Politics - 9 November 2007

The person in American Government I would consider as being very successful if George W. Bush.

2007-11-09 05:19:11 · 11 answers · asked by Sunshine Happy 1

2007-11-09 05:17:32 · 15 answers · asked by Sunshine Happy 1

2007-11-09 05:15:21 · 29 answers · asked by Sunshine Happy 1

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0912741320071109

rioting in the former Soviet Republic

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20071108091804203C166383

Roiting in Pakistan?

2007-11-09 05:14:47 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-09 05:13:53 · 8 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

I'm voting for him/her. As a Texan, I am so sick of it. I am tolerant, I am sympathetic, to those that truly need assistance. But these millions of illegals and thier anchor babies are really draining this state and the country. We could afford so much more if this problem didn't exist. Which candidate has the balls to confront this huge problem? I heard Ron Paul, is that true?

2007-11-09 05:13:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm thinking a carrier Republican posing as a Democrat would make the best pro-war president.

Like The Clintons.

2007-11-09 05:13:10 · 4 answers · asked by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3

yes or no and why

2007-11-09 05:12:44 · 6 answers · asked by Jonathan H 2

2007-11-09 05:12:26 · 22 answers · asked by Sunshine Happy 1

2007-11-09 05:11:45 · 10 answers · asked by Carol 2

Do you guys know that six nuclear missiles are missing from US U.S.A.F base?
http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm
http://houston.craigslist.org/pol/460843869.html

Each missile weights 1 ton and fully armed to go off.

How could this happen?
Who is behind this?
Are this missiles going to be used on Iran?

2007-11-09 05:10:58 · 7 answers · asked by No More 3

Ronald Reagan was the president during the crack epidemic in the 1980s. However, it was Reagan himself that personally allowed cocaine to come in from Nicaragua to flood inner city streets. In result making millions of citizens into addicts who then had babies while being on the drugs. Years later, how many babies died or were born addicted to crack in relation to Ronald Reagans fund raising efforts?

2007-11-09 05:06:44 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

When I hear people (mostly politicians, though i've seen it quite a few times on here too, anyway...) say that the troops are fighting for my freedom, I have to wonder...

I mean I support them and admire the fact that they WOULD fight for my freedom, but really, which of my freedoms exactly are they fighting for today? As far as I can figure, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guaranteeing my freedoms were never at risk until this administration came along. So besides my own government trying to keep sh*t secret from its people; invading the privacy and illegally spying on its own people; denying habeas corpus rights to prisoners; and defaming, arresting / and otherwise attempting to silence those who would disagree, how exactly are our freedoms at risk? Seriously the last war actually fought for the freedom of the American people was the civil war.

So tell me again, what are the troops fighting for?

2007-11-09 05:05:12 · 13 answers · asked by slushpile reader 6

Not because we’re going to melt the world or the pigmy 3-toed bat will go extinct.

If we

1: Replace all gas cars with hydrogen cars

2: Require all homes to produce sufficient energy to run their home during the day using solar, wind, hydro, or other renewable power.

The result would be:

1: We would treat the Middle East as we do Somalia. Every time they killed another million locals, we'd look across the ocean and click out tongues and say, "Isn't that too bad." Then go back to ignoring them.

2: We could also make it quite clear that any act of terrorism against the US or our allies would be met with the deadliest response. Then follow through.

3: Insulate our economy from the price fluctuation of oil.

4: Thumb our noses at the holier than thou Europeans.

5: Make the world a better smelling place.

Before anyone starts whining about technology, my plan would take 10 years. But, you don't get to the finish line if you don't start.

2007-11-09 05:00:43 · 10 answers · asked by JimF 3

Guess he was to busy meeting with Yassar Arafat!

2007-11-09 05:00:19 · 16 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

Judging from the reviews, it will be pretty difficult for them to avoid finally having to give some honest answers to questions concerning their criminal efforts to silence his female victims. I'm pretty sure it will become an instant best seller and may put an end to their aspirations to climb over the White House fence.

2007-11-09 04:59:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-09 04:54:34 · 15 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

We have had almost 8 years of an inept administration. There has been no leadership and actually to the contrary. It is hard for to remember when our nation has been so divided. We will be at war for years to come. It is now time for our nation to set aside the foolishness of party politics and hope for leadership. The next president must be able to unite the people of our nation and lead us into a never ending struggle over petroleum. Here is my question or premise....the ongoing war will not be won with sophisticated weaponry, but by the will and determination of the people. We need leadership!!!! We can prevail but not if we are as now, divided. How say you?

2007-11-09 04:48:19 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Would that count as a flip-flop?

2007-11-09 04:44:45 · 12 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

1?
3?
5?
any? (details please)

2007-11-09 04:43:52 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

2007-11-09 04:43:30 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

In today's society their exists wealth gaps never previously encountered in US history.

The poor are worse now than European serfs under absolute monarchies.
The middle-class is being squeezed and almost relegated to borderline lower-class.

The wealthy few become not just wealthier, but astronomically wealthy and government increasingly no longer truly represents the hopes, dreams, desires and values of their electorate and even tinker with destruction of the US nation.
Mad old King George III didn't tax and oppress the Americans as todays'.

Do you think increasingly European Socialism, if not even communism is garnering even tacit approval in the US?

Or have the rich so cleverly bamboozled and terrorised the proletariat that they resist any change from rampant, uncontrolled capitalism?

Will there be a FDR style Fair Deal for today's Americans?

2007-11-09 04:41:05 · 20 answers · asked by ? 2

2007-11-09 04:38:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Not talking about people who think the war should be handled differently, although I think you should realize you don't have access to classified info and can't make a good decision. I want to know why we are moaning about dunking a terrorist in water when these people actively cry for your and my bloody death, when they behead civilians on camera, and when they attack civilian targets, killing women and kids, not soldiers. These people have said time and time again they hate us and will stop at nothing to kill us. And no, not talking about all muslims for god's sake! Why do the people who cry about waterboarding remain silent when the terrorists commit atrocities far worse, or worse yet, say that we need to try and "understand them"

2007-11-09 04:37:33 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

I understand many here in YA are going elsewhere...where?

2007-11-09 04:34:43 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

a communist agenda? While those who work to protect those rights are considered anti-American?

2007-11-09 04:32:33 · 11 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7

It seemed the economy was the Bush adms only bragging point.....if we have a recession I don't think there will be any question.....I think his efforts at nation building have bankrupted us but that won't hit us till years down the road...not a liberal but a realist.

2007-11-09 04:31:49 · 38 answers · asked by Anonymous

over what was actually asked for by the army corp

of engineers

2007-11-09 04:29:21 · 13 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

I need to settle a little debate with my friend.
She reckons all Americans are ignorant to things that happen outside they're own country. She believes they are so wrapped up in their own news they are unaware of the world around them.
I personally disagree, I think you guys do know who our prime minister is! :)
prove me right! :P

2007-11-09 04:29:06 · 16 answers · asked by Emma kisses 2

I can see how a high percentage of Americans want to made sure that Hillary is defeated, but why all the interest in whether Rudy, Thompson or Romney wins the Republican nomination? I doubt very seriously that it matters that much which one of them wins. They're all good candidates with a fundamentally conservative outlook on governing, even though there are some differences. For instance Rudy is pro-choice. So what? That is not going to have anything to do with what kind of job he does as President. President's don't have any influence over the infanticide issue anyway. If that were the case Bush would have had abortion outlawed seven years ago. The outcome of the Republican race isn't going to affect anyone's life one way or the other. The main thing is to insure that Hillary goes back to Arkansas, or wherever.

2007-11-09 04:28:29 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous