the U.S. Marines take a vacation as well?

2007-08-23 09:04:21 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seems to me that Obama and Edwards are the only ones talking about new ideas and change. Clinton just toes the line.

2007-08-23 08:53:44 · 13 answers · asked by P.I. Staker 3

In the general public, about 10 people support Hillary for every 1 that supports Ron Paul.

This question isn't about who you prefer, I'm asking why there's such a discrepancy between those who answer political questions on YA and the general voting public.

2007-08-23 08:51:13 · 9 answers · asked by Stephen L 6

2007-08-23 08:47:18 · 13 answers · asked by Samm 6

The Laffer curve principal states that at some point, tax cuts will actually reduce total gross revenues. How do you determine that point and how do you know we currently are not below that point (meaning we could raise more taxes by tax increases).

My personal belief is that we are still well above where that point is and that we could reduce taxes significantly more and still take in more gross revenues, but I have no idea at what point it would start creating less and I am wondering if any of you do.

2007-08-23 08:44:10 · 6 answers · asked by Marcello 2