Politics - 3 September 2007

It's all borrowed money, I'm sure our grandkids won't mind - we are protecting them from terror (while lining our pockets with future cash)

2007-09-03 16:00:15 · 9 answers · asked by Karl M 2

Why is Fidel Castro influential?

2007-09-03 15:58:53 · 4 answers · asked by wooweee 1

She never got no BJ before

2007-09-03 15:57:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

yet an overwhelming majority of my constituents were pro life, and a bill were proposed to ban abortion........ethically speaking, how do I vote? My conscience? Or to represent my constituents?

2007-09-03 15:46:42 · 10 answers · asked by Cherie 6

This article shows it perfectly.

Edwards wants government run health insurance. Now, he wants grown adults to be forced to go to the doctor. Whatever happened to free choice. Why do liberals think we are too stupid to take care of ourselves?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2

2007-09-03 15:46:35 · 9 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6

why you support job outsourcing

why you are against universal health care

why you claim to support soldiers, but deny them funding for necessary medical care

why you support giving tax breaks to the rich (and please don't give me the 'trickle down' cr*p; there are better ways to create jobs/lower loan interest rates)

why you claim to have "good Christian values" but support war in iraq and help the rich get richer

why you based a war of intuition ("iraq has WMD's")

why bush claimed to be concerned about global warming before the 2000 election, but after the election claimed the evidence wasn't conclusive, and all of a sudden had some sort of an epiphany and decided to do nothing about the problem

why you scream about protecting the second amendment, but have no problem with NSA wiretapping infringing on the first

why ivy league alumni are reputably liberal (please don't give me the "i have a third eye of truth" or "they are stupid" argument)

2007-09-03 15:45:40 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

While giving tax dollars to greedy corporate whores is not?

2007-09-03 15:44:04 · 6 answers · asked by Karl M 2

there are a 2 things i wanna know

#1. wat does she plan on doing IF she got elected?
#2. is she gonna ruin all acess to the internet?

2007-09-03 15:39:42 · 15 answers · asked by dillondolinger 1

2007-09-03 15:34:16 · 17 answers · asked by alleylee 1

I think it is ironic on how after all the mistakes and the quagmire Iraq has become, president Bush finds himself in a win-win situation. If he keeps the troops in long enough, they will be able to stabilize the situation until he gets out of office. Whoever gets elected or even someone else later on will have to pull the troops out at some point, then Bush can claim. "When I left office, things were improving in Iraq, and now you pulled the troop and look at what happened". Of course ignoring the reality that as soon as the troops are pulled they will all just kill each other anyway no matter when the troops are pulled. And if he is forced by congress to pull the troops before he is out of office, he can say, "The surge was working, and you made me pull the troops out and now look at what is happening" when it all goes to **** anyway. Since as log as you keep the troops in you don't really fail. It is impossible to prove a negative. I guess the man is no as dumb as I thought he was.

2007-09-03 15:12:24 · 14 answers · asked by rmrndrs 4

and VP of the Union Banking Corp Of N. Y. City during the second world war. The bank was seized by the government for trading with the enemies, because they helped to finance Hitlers rise to power and also laundered millions of dollars in Nazi money. One other little banking question did you know the Rockefellers Standard Oil supplied the I G Farber company with a component necessary as a fuel additive to the German Warplanes which blitzed London. This component was also used in the gas chambers in the Nazi Death Camps. I am eager to hear from all of people who say the holocust never happened.

2007-09-03 15:05:57 · 24 answers · asked by judy b 2

At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

I stand corrected if you can prove me wrong, but impeachment is brought on by the HofR, right?

Next, the Senate has the sole power of impeachment, right?

Last, the Senate, upon conviction, removes the official from his/her capacity, right?

What would it say about Congress, who turned a blind eye and funded the war, if Bush was formally convicted and impeached?

Since (Democratic) Congress basically turned the other cheek when Bush decided to invade Iraq, is this the sole and overpowering reason why Bush can't be impeached?

Arguments? Thoughts?

2007-09-03 15:05:06 · 19 answers · asked by Glen B 6

Since 9/11. The Terrorists have hit Spain, London, Bali and others but have not been able to strike America again. Thanks GWB!

The Unemployment rate is a VER VERY low 4.6%

The Democrats controll congress and have NOT called on Bush to testify for any of the things YOU accuse him of on a daily basis. This tells me that they have nothing but HOT AIR. It also tells me that Bush has restored Honor & Dignity back to the Oval Office.

Saddam is Dead - Fact

Taliban no longer controls Afganistan - Fact

Dow 13,0000 - Fact


Can't spin facts now can you?

Also, However bad you think Bush is; America thought he was better than any of the morons you ran in 2000 & 2004.

Unlike Carter & Clinton, Bush will go down in history as a TWO term president who did not get IMPEACHED!

2007-09-03 14:46:26 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous

Have you been living in a cave? China hasn't invaded any other countries? Don't force their politics on anyone??? Where do you get your information, Xinhua (the Chinese state edited newspaper)?

Besides they've occupied Tibet and East Turkistan for 50 years or so, there's also pieces of Mongolia, Korea, and India that they're occupying.
But those are more political and the UN doesn't care about them. But, China did invade India in 1962, Russia in 1967, Vietnam after the Vietnam war was over.... They tried to impose their style of government all over in South East Asia (You seem to be forgetting that that's one of the reason's the US navy is there in the first place.) Only one country in South Asia has asked the US to leave (the Philippenes) and they were shortly there after attacked by China in a territory dispute. Needless to say, the Philippenes lost.
More recent political interference involves demanding Zimbabwe not elect opposition leader Sata or they would pull

2007-09-03 14:38:18 · 5 answers · asked by Don 2

Let me tell you tell you a little bit about myself.My father retired a Colonel after he had fought in World War II,Korea,and Vietnam.I myself served for twenty years in the Army,and I saw combat in Grenada,Panama and the Gulf War.I became ill in 2000 with cancer and retired in 2001.Otherwise,I would still be in the Army.I went into remission and worked two jobs until earlier this year when my cancer returned.I ended up having my left leg amputated at the hip.


I have never had long hair and have never used illegal drugs.I come from a family that has a long history of military service,who believe that duty to country is a top priority in life.

My late father was a New Deal Democrat and very Liberal in his political outlook.In his later years,he truly believed the Republican Party had been taken over by theocratic thugs,as do I.

My point here is why do conservatives think they have a lock on patriotism and honor?

2007-09-03 14:36:53 · 24 answers · asked by ? 4

2007-09-03 14:28:48 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

There is still support for Iraq, obviously, and Bush has called for patience many times. Now, he says we have to give time for the surge to work. So my question is: Well, how much time?

First, it was supposed to be a "cake-walk", to quote the administration.
First, Saddam would be gone, we would be greeted as liberators; "Mission accomplished".
Then, it was until elections. Everything would be stable and all would be fine.
For a long time, the official line was "stay the course". If we only kept to our guns, the insurgencies would run out of energy and the troops could go home.
After the insurgency showed no sign of abatting, the new formula is a "surge", that is supposed to make everything all right. So far, nothing has changed spectacularly, but we are told to hve patience.
Well, how much patience? How much time are you willing to give this administration?

2007-09-03 14:26:33 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

The Enemy abroad: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaida, Taliban

The Enemy here at home: Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, World Socialist Workers Party, The Green Party ect...

Who will bring down the USA first?

2007-09-03 14:23:32 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

By nice, I mean the teachers were more knowledgeable and the school had computers and TV's with DVD's in almost every classroom. Bad neighorhoods high schools dont.

Why is that?

2007-09-03 14:00:59 · 11 answers · asked by Captain Kid 3

just dessert or too harsh treatment?

2007-09-03 13:57:09 · 14 answers · asked by jsb3t 3

Is there anyone qualified to run for president of the US? Dont seem like it to me..

2007-09-03 13:51:47 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Okay, whatever. Bring the troops home NOW by any means necessary.

2007-09-03 13:44:52 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Not nine months ago there were missle tests and underground nuclear explosions (sort of). Now they're dismantling their nuclear program and being taken off the state sponsored terrorism list. No invasion. No lives lost. No spending hundreds of billions (nearing one trillion) of dollars on some ridiculous occupation.

Diplomacy.

Even $2 billion dollars a year in aid is a whole lot cheaper than an invasion...

2007-09-03 13:42:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I thought I would just ask in plain english this time.

2007-09-03 13:26:47 · 16 answers · asked by Enigma 6

2007-09-03 13:03:33 · 21 answers · asked by vegaswoman 6

Not only in Iraq but also an impending war with Iran.
I hear so many of you, NOT ALL but most seem to support this war and going into Iran with barrels blazing. I also hear many of you say they WANT a Holy War and this is the justification for fighting radical Islam. We all know Osama Bin Laden declared Holy War on infidels with 9/11. This is also what Amadinejad wants and a lot of Muslims in the middle-east especially in Iran worship Osama as their Mahdri or Mohammed incarnate to bring about Armageddon which will end with all infidels dead, Islam the true religion to triumph and rule the world. With so many of these parallels with our own biblical prophesies have you ever stopped to think what would happen if we chose not to play along with this plan? Aren't we actually playing right into their scenario? Does this mean that Bush really doesn't believe the bible or is he wanting Armageddon too?

2007-09-03 12:55:25 · 15 answers · asked by Enigma 6

OR do you hate him because you think he has done a bad job overall and merely want to see America do better?

2007-09-03 12:54:30 · 28 answers · asked by American Sunshine 3

2007-09-03 12:54:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Our Constitution is based upon the separation of powers. Congress is given the sole responsibility for declaring war and for financing the war. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is given sole responsibility for the conduct of the war and thus, the safety of the troops.

The Framers, in their wisdom, believed that to wage a war, the nation must be united. Thus, waging a war requires the co-operation of both the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. If either branch decides that it wants to stop the war, the war must stop.

If Congress were to cease funding the war (which requires only a simple majority of "Nays" in the House of Representatives), the nation would no longer be united and the war would have to be stopped. In that case, the President would have to remove the troops from harm's way or be solely responsible for any harm done to them.

In the latter case, the House of Representatives could impeach both the President and the Vice-President.

2007-09-03 12:29:25 · 34 answers · asked by marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net 6

Do you think it was removed at the US Administrations request to eliminate criticism?

2007-09-03 12:26:40 · 9 answers · asked by mark t 7