Politics - 13 November 2007

What would it be, and how do you think he would answer it?

2007-11-13 13:29:32 · 13 answers · asked by distorted r me 3

to her breast size, in that she is far stupider than a woman with breasts?

2007-11-13 13:27:20 · 4 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

I was thinking something like..."How dare you question me? I'm Hillary f***ing Clinton, Queen of the universe."

2007-11-13 13:25:07 · 37 answers · asked by Dude #2369™ 4

2007-11-13 13:23:36 · 9 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

2007-11-13 13:20:12 · 10 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

2007-11-13 13:19:04 · 13 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

Liberals said giving massive tax cuts to the super rich would decrease revenue and balloon the deficit.
Cons said it would INCREASE revenue.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there were no WMD in Iraq and that Bush was lying.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said Iraq would not be a "cakewalk" and that the mission was NOT accomplished when Bush was strutting around the flight deck crowing success.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

Liberals said invading Iraq would be a huge mistake that would weaken our military for decades.
Liberals were right, Cons were wrong.

2007-11-13 13:16:53 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Are the lobbyists out of control? free meals, free plane rides, free golf games...Does it sound like D.C. is filled with avarice? Do we require constitutional reform?

2007-11-13 13:11:21 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can you really say America is more productive from trading manufacturing jobs for employment as casino employees? Even if service industry jobs are somewhat productive such as doctors, will service eventually be provided to those who have $? In fact are we increasing economic class wars in America by catering to those who can afford service? Will America eventually become a second class nation "servicing" other countries? Due to the largest national debt in history, have we not put ourselves as debtors with countries soon to cash in?

2007-11-13 13:08:33 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2007/11/12/41549.html
“We have ‘blessed’ the ground that the Padua authorities want to transfer for the mosque,” Mariella Mazzetto said. “It’s a question of defending Italian (Christian) identity.”

Muslims do not eat pork and consider pigs and their meat filthy and unhealthy to eat.

Please don't tell me, diversity isn't working there either?

2007-11-13 13:07:19 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 13:06:26 · 8 answers · asked by mcsweeney 1

Is she going to rid herself of Bill's bad influence and go it on her own name. He seems to be a bit of a weight to bear and I don't know why she keeps him around.He appears to hurt more than help.

2007-11-13 13:04:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 13:01:28 · 10 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

I think it might have been possible. I'm not necessarily entirely opposed to US in WWII but I think the US may have been able to avoid it considering the reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the oil embargo the US placed on them. When the US declared war on Japan, Germany backed up its ally and declared war on the US. Now if the US had used diplomacy with Japan they could've possibly ended the embargo and eased Japanese aggression without a fight. I don't believe the theory that Japan wanted to conquer the US. Hirohito was wary about attacking the US. Then Germany would likely not have declared war on the US because the US could therefore become neutral. This would mean not implementing the Lend-Lease Act. I think this strategy could've saved over 500,000 American lives and over billions of dollars (considering the US was just coming out of a depression). I think the UK and USSR could've held out against Germany (look at Stalingrad) and eventually Japan.

2007-11-13 12:53:17 · 24 answers · asked by awsm12 2

Basically, they tell you to do this job, whether you agree with it or not. Everyone would get paid equally, so there would be high demand in certain jobs. This way that doesn't exist. And we can have a peaceful society where everyone lives happily. And there wouldn't be those who are too lazy to get a job, but still get paid. And people might not like their job, but we all contribute to society one way or another. Think we loose incentive? No, those who don't work will be sent to prison. Do you agree with that?

2007-11-13 12:53:04 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is it so she can repeat the same statement during the 2012 election?

2007-11-13 12:52:07 · 7 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

What's the difference? I honestly don't know what each of the parties do and i hear people talk about how the other party sucks... can sombody explain what a Republican and a democrat is? Thanx

2007-11-13 12:51:13 · 9 answers · asked by Cryptic 3

anything to indicate that they care more about the terrorists than Americans (as I have heard screeched on more than one occasion)?

Some predicted answers:

WIretapping: nobody has a problem with this, as long as a warrant is gotten WITHIN 72 HOURS A-F-T-E-R THE WIRETAP

Against the war in Iraq: ONLY because of the belief, right or wrong, it is NOT part of the war on terror and is making us LESS safe. Haven't you ever wondered why the terroris-loving
Democrats are always saying it was RIGHT to go into Afghanistan and even that we SHOULD go into northern Pakistan if that's where Bin Laden is?

Against torture: ONLY because it leads to false information AND increases the likelihood of our own troops being tortured....yes al Qaeda is already barbaric, but what about future wars and different enemies?!

Bill Clinton: "Bin Laden was offered on a platter but he turned it down" WTF!? Let's see, get the mastermind with zero effort or casualties and look like a hero? Nah....

2007-11-13 12:40:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 12:37:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Every time I ask a question about enforcing equality, I get mainly negative responses. Why?
Wouldn't you like it everyone was paid equally and given the same benifits?

2007-11-13 12:30:35 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 12:29:57 · 18 answers · asked by Sparky 1

Is Mr. Bush going to force Ben Bernanke to print 1.6 Trillion U.S. dollars and make $100 be worth 1 penny?

2007-11-13 12:29:00 · 9 answers · asked by Go For Broke 3

2007-11-13 12:23:33 · 7 answers · asked by methehomie 1

.

2007-11-13 12:19:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 12:14:15 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-13 12:13:50 · 16 answers · asked by Page 4

And if you don't think that, your an Idiot!

2007-11-13 12:12:12 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/monkeysfussoverinequality

2007-11-13 12:11:35 · 10 answers · asked by The President 3

Everyone is equal. They all get paid equally, regardless of job, etc. They are all treated under the law equally. Nobody gets special treatment. Those who don't work will be sent to prison. Those who disagree with the government would be sent to prison as well. There would be cameras everywhere, including your house, to prevent crime. Punishment for criminals would be harsh, but the death penalty won't exist. It's better to watch them suffer forever, then quickly ending their lives. Almost anyone would be allowed to enter the country, but few would be able to leave permenatly.

2007-11-13 12:09:30 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

... for fabricating a casus belli and actually starting a war based on the deception, what should their sentence be?

2007-11-13 12:09:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous