Politics - 6 October 2007

My top picks are:
1. Fred Thompson. I like the fact that while he adheres to true conservatism, he also understood as a Senator that it meant voting independently on social and economic issues on which he does not agree with the rest of his delegation. I'd like to know his clear position on abortion, however. I basically consider myself libertarian, but I don't support abortion at all!
2. Mike Huckabee: does not support abortion, does not believe in raising taxes and implementing business-unfriendly strategies, and (while not a great reason) a nice guy.
3. Ron Paul: I don't agree with his stance on the war. I believe even though the U.S. isn't exactly managing the war in Iraq well, we have a job that we must finish or it will be detrimental to the security of our nation. I do like his non-hypocritical track record of supporting tight border security not gov't raising spending except when necessary.

I don't like Giuliani and Romney. They're dishonest and "flip-flopping."

2007-10-06 10:27:59 · 9 answers · asked by BlanketyBlank 1

But despise their own country and its president. George Bush doesn't kill people for being gay..

And when did it become uncool and "facist" to love your country?

2007-10-06 10:18:08 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can Al Gore find man bear pig before it is too late, can Hillary defeat Al in the primaries if he succeeds in finding Man bear pig!~!

2007-10-06 10:08:46 · 19 answers · asked by Hunter 4

Bush's jr's grandfather funded Hitler

Rove's grandfather His - helped build camps

Now the world turns away from the US

The dollar is falling the economy if on the collapse


Is it because the world says no to the facists ? Again ?

2007-10-06 10:03:48 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean I understand you may not like him but you think he really said let me just attack my own country?

2007-10-06 10:03:40 · 17 answers · asked by fred 3

2007-10-06 10:02:25 · 14 answers · asked by Zizzu 1

2007-10-06 09:57:25 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

When obama kneels on his prayer rug does he thank Allah for letting him engage in Jihad from within?

2007-10-06 09:53:23 · 10 answers · asked by Hunter 4

What do you think about her? And why? Be specific

2007-10-06 09:49:51 · 16 answers · asked by krazykiddz 3

2007-10-06 09:49:15 · 16 answers · asked by ? 1

2007-10-06 09:45:58 · 15 answers · asked by ? 1

What if our military did away with water boarding and ice cold temps and instead just played shrill and screaming speeches by Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and feminist protestors at high decibel levels 24/7?

It would certainly be maddening. Nobody could stand hearing their shrill shrieks and screams and complaints OVER and OVER and OVER again endlessly for 24 hours a day.

And it would be funny to watch Nancy and Hillary complaining that making other people listen to them for that long is inhumane torture.

So it's the best of both worlds! It IS torture, but those opposed to the use of extreme means would be hard pressed to complain about it... since THEY would be the ones actually CAUSING the torturous environment.

I think it would be great.

A lot like they did to prisoners in Woody Allen's Bananas, playing really bad operettas over and over.

2007-10-06 09:45:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

What a mess.................................?????????

2007-10-06 09:40:54 · 15 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/49819228

2007-10-06 09:38:28 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have observed this over a period of years as logic seem remiss in any of their stand points.... Maybe you could explain.

2007-10-06 09:35:24 · 16 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2

I'm writing a paper on the importance of the study of world history to us as Americans. I'm half way done but I'm having trouble concentretating on one part. I need to discuss political and law and order(eliminating terrorism) reasons for our dependence on the world. If someone could give me some ideas just to get started and some focused examples that would be a great help. thanks

2007-10-06 09:34:49 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

I went to a few stores today, and noticed quite a bit of army looking pants and shirts ....you know with the camouflage look. And it looks like desert camouflage too.

2007-10-06 09:32:46 · 4 answers · asked by ningis n 1

They wear no uniforms and they may live near you. It requires extraordinary efforts to catch them and to get them to release information vital to stopping terrorist attacks.

2007-10-06 09:31:20 · 18 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

Are even Blacks deserting Obama since he is showing his true hatred for America by not wearing a PIN!~!

2007-10-06 09:28:53 · 13 answers · asked by Hunter 4

Or would it be kind of fair?
and balanced.

2007-10-06 09:13:58 · 5 answers · asked by oohhbother 7

Our party now stands for overspending, ineptitude, scandal, and torture. What happened to us?

2007-10-06 09:13:10 · 14 answers · asked by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6

Why did we find enough Yellow Cake Uranium to build a nuclear bomb?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/politics/22NUKE.html?ei=5007&en=32e4a82798061939&ex=1400558400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201286.html

Also, why did a Senate Intelligence Committee have this to say about Joe Wilson?

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

2007-10-06 09:09:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Wearing a flag pin or upholding the Constitution?

2007-10-06 09:03:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
More recognizable perhaps than any other provision of our Constitution, the freedoms bestowed to the American people by the First Amendment have been treasured for more than two centuries. Throughout our history, Americans have vigilantly fought to defend these freedoms.
Shockingly, Americans today face a Democrat Congress seeking to deteriorate our freedom under the guise of “fairness.” Our First Amendment rights are being threatened by Congressional Democrats who seek the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, a law to drastically increase government regulation of free speech on television and radio. The proposal requires Washington regulation of news and debate in the media.
The American people know an open society, the ability to speak freely, is fundamental to a functioning democracy. The free flow of information empowers the electorate against an overbearing government. It is impossible to have a government of, by and for the people without an active media and electorate freely sharing information and opinions.
Throughout history, freedom-averse nations have used government control over the media to advance political propaganda and suppress opposing voices. During the Cold War, the Soviets used censorship to hide the atrocities of their oppressive government from its unknowing people. But Mikhail Gorbachev’s openness doctrine, Glasnost, led to the demise of the communist regime.
Even today we can see the practice of oppressive censorship in place in Venezuela. For more than five years, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used the media to spread his socialist propaganda and silence those critical of him. In May of 2007, freedom-respecting Venezuelans protested in the streets of Caracas as Chavez closed the last remaining independent television network.
The dishonestly named “Fairness Doctrine” was a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that required broadcasters to provide equal time for “contrasting points of view” on matters of public importance. It is a relic of a bygone era when the majority of news and information was distributed by one or two outlets. At the time, a lack of competition in news raised concerns that a lone broadcaster could control the nation’s thinking.
But after nearly 40 years of trial, the Fairness Doctrine proved to actually stifle public debate and discourage important reporting. In 1987, the FCC discontinued the Fairness Doctrine, citing its unintended consequences that left the electorate less informed.
Today, justification for the Fairness Doctrine is folly, as Americans have innumerable resources to access public information and debate. The advent of the internet and the booming cable and satellite radio industries have given an interested American more competition of ideas than at any time in our nation’s history.
The crux of this debate is the Democrats’ desire to stonewall conservative talk radio. While talk radio may lean to the right, this is not because of any inequity in our system. Talk radio is among the most egalitarian, open vehicles for political speech. No other medium gives Americans as much freedom to share with the masses their individual views on the issues of public importance.
Democrat leaders are unwilling to recognize that, regardless of the current political climate, we are a right-of-center nation. Poll after poll has shown that the average voter considers themselves leaning right. Liberal rhetoric simply does not resonate with the average hard-working American, and this is translated over the radio waves. Rather than accept public discussion of ideas that conflict with leftward Democrats, they desire to silence public opinion.
Their proposal is about suppressing political speech that is inconsistent with a liberal ideology. An insult to American intellectual freedom and a blow to the freedom of the press, the proposal reveals to all Americans that Democrat leaders do not respect your right to speak freely.
At every turn, this new Democrat majority is calling for increased Washington control over the lives of Americans. Now they are working to extend their blanket of authority onto political speech and the public airwaves.
The American people refuse to move in the direction of Soviet-era Russia and Chavez’s Venezuela. There is no greater fairness than freedom, and America will forever vigilantly stand for our freedom of speech and expression.

2007-10-06 09:02:39 · 21 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

I want to hear from people who really buy into this notion that Iraq is but another Vietnam. As far as I can tell, the only similiarity is that we have troops coming home and getting spit on. Care to name any other similiarities? Particularly real ones you didn't have to make up?

2007-10-06 08:48:14 · 27 answers · asked by Russell 2

John F. Kennedy was a great, patriotic American, and relatively conservative Democrat who I still have a lot of respect for. One of my favorite lines from J.F.K. is: And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

Zell Miller was a former Congressman from Georgia who happened to be a conservative Democrat who I also have a lot of respect for.

So, why don’t we have great men like these two running the Democrat Party?

How has that party been hijacked by the really radical, communist, and anti-American liberals?

Case in point:

Look at John Murtha and how he defamed our brave Marines by accusing them of false lies.

Look at John Kerry how he said that are troops are stupid, they can’t win the war, and he even flipped the bird at the Vietnam War vets.

Then there’s the creep Dick Durbin from Illinois. Remember how he accused our referred to our troops as “Nazis”.

2007-10-06 08:41:25 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seriously, I want to hear from you libs out there who've got so much to say about the economy and the state of affairs in America, tell me when and where the ideals of liberalism have ever benefited anybody? Anybody besides a criminal?

2007-10-06 08:35:52 · 23 answers · asked by Russell 2

Republicans ruled the House and Senate the last 6 years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Why was his economy so good? Republicans came up with “Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997”. If we weren’t attacked on September 11th I’m sure we wouldn’t have all our debt. Excluding all expenses related to 9/11 where have Republicans overspent

2007-10-06 08:30:54 · 12 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Like old boxers whom were paid to lose,it makes sence that she is paying him to screw up.He can't be that stupid to not wear a flag can he?Or how bout wanting to bomb our allies comment.

2007-10-06 08:26:46 · 14 answers · asked by ak6702 7

It makes even less sense when people give us the "clinton thought he had WMDs too".
Clinton did say he thought they did, but seeing as he wasn't going to start a war over it, he didn't make much of an effort to find out (other than the regular intel), whereas bush did and found out that the claims were untrue.

With bush, in 2002, the CIA sent joseph wilson to niger (the country saddam was allegedly buying WMDs from). While there, wilson determined conclusively that there were no WMDs, and reported his findings to the u.s. government. the bush adminstration ignored his statements, and in the 2003 state of the union address bush claimed
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
He ignored wilson's findings. Moreover, the claim that the british government did find significant quantities was false, as testified by tony blair.

2007-10-06 08:14:52 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous