Politics - 5 September 2007

Liberals are perennially enraged that Republicans are allowed to talk back. For years, this wasn't a problem, because, in Lenin's immortal words, they had seized the telegraph office. There were only three TV stations, three major newspapers, and a handful of national magazines, all run by liberals. But at least since Rush Limbaugh got a microphone, liberals haven't been able to make arguments in a vacuum.

2007-09-05 12:18:40 · 22 answers · asked by DANCER 2

I am a Conservative first. Republican second. So, whats your thoughts?

2007-09-05 12:13:56 · 4 answers · asked by ellen 4

They don't care about their health or welfare. They favor the rich over the middle and lower class. They hate blacks, hispanics, and any other non-caucasian individuals. They hate taxes that are used to help people. They distrust us and lie to us constantly. They use religion and god as a political tool. When will the American people realize this and drive these terrorists out?

2007-09-05 12:11:05 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous

Basically rooting for your guy and tearing down the other teams?

2007-09-05 12:10:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

You know, the women, the blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians, the atheists, the disabled. Oh wait ...........

2007-09-05 12:05:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Now statisticly speaking most likely I'm smarter then these people (especially if they suppiort Goerge Bush)and even if I wasn't I think I know what I believe more than anyone else, Yet I always see statments from Cons like "Dems believe in socialism" and things like that. Besides being to lazy to type out the whole word, (how hard is it to type Democrat?" why do these people think they know what I believe? Here I'll make it simple for you, if you want to know what I believe ASK me, don't tell me, because when you tell me you're almost always wrong.

2007-09-05 12:05:16 · 7 answers · asked by Chuckles 4

Liberals are very big on taking 'the long view' when evaluating their foreign policies. They create horrendous foreign policy disasters, but then eventually, a Republican is elected President and cleans up the mess. They said containment would work and, lo and behold, forty years later -- right at the end of the Reagan administration -- the Soviet Union was stopped dead in its tracks!

2007-09-05 11:49:09 · 43 answers · asked by DANCER 2

2007-09-05 11:47:27 · 22 answers · asked by Enigma 6

Please have your answer cater to a country that is currently where you wish to see America go. Why that country?

-----------------------
I'm just interested what the broad concesus of dems view as ideal. I am not a democrat, but I'll be fair in which one I pick...whatever seems common and whom ever gives a good reasons why.

Thanks.

2007-09-05 11:46:29 · 12 answers · asked by Rick 4

Why don't you give the babies that you kill a CHOICE? Ever thought of that? Ya'll are PRO-choice, right?

2007-09-05 11:35:48 · 25 answers · asked by jesusfreak1131 1

2007-09-05 11:04:44 · 25 answers · asked by Joe J 1

The Bush administration seemd to think two weeks was simply too long, that Israel would be off the face of the planet by then. In retrospect, that seems ludicrous.

So why not wait two weeks to let the U.N. file its report?
Why, if I was cynical, I might think Bush was worried the report wouldn't give him the answer he wanted to hear.

2007-09-05 10:51:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

and claim hussein had WMDs

2007-09-05 10:46:38 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Reagan Bringing the Soviet Union to their knees
Clinton Brining the 19 year old chubby intern to her knees
George W. Bush brining Saddam to his knees
Carter bringing the USA economy to it's knees

2007-09-05 10:44:12 · 17 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4

That Slick Willy, Hillary Kerry and Pelosie claimed Saddam had Are they different WMDs from those Bush claimed or is it the left is composed of better liars?

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=375


"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

2007-09-05 10:39:21 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

1. They had no wepoens of mass destruction

2. Sadam Huessien is dead.

3. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

4. bin laden is the real enemy.....

2007-09-05 10:24:18 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-05 10:16:34 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know I know he's suppose to be on Leno and he's gonna run some campaign commericals during the debate.

http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/159238.asp

But as a Presidential candidate, isn't it his duty to be there?

He's sure getting it easy huh?

If anyone else skipped the debates, would they be called a "chicken"?

He doesn't want to debate the so-called "2nd tier candidates"?

Cat got his tongue?

Staying away from potiential dangers while the CFR-controlled media helps his campaign out?

Avoiding the tough questions?

2007-09-05 10:11:28 · 19 answers · asked by jswnwv 3

From the fundamental points of their general philosophy.

2007-09-05 10:11:13 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does that excuse the actions of their precious left wing gods or does it work both ways Seems lately only the right does wrong, and condems the actions of their own But the left praises the so called libs Clinton, Byrd, Frank Jefferson and others It is the person and not the party Right?

2007-09-05 10:04:25 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/05/thompson/index.html

2007-09-05 09:54:38 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

What is the point of fighting a war that the US can never win with only 160,000 ground troops in Iraq but could easily win with 3,000,000 US troops?

2007-09-05 09:47:52 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Okay, let's say that hypothetically, General Patreus reports that the surge turned out to be an utter failure. It didn't improve anything at all and only made things worse.

Would the Cut-And-Run-Crowd (refering to members of any and all parties who are for an immediate withdraw) use this is an example of why we should leave immediately? Of course they wolrd, who wouldn't?

Now, if any reasonable person would believe that, why, then, is this same crowd, who months earlier were damned sure that the Surge would not help, now saying that it's success apparent means nothing?

Do you consider it hypocrisy that some people would use the Surge's failure to further their point when it suits them but call it irrelevant when it doesn't?

2007-09-05 09:44:28 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

September 5, 2007
WASHINGTON - Those who would do away with Washington's near-total ban on handguns will tell you point-blank their next target: Chicago.

Gun-rights advocates scored a stunning success earlier this year when a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington swept aside the District of Columbia's ban on owning handguns, which had been in place since 1976.

The district's decision to appeal has left gun-control advocates angst-ridden. They worry that the district's case isn't the best positioned for Supreme Court review and fear a precedent that could have a cascade effect across the nation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-guns_wed1sep05,1,2446780.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


I have every confidence that the Supreme Court will recognize the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as clearly intended by the Founders

2007-09-05 09:39:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Not winning the Iraq war or having to admit defeat to the libs because Bush didn't win his Iraq war?

2007-09-05 09:33:38 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bush has not done anything substantially wrong, we needed to go into iraq, he needed to get sadam. Maybe he went about it the wrong way, but he did nothing wrong. He shoulda sent 200thousand troops and swept across quick. But i would have done the same thing. Get all the facts straight before you go bashing. Im not republican, nor am i democrat. But i believe in many things. Bush is not racist, he even dismissed a office member for saying we should bring back slavery. So before you go bashing on bush, get the facts straight. Have you ever noticed how most goverment and history teachers are republican and voted for bush. Thats because they know the facts and the truth. So please quit bashing bush untill you get all the facts straight. He may have not been the best president but he was sure better than clinton, kerry, and gore. Thats why he won.

2007-09-05 09:31:19 · 23 answers · asked by Justin M 4

What gives them their sense of right and wrong?

2007-09-05 09:27:38 · 14 answers · asked by ken s 5

you would have to go right away, and your current job would be guaranteed when you came back. If yes or no, please give reasons.

The last thing I want you to do, is say whether you support our continued presence in iraq.

2007-09-05 09:26:43 · 16 answers · asked by bush l 1

2007-09-05 09:25:56 · 10 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-09-05 09:24:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous