Politics - 6 November 2007

I see it frequently in here the high oil prices are Bush's fault. To all of you that think it's Bush's fault, tell me how the President can do anything to change the price of oil? Can he write a presidential memo and make it go up or down? If he were to order all the troops out Iraq today whould that make the price go up or down? If he were to request Congress legislate the price of oil( how long would it take Congress to act anyway) would that have any effect?

If a Democrat were President would there be anything different and why?

Can US Government really do anything to effect the price of oil on the world market?

2007-11-06 05:21:10 · 19 answers · asked by namsaev 6

HOW THOSE STAGES WORK IN OUR EVERYDAY LIFE... AND HOW WE CAN STOP THIS.?

2007-11-06 05:21:00 · 3 answers · asked by shabana b 1

Wow did I get some angry responses when I stated in another question that I believe the true reason, which of course could not be stated publicly, that we occupy Iraq is to have a military presence next to Iran... People say that we shouldn't worry that Iran could have a nuke in a few years, that the president isn't a fanatic... Here's FACTS that can't be disputed: Iran has attempted to obtain nuclear technology from many different lands. We gave Iran a nuclear reactor, in fact,my grandfather was one of the scientists who went to Tehran to help the Shah get his reactor going, before the revolution. Iran has at least 3 HIDDEN, UNDERGROUND nuclear facilities with concrete and rocks protecting them from attack. The president has PUBLICLY STATED that he wants to destroy us and Israel. He has given speeches infront of a US flag with SKULLS as the stars and stripes ending in bombs.
If your neighbor was doing this to you, would you call the cops? I think Bush gave us untruthful answers

2007-11-06 05:15:44 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

The was asked in response to another question, and I think that either can be the correct answer, what do you think.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071106094900AAAXYVL&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiDBWV0M9KZ.GrphHOhMlvdwJifOSsBaylw--&paid=answered#JsF4Xk_mO2Phh0n1GP0W

2007-11-06 05:12:57 · 9 answers · asked by heThatDoesNotWantToBeNamed 5

By the way, this is in UK.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/devlin/17027

2007-11-06 05:11:01 · 11 answers · asked by Think Richly™ 5

2007-11-06 05:05:02 · 19 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

First, this piece appeared on the front page of Daily Kos. It is self-explanatory:
As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: “Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?”

The fact that Democrats and the left would "panic" over winning the war tells you all you need to know about the shockingly ******** priorities the left holds regarding America. They would rather see us lose in Iraq than shown to be wrong.

Second - George Monbiot - pens a piece for Alternet in which he dearly hopes that we go into a deep recession:

I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare.

What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed: that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.

Hardship caused by economic growth? Apparently, poor Mother Earth can't take all this economic success:

On Sunday I visited the only UN biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquillity and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary's beauty and tranquillity don't figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare.

Perhaps they could ban jet skis. So what's the solution?

The massive improvements in human welfare -- better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine -- over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich nations we have already reached the logical place to stop.

You read that last part correctly. Mr. Moonbat wants economic growth to "stop." Of course, the consequences would be predictable:

But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.

That's the ticket. Let's stop economic growth, dive into a ruinous depression, and have everyone live off the government dole as God intended.

2007-11-06 04:59:19 · 12 answers · asked by CaptainObvious 7

2007-11-06 04:58:34 · 12 answers · asked by . 5

While at the same time cutting VA benefits when they return?
It seems Bush only honors our troops when they come back in a body bag. Then its 21 gun salute and "tears."

2007-11-06 04:52:14 · 16 answers · asked by The President 3

2007-11-06 04:49:00 · 23 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

If so, how and why?

2007-11-06 04:40:11 · 35 answers · asked by Liberal City 6

That Wal-Mart's and the Clinton's favorite place to invest in instead of America, COMMUNIST China, will use the gigantic new military it has built with Wal-Mart money to attack Taiwan before this year ends? In 1990 the COMMUNIST miltiary, soley purposed to defend the party leadership and NOT to defend the state, was pathetic. Media reports listed many problems to include boots and guns for only half their soldiers, antiquated command, communications and field armor, no real navy or effective air forces and only 5 bullets per gun! Moral throughout the consripted PLA was tanked due to the democracy movements of 1989 and lack of payment of saleries as the COMMUNIST government was bankrupt due to Communism's historically proven failed economics. Then Wal-Mart attorneys Bill and Hillary Clinton extended favored nation status to effectively save that regime from near certain collapse by 2000. We should have a FREE China today instead the threats we now face. Thanks WMT and Hillary.

2007-11-06 04:36:31 · 10 answers · asked by DAVID MICHAEL 1

2007-11-06 04:30:44 · 34 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

This may sound so ignorant but I still don't know what exactly the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan (i'm Canadian) is for?
I want you to tell me what it's REALLY for, and what the government's are saying it's for. Cause I know there's two different answers.
Thanks for your help. :-)

2007-11-06 04:27:51 · 15 answers · asked by Loise P. 1

I am not questioning anyones patriotism here, but do you think we will ever see the courage & sacrifice made on such a national scale again?

2007-11-06 04:27:32 · 31 answers · asked by Diamond24 5

2007-11-06 04:18:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

If there was a new law saying that if you are a US citizen but don't like the way it's being run (ie Bush), you are free to immigrate to any other country in the world, get a second-citizenship for that country, and even get assistance finding a job similar to what you currently have... Which country would you pick and why?
This is just a *poll*
:)

2007-11-06 04:17:37 · 22 answers · asked by Ann <3 1

Doesn't he know that Christmas is coming up?







Yes, I'm being sarcastic but I'm sure somebody out there thinks it's their fault.

2007-11-06 04:07:33 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

I fear the government taking control over my life more then I do Iran getting a nuclear bomb .
I fear poverty spreading and financial ruin under massive debt and 30 years of struggling to pay bills and high taxes more then Iran .
I fear a police state that monitors my activities for my own safety more then I do Iran .
Since I am afraid you would think Iran might back down before I decide that killing 70,000,000 people is better then watching my family suffer for their entire lives .

I hate war but we need to make an example of someone so we can relax and enjoy life . How many of you would support a massive nuclear attack on the middle east just so we can have some peace .
I would rather walk then have to endure an endless war with a bunch of towel headed Arabs eager to meet Allah .
I say help them all out and send them to Allah in mass numbers .

2007-11-06 04:03:27 · 19 answers · asked by TroubleMaker 5

When you have "Radical Christians" or people who claim they are doing whatever it is in the name of God, people of the Christian faith denounce these radicals. Muslims do not denounce their radicals. There have been thousands upon thousands of suicide bombings done in the name of Allah, and it is encouraged. There have only been single digit abortion clinic bombings, and these people are quickly denounced from Christianity. One teaches peace and love the other teaches to kill. Again where is the comparison?

2007-11-06 03:53:00 · 25 answers · asked by mbush40 6

2007-11-06 03:51:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-06 03:48:33 · 24 answers · asked by You 2

SOURCE: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fvTMSXefplk

2007-11-06 03:47:47 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-06 03:45:34 · 53 answers · asked by MexicanSIdeOfThis 1

I mean it leave everything in move in condition just some dust to clean up. Why talk nukes when you can use Neutron bombs and you could colonize the next day.

2007-11-06 03:42:46 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Did the toy industry forget to pay there annual bribes to politicians?

2007-11-06 03:42:37 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-06 03:40:58 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

A visit by the yahoo rodent. It's not like I called him America's Leni Riefenstahl, so why the violations?

2007-11-06 03:39:50 · 13 answers · asked by Kubla Con 4

For all this nation's sins, the alternative is much worse. We do eventually to get things right, it just takes a while because everyones opinion must be heard (ie, slavery, the fact that we're now turning the page on global warming and even oil companies are trying to go greener). The problem is, we need to be in Iraq. People can't simplify it by saying he's fighting his dad's war or it's just for oil. Yes, companies get rich off war, it's a fact of life. The reason we are in Iraq is because Iran is a serious threat and we need as many American controlled zones as possible. We can't come out and say that because people who have never had a hard day in their life will cry and say it's not ethical, but we beat Germany because we had them surrounded. Iran is ruled by a religious zealot who believes the end of the world is coming and would like nothing more than to bring it on. He wants to destroy the west. We don't fully know what he has yet, but we know that he has 3 major facilities

2007-11-06 03:38:04 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-06 03:36:17 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous