Politics - 4 October 2007

He says he has nothing to hide! What should we do?

2007-10-04 10:06:52 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-04 10:00:11 · 24 answers · asked by Mr. Dog 4

Records? You pledged to do that 20 months ago, but we haven't seen them yet. Should someone bring you the form to sign? Hmmmm? I'm sure it's just slipped your mind. I'll get all my friends to send you a reminder.

2007-10-04 09:56:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ron Paul was (some will say IS) an absolutely fringe candidate with little hope of success. But he's developed a devoted base, raised a lot of money, and a lot of interesting questions, some of which flies in the face of conventional GOP wisdom. Do you think his campaign's success will be noticed by the RNC? And if so, do you think it will result in any changes to the platform (maybe back to true fiscal conservatism)? Keep in mind that the socialists never won any elections, but by threatening the democrat's base they got their entire platform enacted. Can Ron Paul and his predominantly Libertarian base do the same?

2007-10-04 09:54:08 · 12 answers · asked by Bigsky_52 6

Although maybe it would just mean we might actually have some intelligent conversations. Anybody interested in finding out?

2007-10-04 09:52:29 · 12 answers · asked by slykitty62 7

...when discussing Hillary Clinton ? Like her or dont, but all I hear from you morons is commentary on the size of her butt, her head, etc etc...Whats next ? "mrs. poopy pants". Time to act like adults now...mmmkay Cons ?

2007-10-04 09:51:45 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Because congress will not vote on it? Congress is scared of the American people (thats you and I), or Congress doesnt CARE what we say., the last one is probably the correct one. WHAT ARE WE THE PEOPLE (thats you and I, liberal and conservatives) GONNA DO ABOUT IT)?

2007-10-04 09:48:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

When considering the poor, did he say things like "If they'd just get up off their lazy butts....."?
When considering someone who had worked hard, underpaid for years, whose very livlihood could be denied him by some foolish whim of his employer, who has no gaurantee that he won't end up on the street, unable to get medical help, unnecessarily dead at, say, 57 years old would Jesus have said "If they can't make it in the greatest nation on Earth, it's their own darn fault"?

Why can't the neo-cons see that they are simply lying when they claim to follow him?

And isn't there something missing here? Such as liberal outrage? Why are these people still in office?

2007-10-04 09:29:08 · 24 answers · asked by Robert K 5

history?

sure, they've been foiled, but not because of the war. they've been foiled on the part of the FBI.

seems to me like the war is CAUSING terrorism

2007-10-04 09:15:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-04 09:15:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hillary thinks so. It's one of her arguments purporting Bush's "War on science". Funny, I recall Bush declaring a few wars, but not one on science. My logic is that, if embryonic stem cell research holds promising cures, then it holds potential profit. This potential profit is incentive for the public and private sector industries to fund their research activities. Simply put, they don't need government money, and not awarding government money doesn't constitute a war on science. Once again, Hillary is dead wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/clinton_science;_ylt=AjtCx4331xs..NYD8tcN24Gs0NUE

2007-10-04 09:12:03 · 23 answers · asked by Pfo 7

i haven't seen an honest politician.
have you???

2007-10-04 09:06:50 · 20 answers · asked by curt stuttgart 1

http://www.icasualties.org

2007-10-04 09:06:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

ha ha ha ha - How do you lefties like that?

2007-10-04 09:01:45 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a gradual decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Its lowest reading in the poll was 24 percent, recorded most recently in July.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_re_us/bush_congress_ap_poll

********

Its not looking good for you "22-percenters"!

2007-10-04 09:00:26 · 11 answers · asked by Lavrenti Beria 6

2007-10-04 08:58:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

If that holds true then shouldn't libs pick up the tabs on these worthless social programs Stop taking cheese away from the mice to give to able bodied Americans who need to learn the value of work

2007-10-04 08:51:19 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

Blue-State Employment Blues
As long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

By Greg Kaza


Bears and partisans are exuberant about the August employment report, which recorded a loss of 4,000 jobs in a labor market that employs 138 million. Employment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was “essentially unchanged,” with losses concentrated in the manufacturing (-46,000) and government (-28,000) sectors. This was no surprise: Manufacturing has contracted in August in eight of the last ten years, dating back to the Clinton era.

Employment is a broad economic indicator, and last Friday’s less-than-stellar report deserves attention. But another monthly BLS report on regional and state employment offers a view of the jobs market through an alternative lens. In particular, this report allows one to compare employment growth between the so-called Blue and Red states.

Political pundits identify 18 bona-fide Blue states, which backed Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and 29 clear-cut Red states, which supported Republican President George W. Bush both times out. Blue states are said to be “liberal,” and Red states “conservative.” But there might be another reason to term certain states “blue”: weak employment growth in a period of expansion.

Total Blue-state employment growth has been only 3.3 percent during the current expansion, which began in November 2001, compared with the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, total Red-state employment growth has been 7.5 percent, more than double that of the Blue states.

In baseball terms, one might say the Blue team is hitting only 5-for-13 for a mere .277 average, while the Red team is slugging 18-for-29 for a league-leading .621.

Here’s a closer look at the stats:

Job growth has trailed the U.S. average in 13 Blue states. California, the largest Blue-state labor market, fell behind by the narrow margin of less than a half-percent, while growth has been slower in Rhode Island (5%), Minnesota (4.1%), Wisconsin (3.1%), New York (2.8%), New Jersey (2.7%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Vermont (2.3%), Maine (2.1%), Connecticut (1.5%), Illinois (1.1%), Massachusetts (-0.2%), and Michigan (-5%). The job losses in Michigan and Massachusetts have been the most severe, falling below 2001 levels.

Regionally speaking, this blue-streak continues. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, all predominantly Blue, have trailed the U.S. jobs-growth average. The only Blue region to beat the average has been the West, fueled by above-average jobs gains in Hawaii (15.2%), Washington (9.5%), and Oregon (9%). Two other Blue states — Delaware (5.8%) and Maryland (6.1%) — also have bested the U.S. average.

Now for the Red team:

Of 29 certified Red states, a full 18 have topped the U.S. jobs-growth rate. And here an interesting trend appears: Red states with no income taxes — Nevada (25.7%), Wyoming (15.2%), Florida (13.9%), Alaska (10.2%), Texas (9.1%), South Dakota (8.3%), and Tennessee (5.5%) — have all witnessed above-average job growth.

Not surprisingly, three of four Red regions have led the U.S. in job growth: Red states in the West have expanded 15.9 percent followed by the Plains (7.7%) and the Southeast (7.5%). The only Red region to trail the U.S. jobs-growth average has been the Midwest (1%).

This trend is not new. It has merely been overlooked by the mainstream media. Labor is colorblind in the political context of Red and Blue states. And as long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

2007-10-04 08:32:47 · 17 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

And fund the war with their profits rather than illegal drug trade?

2007-10-04 08:32:01 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzixVUdWc9apDuVidRdsSfKyMsOg

2007-10-04 08:30:53 · 23 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-10-04 08:29:35 · 15 answers · asked by Kelly B 4

I heard some cons parrot that freedom isn't free, so is what we are doing the right way to stay free?

2007-10-04 08:27:10 · 7 answers · asked by The President 3

1 Million dead since 2003...
The decimation of a once stable country...
The attempt to steal the oil resource of the Iraqi people...
The installation of a puppet regime to facilitate the oil contracts...

Unfortunately for the neocons, the Iraqi people and politicians will NOT play ball.

2007-10-04 08:17:50 · 19 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2

Isn't there a war going on??? why aren’t they working on getting us the h e l l out of Iraq instead? Shouldn’t Rush file slander charges against Reid and other democrats?

2007-10-04 08:15:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-04 08:09:00 · 23 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-10-04 08:04:04 · 12 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-10-04 07:55:32 · 2 answers · asked by bugaroo42 1

Didn't they learn about the law of diminishing marginal returns in economics and the effects of competition on profit margins?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingmarginalreturn.asp

2007-10-04 07:55:24 · 8 answers · asked by ideogenetic 7

Might also give Fox some credibility, you know? Covering a real story instead of one that they invented...

2007-10-04 07:50:14 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-04 07:49:30 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous