Politics - 21 November 2007

2007-11-21 11:32:31 · 40 answers · asked by RLP 5

It`ll be close...you see, America is on the brink......America is darkening and dumbing down.

2007-11-21 11:27:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-21 11:27:19 · 41 answers · asked by ? 5

2007-11-21 11:26:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Friday, March 16, 2007 - Hearing Examines Exposure of Covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205

2007-11-21 11:24:25 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

Just thought I'd ask. You remember it. Clinton was president at the time. Ring a bell? I mean you might have forgotten about since Clinton never mentioned it in any speech ever. He also never had one conversation about it with the CIA director. Clinton was really tough on terrorism though. Just ask him.

But my theory is that Bush was behind it knowing that he would be president 8 years later.

2007-11-21 11:19:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

In other words, a couple making 90k decides to buy a 600k home were "victimized" into thinking they could afford it. I totally disagree with this. Your thoughts please.

(This is related to the "Fed bail out" post minutes ago)

2007-11-21 11:18:35 · 20 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5

How are they going to blame all of their failures on Bill Clinton? he will be out of office for eight years at that point. Guess the focus will have to be shifted to the liberal media.

2007-11-21 11:16:09 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I would and as well the other side if they would be do something stupid.

2007-11-21 11:14:56 · 9 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2

2007-11-21 11:11:31 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I was in a car wreck,I was in acoma for about a year, my memory has'nt been the same,so i ask you all to help me remember by telling me what is going on,i hear people bag on Bush now and i dont understand why?

2007-11-21 11:11:12 · 18 answers · asked by bri n 3

The obvious answer would be Guiliani because he's a Republican...

But Guiliani also is a three time divorcee, committed adultery, is pro-choice, has donated to Planned Parenthood for years, had a NYC program that payed for poor women to have abortions, has marched and DRESSED in gay pride parades, and has children that do not talk to him anymore.

Are socially conservatives going to swallow their pride for someone who intentionally (((went out of his way))) to "kill babies"?

2007-11-21 11:09:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

lets think about travel costs, going to work cost, doing business cost, groceries, etc.,.....

2007-11-21 11:03:28 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Mohammad Mosaddeq was elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1951. Unfortunately, he believed that the Iranian oil fields belonged to the Iranian people. Big Oil didn't like that and pushed the CIA into overthrowing the PM and putting the Shah back in power. It was called "Operation Ajax".

Was it worth it?

Or is this yet another example of blow back? Putting the corrupt ruthless Shah back in power led to left-wing socialists and right-wing fundies in Iran to get pissed off, eventually leading to the Iranian fundie revolution.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

2007-11-21 11:01:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-21 10:58:50 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

in my econ classes that I took, they told me that prices were determined by both demand and supply. but for some reason there are people that keep telling us its demand demand demand..and they call you names if you ever want to discuss supply.

2007-11-21 10:47:17 · 9 answers · asked by sergbelxx 1

Nancy Pelosi issued this official press release, in her campaign to overthrow the "Rubber stamping Republicans". According to ABC News, gas prices are on average 85 cents higher today than a year ago. I know it was for the children, right?

2007-11-21 10:44:29 · 5 answers · asked by mbush40 6

and the main reason for this is that the elite tend to not fight in these wars and that its not their kids who have to sign up to get signing bonuses to go put their lives at risk?
Come on now.. no matter what side of the aisle you are in, surely we can agree to that at least.

2007-11-21 10:43:46 · 9 answers · asked by sergbelxx 1

I'm curious in seeing some opinions on a hypothetic situation. If the U.S. government tried to start passing laws against hate speech stating that it wasn't protected by the first amendment, how would you react?

Would you care? Would you see it as infringing on 1st amendment rights or a necessary step? Would you protest it (either online or in the street)? For that matter - would you be scared you'd be branded as a racist if you protested it?

Just curious.

2007-11-21 10:41:38 · 29 answers · asked by Iknow 1

Again we hear the muslim whine that anti-terror laws are unfair to "moderate" muslims. Well how pray tell are we supposed to tell the moderates from the radicals? The moderates haven't exactly distinguished themselves by being outspoken against terrorism. Oh, they have an excuse. They say they're too scared to speak out. Seems like there are only two kinds of muslims. Those who are too scared to speak and those who are brave enough to blow themselves up. And us infidels are just supposed to "wait and see" to find out which is which. In the meantime we should give all of them the benefit of the doubt. But wouldn't it be more prudent under these circumstances to *distrust* all muslims until they prove themselves otherwise? And if that hurts the feeling of these so-called moderates, maybe that will be the incentive for them to find their lost courage.

2007-11-21 10:25:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

if not then how to explain the desire of our founding fathers, to convey the threat that a government that does not respond to the people is a threat ot the people?

If so, Why are there so many people willing to trust everything politicians say?

2007-11-21 10:21:36 · 11 answers · asked by avail_skillz 7

The dollar is radically diminished in the world since Bush took office. Today the Euro closed at 1.48 - it was approx 0.92 before he took office(?) - The Australian Dollar was approx 0.48 and now it's 0.87 - and the dollar keeps falling and falling. The Dollar used to be viewed as the standard that the world based their currency on, and now the Euro is the standard... I've had places tell me they only want Euros and they don't accept dollars. that's pretty terrible. The Bush Administration hasn't even addressed this issue, and they haven't even mentioned it.
much if at all.

2007-11-21 10:17:20 · 13 answers · asked by art_flood 4

We have a lot to be thankful for in this country, particularly that we live here, particularly that as human beings on this planet, we live and make up and comprise the United States of America. The gratitude of that alone, if people could just harness that, then the root of optimism could be found there. Because if you have, as I do, a profound appreciation for what this country is and how rare and unique -- remember, not long ago I asked you, you ever wondered why, throughout the history of human civilization, less than 300 million people, in less than 250 years, have created the world's greatest empire? We're all human beings on this planet, just like everybody else. Nothing special about us, in terms of the way we're made. There's nothing really special about where we live. It's how we have organized ourselves and conducted ourselves. That question alone, and its answer, creates awe in me.

I have a vast appreciation for what this population of people since our founding has created, and therein lies a foundation of gratitude. When you have an appreciation and an understanding of what this country is and what's possible here, well, then you have the ability to be optimistic about the future, if you think about it this way. But, if my friend's right, if you take it for granted because you've either never thought about it, or because it's never really been taught to you in the proper perspective, and, of course, these days there's a lot of anti-Americanism being taught in the schools via the multicultural curriculum and so forth, if you expect that being an American simply means you're entitled to low gasoline prices, if you think that being an American means you're entitled to somebody taking care of your health, and then when things go wrong and you haven't learned how to provide them for yourselves, you are going to get mad and think your country is going to hell in a handbasket because it's not doing anything for you. Does New Orleans and Katrina strike a bell?

2007-11-21 10:12:34 · 8 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

A top UN official reported to the UN Security Council that recent developments in Iraq have opened an opportunity for progress. UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, briefed the UN Security Council that sectarian tensions are still problematic, but that recent trends including recently released figures that show September having the lowest number of casualties in 2006 are reason to believe there is opportunity for progress." In fact, ladies and gentlemen, front page above the fold with pictures today, the New York Times, the security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Twenty-thousand so far have returned to their homes in Baghdad. "Iraqis sound uncertain about the future, but defiantly optimistic. Many Baghdad residents seem to be willing themselves to normalcy, ignoring risks and suppressing fears to reclaim their lives. Pushing past boundaries of sect and neighborhood..." Front page, above the fold. New York Times. This story has just got to make the Democrats livid, particularly Hillary, particularly Reid and Pelosi.

In a related story from the Daily Star -- don't know where that's from because the top half of the page with the web link is clipped, can't read it, only half of each letter showing. "Iraqi army raid Shi'ite militia strongholds, finds cache of Iranian-made weapons." These were from Mookie's boys, the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. And from Mosul, "Abu Nawall, a captured al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, said he didn't join the Sunni insurgent group here to kill Americans or to form a Muslim caliphate. He signed up for the cash. 'I was out of work and needed the money,' said Abu Nawall, the nom de guerre of an unemployed metal worker who was paid as much as $1,300 a month as an insurgent." Well, now, wait, folks, Abu Nawall and his captors agreed that the Iraqis were joining the insurgency out of economic necessity. Well, wait a minute. I thought all along we were creating all these terrorists. I thought Bush was so wrong and so bad and so horrible, John Kerry and the whole Democrat Party elite, they were running out saying, "These people are a proud Muslim bunch, and we're attacking Islam, and they're joining up, we're creating more terrorists." No. They were mercenaries. It was also a way to stay alive. Of course, we hate the Americans, they say here, but we needed the money. As one general referred to them, sounds like they're the Iraq branch of The Sopranos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?ei=5065&en=7e7d43064c067b63&ex=1196226000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=86909

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/11/19/un_official_says_iraq_showing_progress/7541/

2007-11-21 10:06:52 · 19 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

i think america will soon join the eu this should be possible because we already are englands

2007-11-21 10:04:24 · 7 answers · asked by DAVID A. V. MCMAHON 1

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

2007-11-21 10:02:56 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-21 09:59:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Criminals, Clintons, Campaigns
What do these three Americans have in common?
John Deutch, the CIA director between May 1995 and December 1996, faced criminal charges for storing state secrets on his home computer.
David Herdlinger, a former Arkansas prosecutor and judge, pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1986, having accepted bribes to waive charges against those accused of drunk driving.
Alfredo Luna Pharr Regalado failed to mention to a Customs official that he was smuggling into America more than the $10,000 permitted.
If your answer is "They are all free as a bird, having been given a last-minute pardon by President Clinton," you are right, though that is not the answer the examiners are looking for.
The correct answer is that all three, who were indeed pardoned at the last minute by Mr. Clinton, have made recent financial contributions to the presidential campaign coffers of Senator Clinton. Mr. Deutch, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gave the maximum of $2,300. Mr. Herdlinger, who has relocated to Georgia and now describes himself as "a coach, catalyst, and facilitator helping people and companies discover and develop their potential," gave $1,000. And Mr. Regalado, an "insurance agent," gave $2,000.
The news that Mrs. Clinton has accepted money from three criminals who were pardoned by Mr. Clinton in highly contentious circumstances — or, more accurately, two criminals and Mr. Deutch, who was on the point of being charged by the Justice Department when he was let off the hook — is sure to prove hugely embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
It revives a deeply damaging controversy about the ethics of the Clintons at a time when Mrs. Clinton is already fending off accusations that a member of her campaign has been smearing her principal rival, Senator Obama, by suggesting to a top Democrat, according to the columnist Robert Novak, that they are sitting on scandalous information about the Illinois lawmaker that is so damaging, it would stop his campaign in its tracks.
It throws into doubt whether Mr. Clinton is a clear political asset to his wife's campaign, or whether the prospect of his return to the White House in an as yet unspecified senior capacity might not bring with it a return of the procession of scurrilous accusations that severely hampered his ability to govern.
And it casts doubt on what has thus far been the pre-eminent efficiency of the Clinton campaign. Mrs. Clinton's defense when she found out that a major donor, Norman Hsu, was still on the run, having failed to appear in court after pleading no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years ago, was that it was difficult to keep track of the back stories of all those who gave her money.
But surely the Clinton campaign, which is credited with being the most disciplined and determined in modern history, might have foreseen that if someone granted a pardon by Mr. Clinton were to give even a cent to his wife, the fact would become a major political story?
You don't have to be part of Mrs. Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy" to realize that such a donation, never mind three of them in a row, might be considered by even those without dirty minds as likely evidence of a quid pro quo. It is not as if the list of Clinton pardonees is hard to remember. After all, Mr. Clinton pardoned only 140 criminals and issued commutations to the sentences of 36 others on his last day in office, each one of whom attracted maximum publicity.
Now the whole "Pardongate" affair, which attracted its own independent special counsel, can be revived as a legitimate concern. Which grateful recipients of Mr. Clinton's beneficence have given money to his wife? It is what Mrs. Clinton might call a "gotcha question."
Which of the 15 pardoned cocaine dealers, including Mr. Clinton's self-confessed coke dealer brother, Roger, has given? Has she received cash from the newspaper heiress-turned-anarchist terrorist and bank robber Patricia Hearst? Or the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros, who misled the FBI during his appointment hearings about payments made to a mistress?
Just three checks and $5,300 later, immense damage has been done. Not that you could tell it from the official nonapology of Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," her campaign manager, Howard Wolfson told the suitably named Jake Tapper, the ABC News reporter who first broke the story. "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."
There is nothing to suggest that anything illegal has taken place. Pardoned felons have had all their rights as a citizen restored, including the right to give money to the campaign of their choice. But the whole affair calls into question the motivation behind such donations — and whether gratitude played any part.
As Mr. Clinton argued in a spirited defense of his actions in the New York Times just a month after he left office, presidents are free to pardon whom they wish. "There is only one prohibition: there can be no quid pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and commutations I granted," he wrote.

2007-11-21 09:57:46 · 8 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

Lots of people answered Al-Maghrebi's question, but then he took it off the the Yahoo Answers board. So I'm re-posting it for further discussion. By the way, Al-Maghrebi means "the Maghrebian" in Arabic -- it's an adjective. The writer is saying that he is from the Maghreb region, which includes Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

I'll post my answer to his question below and then all you kids can chime in.

2007-11-21 09:57:18 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

The Left Exaggerated AIDS (Global Warming, Anybody?)

From the Washington Post Foreign Service today, a new report to show UN overestimated AIDS epidemic. Now, why would they do that? Why would the UN overestimate the AIDS epidemic? Can anybody say money? Same reason Ted Danson overestimated the death of the oceans. Can anybody ask the same question about global warming? Why would the UN be overestimating the destruction from global warming? "The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. AIDS remains a devastating public health crisis in the most heavily affected areas of sub-Saharan Africa. But the far-reaching revisions amount to at least a partial acknowledgment of criticisms long leveled by outside researchers who disputed the U.N. portrayal of an ever-expanding global epidemic."

Just take the AIDS epidemic outta here and put global warming in it and you've got an identical story in about ten years. "The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. ... Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news..." However, as is the case with the Drive-By Media, there is always a "however" after the good news. "Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS." Oooh, okay, so they did it strategically. They were smart. They lied on purpose to get our attention, to make sure we knew just how rotten it was going to be, and to make sure that governments around the world and individuals threw money at AIDS programs all over the world, administered by the United Nations.

Can anybody say, global warming overestimated? Same bunch of people. In fact, this last line, last paragraph, I never thought that I would see this in the Washington Post: "Beyond Africa, AIDS is more likely to be concentrated among high-risk groups, such as users of injectable drugs, sex workers and gay men. More precise measurements of infection rates should allow for better targeting of prevention measures, researchers say." I don't want to rehash a bunch of history, but I'm sure you all remember back in the eighties when Ronaldus Magnus was president and the AIDS epidemic was spreading because Reagan didn't care, and he had never uttered the word, and if we weren't careful this was going to spread to the heterosexual population in a geometric fashion and it was going to be devastating. So then we started teaching kids how to use condoms, you know, using bananas and cucumbers in school. The condom craze started because it was going to spread to the heterosexual community and so forth. There was never any evidence that it was spreading to the heterosexual community, not sexually anyway, and if you said that, then you were guilty of a hate crime and profiling and discrimination, and all of that.

Now, remember what is fundamentally involved in all this: science. Science told us it was going to spread; it was going to spread to the heterosexual community. Science told us it was going to spread at geometric rates. It was a consensus of scientists. Scientists, scientists, scientists told us that this was all going to be one of the most devastating things around the world. It was time to cough up money for education, and condoms, and cucumbers and all that, and we had rock stars like Bono establish philanthropic careers on the basis of all this, all based on science. I think I read the other day -- correct me if I'm wrong down the road -- but I think somebody's discovered the original case of AIDS in this country was brought in by a Haitian immigrant; is that right? In the fifties? Whatever, it wasn't the eighties. Reagan had nothing to do with it. The left politicizes virtually everything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071120082258.pmvwp8f9&show_article=1

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071120/D8T14OD80.html

2007-11-21 09:54:24 · 8 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2