Politics - 2 October 2007

What if Iran says no? North Korea? What are we going to do?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_el_pr/obama_foreign_policy

2007-10-02 13:43:42 · 12 answers · asked by Quickie D 3

"Here's what I'll say as president: 'America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,'" Obama said.

....and I wish there was peace in the world and everyone owned a unicorn too. Does Obama understand the realities of the evil in the world?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_el_pr/obama_foreign_policy

2007-10-02 13:40:11 · 11 answers · asked by Homeless in Phoenix 6

2007-10-02 13:36:16 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

Anyway, yea, yea, we know S-CHIP "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN." The children of folks who make $82,000.00 per year.

2007-10-02 13:26:20 · 2 answers · asked by Texas Democrat 3

I see Liberals on here and they seem to defend and embrace all sorts of vile and deviant behavior. I just want to know - does the FAR LEFT think ANYTHING is immoral?

**Moderate Democrats - this does not include you.

2007-10-02 13:23:13 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Personally,the ACLU scares me more. Any organization who supports the people they do - Pedophiles, murderers...
In a perfect society I wish there were no extremists in either party, but that will never happen. It seems it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

2007-10-02 13:18:53 · 23 answers · asked by CherryCheri 7

We are the founders of this country and 90% of us are good contributors and almost never leach on others.
We are people too.

2007-10-02 13:13:22 · 26 answers · asked by NEOBillyfree 4

The American people like most other people in the world are quite nice. Why do they put up with such a fear ridden administration and believe all the lies and propaganda it pushes out? Is this because the media now chooses who wins elections in the U.S. or because Americans have a poor knowledge of world politics or just complacency?

2007-10-02 13:11:14 · 8 answers · asked by Dart 3

The Communists seek to abolish ALL private property and create a classless society. Certain conservatives here like to equate the Democrats with the Communists, but I have yet to see any evidence that the Democrats want to abolish ALL private property (or create a classless society, for that matter). After all, I can't help but think that if that were the case, Mr. Capitalism himself, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't have ever supported the likes of Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair in Britain.

2007-10-02 13:10:11 · 12 answers · asked by tangerine 7

the 2008 elections being the last ones? I love power and if I get enough truly stupid people to vote for me and put me in the White House, I will want to remain ruler for life. You good little government-schooled, brain-dead liberals wouldn't mind that now, would you. And don't you think that freedom of speech, the right to own guns, having an uncontrolled press, etc. are things that we would be better off without?

Marxism now and forever!!!!!!

2007-10-02 13:03:11 · 13 answers · asked by Hillary Chitlin 1

From everything the facts suggest, not NBC, CNN, ABC who obviously have ulterior motives shown by the coverage of the last presidential race what did Bush lie about? We know Iraq had chemical weapons, he used them on the Kurds. We know France and Germany were abusing the oil for food program. He told us things that the UN security council told him. IF the data is flawed how would any leader know? And last, last time I checked attacking a US military installation IS a declaration of war. Iraq fired many times at fighters patrolling the UN sanctioned no fly zone. This is a Problem that Clinton should have dealt more strongly with. It was a cauldron that finally came to head after a Presidential change.

Please only serious replies.

2007-10-02 12:59:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I always liked him on Law and Order.

2007-10-02 12:50:58 · 7 answers · asked by secretservice 5

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6986536.stm (for the Question Quote above)

In Oct 2003, A banner proclaiming "mission accomplished" on the aircraft carrier where President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq came back to haunt him as the death toll rises. That being the case -

i) WHY did US delay "withdrawal of British troops from Basra was delayed by five months due to political pressure from the US, a UK military commander in Iraq has said. Brig James Bashall told the Daily Telegraph the exit from Basra Palace was held up because the "Americans asked us to stay for longer". UNQUOTE above link)

ii) What did the American Commander-in-Chief MEAN when he declared an end of major combat in Iraq, yet felt the need YET AGAIN to persuade UK troops to stay in the Theatre?

I find it very encouraging to see Senior Officers wearing the Uniform putting thier head above the parapet and speaking out for the troops they command. Great morale booster Sir

2007-10-02 12:49:14 · 2 answers · asked by Hello 3

people who continually say that feel the same way about Patrick Kennedy, or Robert Kennedy Jr. for that matter, and their personal forays into drug addiction. I don't hear anyone calling on them to apologize for wasting taxpayer time and money while they were stoned out of their minds on illegal drugs, while serving members of American Government. Here's two liberal icons who have widely reported and historically noted drug abuse histories. There's been so much written about these two and their wanton drug abuse that it's far, far worse than overtaking a prescription drug, but I'd be willing to bet that every liberal on this site has forgiven them, and will consider this post an atrocity for even mentioning their abusive drug histories. Is this just More Liberal hypocricy?

2007-10-02 12:47:20 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

It said "Bush will never be MY President" and i thought to myself, how can this be possible? You are a citizen of the United States of America and the President is your leader, regardless of who it is. I never said Bill Clinton wasn't my president, because he was, even though he sucked (which is my opinion and i respect yours). I believe verbal abuse is going far enough, but treason is UNACCEPTABLE....your thoughts?

2007-10-02 12:40:57 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

will the libs make chelsea enlist before hillary sends the military off to fight?
they want the bush twins to join, so its safe to say that chelsea should be forced to enlist too.
how come no libs cry about all the military deaths under clinton during his era of peace?
4,417 military deaths during the Clinton years.

2007-10-02 12:37:20 · 5 answers · asked by nobody a 1

Rush's morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There's no retraction; there's no apology; there's no, "Uh-oh, sorry."
....

2007-10-02 12:28:18 · 18 answers · asked by DANCER 2

I want to see if I can guess what party went to private or public school and who's smarter. PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT UP!!!!

2007-10-02 12:27:12 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Since some of the conservatives here like to bring up the fact that Clinton is a draft dodger, I thought I would ask this question. After all, we have already talked to death about Bush's "service" in the Air National Guard and Rush Limbaugh's butt cyst, so I thought I would bring up the name of yet another man who was all in favor of the Vietnam War and yet did not serve. Not only that, but over 30 years later, he had no reservations about sending thousands to their deaths, either. And to those of you who bring up Clinton ad nauseam, I have to say that at least he was a conscientious objector rather than a chickenhawk!:)

2007-10-02 12:24:53 · 13 answers · asked by tangerine 7

Also, am I now a "phony ex-fed"?

2007-10-02 12:24:38 · 25 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

Are Media Wisely Running Away From Bogus Rush ‘Phony Soldiers’ Story?

On Monday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stepped onto the floor of the Senate and strongly denounced talk radio host Rush Limbaugh for what have proven to be out of context statements made by the conservative personality on his program last Wednesday.
Yet, with the exception of a CNN segment aired Monday, and articles by Fox News, USA Today's On Politics blog, The Hill, NewsMax, and the New York Post, virtually no major media outlets covered Reid's statements.
Not the New York Times. Not the Washington Post. Ditto all three broadcast network evening news programs Monday, and the Associated Press.
This raises an important question:
Advertisement
Have most major press outlets correctly concluded that the leftwing organization Media Matters did indeed cherry-pick and misrepresent Limbaugh's statements thereby making earlier reports on the subject erroneous?
Or, did they recognize how hypocritical it would be to castigate Limbaugh for basically reiterating what ABC's Brian Ross and Charles Gibson reported last Monday evening just two days before Rush made his statements?
Of course, a more cynical view would be that the media - now that it has been shown that Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton admitted her connection to Media Matters - want to bury this story as quickly as possible so as to shelter her and her husband from any scrutiny concerning these ties.
Regardless of the reason, there's been a peculiar silence regarding Reid's statements Monday, and, although the leftwing organization VoteVets.org is about to run a rather disgraceful ad denouncing Limbaugh, most media outlets appear to be running away from this story as fast as they can.
Whether this continues is anyone's guess, as is the cause.
Stay tuned.
Update 17:10 | Matthew Sheffield. A quick Google News search does seem to suggest the media's interest in the Media Matters smear story has continued to peter out.
There are very few MSM mentions of the story at all. The only unfair ones were as follows:
• A blog post from NBC's Mark Silva which mentions a left-wing astroturf group's ad trying to prolong the story. No mention at all about how Limbaugh did not say what was attributed to him by a far-left group.
• This blog post from the Tribune Co.'s Washington bureau focuses on Nevada Democratic senator Harry Reid's criticism of Limbaugh with barely anything from the radio talker himself.
Kudos to the Kansas City Star for correcting its initial report about the Limbaugh non-story. In a small item in today's gossipy "The Buzz" column, the paper's Darryl Levings spoke of a "Judgment wrong to Rush (read backward)."
Democrats, meanwhile must be getting desperate on this. Having failed to gin up a controversy over nothing, they're clearly overreaching, going so far as to trot out Iowa senator Tom Harkin as their attack dog. That's odd since Harkin actually has a record of his own at being a "phony soldier."

2007-10-02 12:24:02 · 5 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

It appears that groups like Moveon.org and individuals such as Michael Moore and George Soros are pulling the strings of the Democratic party. These groups and individuals are deliberately and carefully distorting the truth about the most controversial current events while the Democratic party sits back and lets them. Has the Democtratic party been taken over by these left wing Socialists, or is the Democratic party using these groups and individuals to perform their "dirty work?" What will be the long-term effects on freedom in America as a result of it?

2007-10-02 12:20:58 · 32 answers · asked by wildcatfan 3

True

2007-10-02 12:20:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

2007-10-02 12:10:29 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-02 12:05:53 · 21 answers · asked by captain_koyk 5

Greenspan stated that it was more important to remove Saddam than it was Bin Laden because Saddam had threatened OPEC's oil supply in the early 1990's.

He went on to say that had Saddam threatened the oil supply in this decade it would have led to catastrophic results for the global economy. He eluded to potential losses in the trillions if that were to happen.

2007-10-02 11:58:00 · 27 answers · asked by Thompson-McCain 2

Is it because she promises to carry on with his war OF terror?

2007-10-02 11:56:21 · 16 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2

2007-10-02 11:56:16 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-10-02 11:51:25 · 19 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

The rich get richer because they keep making the same life decisions they did to get rich. The poor stay poor because they keep making the same life decisions that keeps them poor. There are plenty of stories of poor folks who won the lottery and a few years later they are poor again. The poor I know spend their spare cash on lottery tickets, cigarettes, alcohol and/or gambling. They dropped out of school early. Overall they have a poor work ethic which prevents them from keeping a job or getting ahead. It does not take money to make money, there are plenty of enterprises that started on a shoestring.
And people aren't inheriting their money, they're working for, saving, and investing it. People become millionaires every day, more in America than any other country. How can poor people be stupid enough to believe democrats who tell them it's not their fault they're poor?

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0242013020071002?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

2007-10-02 11:50:21 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous