Politics - 4 December 2007

2007-12-04 09:34:39 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

talk about it when it might make him look bad? For example, he doesn't want to talk about what he thinks about Mormons. He wouldn't say what would Jesus do on capital punishment, etc, etc.

He said in the last Hard Ball show that he would not let his religion get in the way of executing the law, waging war, supporting the death penalty, following abortion laws, etc, etc. He said he will execute the laws, even when he doesn't agree with them.

If he's not going to let religion affect his duties, why even bring it up?

2007-12-04 09:32:25 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are direct creations of western intelligence as we have thoroughly documented. Al Qaeda itself was a joint CIA/ISI intelligence database of mujahudeen fighters they had recruited in the late 70s and eighties to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

ISI is deeply involved with such CIA activities. Bin Laden even had an ISI Running Officer, who also worked closely with the Taliban in Afghanistan who were heavily sponsored by ISI operatives before 9/11.

The head of the ISI at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad was, according to the FBI and as confirmed by various news reports at the time, a principle financier of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers.

2007-12-04 09:25:28 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Im guessing about 32

2007-12-04 09:21:04 · 28 answers · asked by NEO PIRATE 3

2007-12-04 09:15:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

The known flip-flopper is going to give a big speech titled "faith in America". It promises to be a big yawn. Leave it to a flip-flopping politician to MAKE such a speech.

Dont waste your life on it just read my review:
-On Mitt Romney's speech about faith in America. He said nothing but I bunch of tired. worn-out cliches that patronizes potential voters. Rather disingenous.

Anything else to be said about this trailing GOP contender?

2007-12-04 09:13:42 · 5 answers · asked by Zinger! 3

2007-12-04 09:13:28 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

bush is our president and we must follow lock step behind him no matter how stupid, evil, scary, paranoid, skit-so, freaky, fumbles the english language he gets. were sheep remember

2007-12-04 09:10:09 · 13 answers · asked by i_think_its_me_17 2

he had an honest job, that it would have made him a better President.

I am talking about a job that he actually applied for and got on his own merits, not family name. One in which he worked at least 8 hours a day and earned a salary reflective of the work he did.

2007-12-04 09:07:46 · 11 answers · asked by truth seeker 7

AT LEAST

PRESIDENT LULA IS TURNING INTO A KIND OF
ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN BRAZIL

2007-12-04 09:07:13 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Someone would have a fit if it were Christian views being pushed on them.

2007-12-04 08:51:58 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean like the social welfare programs and health care and what not. I mean you should have to do honest work to make money.

2007-12-04 08:44:08 · 20 answers · asked by Rocketman 6

Mom and dad once implied to me that if I dont surrender my ability to think rationally in favor of a monotheism with a bloody history than I am somehow an awful person.

What they where teaching me was cult indoctrination to a group that wants money, as its constistent hypocrisy shows?

^was it Islam or Christianity I am speaking of? You cant tell because the psychology is the same.

One arrogant christian accused agnostics and atheists of "self-serving denial".Yes he was accusing them of exactly what some very haughty, arrogant religion fanatics do. But thats the point, the pot calls the kettle black to take the edge off.
Freud called it "projection".

So is the monotheism of both christians and muslims so similar that their hostility towards the Realist or the Rationalist is equally so ostentatious?

And yes, I know I'm a scumbag for not believing in you god (so your preacher can get my money). Now do your patriotic duty and hate me,lemmings!

2007-12-04 08:35:36 · 6 answers · asked by Zinger! 3

Can't he back down gracefully? Is he so determined to start a war with Iran, too? Evidence says they stopped four years ago, with the nuclear plans.
He claims they are still a potential threat! I think he is getting paranoid.
Is he going to claim that Libia, or Syria is doing it next?
He won't say anything to Saudi Arabia, about their justice system, as far as that rape victim, but he still wants to plan an attack on Iran.
How much more damage is he going to do to his own administration, before the Republican put a gag on him.?
He is an embarrassment to the United States, every time he opens his mouth.
When will he stop? He won't be happy, until we are embroiled in World War Three?

2007-12-04 08:31:39 · 15 answers · asked by cassandra 3

Last week I called Bin Laden a punk= violation
2 days ago I said Bush was dumb=violation
Yesterday I asked if Mormonism is a cult=violation
Today I said the rich recruit the poor and minorities to fight in foreign countries=violation.
Is their a "reporting war" going on and I missed the memo? LoL

2007-12-04 08:26:51 · 20 answers · asked by CaesarLives 5

Those lively minds over at the (always capitalized) Intelligence Community have given us yet another of their entertaining Estimates, this time about the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. You know, the one the Iranians stoutly deny exists, the one they refuse to let inspectors examine, and the one they sometimes acknowledge when on or another of their leaders has a slip of the tongue. They now favor us with slightly more than two pages of “Key Judgments” on this important subject.

Two years ago, the IC — the same IC that claimed to have detailed information about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, that famously missed the boat on al-Qaeda, and that has had at least two spy networks inside Iran rolled up in the past couple of decades — told us it was all but certain that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons.”

Yesterday it reversed field. It said that in fact, two years before the 2005 report, the Iranians had “halted its (covert) nuclear weapons program,” and that the “halt lasted at least several years” and (although the IC is less certain about this) is still in force. There is some disagreement within the IC on this point, however. The Energy Department and the National Intelligence Council apparently agree that something was stopped, but have at least some doubt as to whether the “halt” encompasses Iran’s “entire nuclear weapons program.”

In short, some IC analysts think there is no covert nuclear-arms program at all, while others aren’t so sure. In a moment of candor at a briefing Monday, these gentlemen stressed that Iran has a “latent goal” to develop a nuclear weapon, that “gaps remain” in our information, and that Iran is “probably the hardest intelligence target there is.” And they warn us, in one of their Key Judgments, that the odds are that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Parse this: “only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons — and such a decision is inherently reversible.” This seems to imply that the “halt” was a tactical move, not a strategic decision.

You certainly can’t criticize them for failing to cover their derrieres.

Nonetheless, despite the “gaps in intelligence,” and despite the Islamic Republic’s well-earned reputation for being one of the most deceptive on earth, the IC goes right ahead and predicts that Iran is quite a long way away from being able to field nukes. The earliest possible — albeit “highly unlikely” — date at which Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but it’s more reasonable to look to the 2010-2015 timeframe. Interestingly enough, this pretty much corresponds to their 2005 forecast, when they said that if Iran’s technical progress increased, they might have enough weapons-grade uranium “by the end of this decade.” And the IC stresses that Iran has “the scientific, technical and industrial capacity...to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

All this deals with the Iranians’ ability to enrich uranium on their own. Of course, they could have obtained some from abroad, and the IC admits that they cannot rule out the possibility that Iran has obtained an actual weapon “or enough fissile material for a weapon.”

More derriere protection. And there is still more. After all, the Iranians excel at deception, and we’ve been fooled about the nuclear programs of countries from the Soviet Union to India and Pakistan. Maybe we’ve been fooled again. The IC doesn’t think so, although, in its usual “on the one hand yes, on the other hand maybe” routine, the officials responded to the question in yesterday’s press briefing by reassuring the press that “We gamed more than half a dozen such scenarios,” ...But the analysts reached the conclusion such a scenario was “plausible but not likely.”

Tom Joscelyn has wisely warned us to be skeptical about anything that comes from the IC, and he rightly asks about the sources for the new conclusion. There is no point guessing about this, and without such knowledge it’s very difficult to assess the quality of the analysis. But whatever the spooks think they know has to be evaluated in the light of common sense, the views of other countries, and the history of nuclear proliferation. WMD programs are easier to hide than one imagines. After the First Gulf War we were astonished to discover how far Saddam’s Iraq had advanced, for example. To claim we “know” that Iran no longer has a covert nuclear-weapons program is quite a statement. (Remember how we used to say that you can’t prove a negative? The IC seems to know better.)

Moreover, there’s the old smell test. We went from zero to bomb in four years leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at a time when nobody even knew if the thing was doable. On the IC’s account, the Iranians have been at this since “at least the late 1980’s.” (I actually think it didn’t get into gear until 1991, but let’s not quibble.) During that time, almost everything was for sale (and Iran has lots of money), A.Q. Khan was running his bazaar, Soviet nuclear physicists were hired by Tehran, and the Iranians themselves are very smart. Is it likely, that Iran hasn’t been able to build nukes in two decades? No way.

If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply. These are the same guys who have been telling us for years that Sunnis and Shiites can’t work together, when they should have known that Iranian Revolutionary Guards (Shiites) were trained in the early 1970s by Yasser Arafat’s al Fatah (Sunnis).

Color me an unbeliever.

2007-12-04 08:16:17 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Like the ones Henry Paulson of the Treasury is drafting up? Surprising how there is no uproar over that.

2007-12-04 08:12:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

The latest news from Iran about the supposed abandonment in 2003 of the effort to produce a Bomb — if even remotely accurate — presents somewhat of a dilemma for liberal Democrats.

Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes? But to advance that belief is also to concede that Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture (around say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

War is unpredictable and instead of "no blood for oil" (oil went from $20 something to $90 something a barrel after the war, enriching Iraq and the Arab Gulf region at our expense), perhaps the cry, post facto, should have been "no blood for the elimination of nukes."

In the meantime, expect a variety of rebuttals to this assurance that for 4 years the Iranians haven't gotten much closer to producing weapons grade materials.

2007-12-04 08:09:36 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

It seems the media and universities were not enough for the liberals to control....Now they have taken control of intel too in an attempt to discredit our wonderful president.

2007-12-04 08:04:11 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seriously, why shouldn't I say "Merry Christmas"? Why shouldn't we name a sports team "The Raiders"? Why shouldn't I name my dog "Muhammed"? Who cares! I don't see what all the fuss is about.

2007-12-04 08:03:57 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-04 08:01:19 · 21 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

2007-12-04 07:59:37 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

unfortunetly for me i have to be a conservative for a government debate and i specificaly have to talk about the conservative stance on the current mortgage crisis, and why its better than the liberal's.
so can someone please explain to me the conservative's stance on the crisis and try to explain why that is tge best approach to it.

thanks a bunch!

2007-12-04 07:57:39 · 18 answers · asked by john 4

2007-12-04 07:56:26 · 17 answers · asked by NEO PIRATE 3

2007-12-04 07:48:42 · 15 answers · asked by Moore55 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7BmrewitiA

If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her
Then she starts to do
The things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You'll be happy for the rest of your life,
An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
She'll always give you peace of mind.

Don't let your friends say
You have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway,
Though her face is ugly,
Her eyes don't match,
Take it from me she's a better catch.

Say man.
Hey baby.
Saw your wife the other day.
Yeah?
Yeah, she's ugly.
Yeah, she's ugly but she sure can cook.
Yeah?. Okay.

Merry Christmas !!

2007-12-04 07:47:05 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

...any and all input is welcome. Thanks.

2007-12-04 07:46:53 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous

Okay i'm not no terrorist but i think that there will be another 9/11 do you. I think that the war and everything its just ......
Do you think another attack on American soil is reliable

2007-12-04 07:46:35 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

"In a news release on Monday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki blamed the government of Saddam Hussein for the widespread corruption. . . . But 2008, he said, would be the year that a “war on corruption” would be declared.

“And also a war on those ignorant and lazy people who do not properly carry out their duties,” Mr. Maliki said.

2007-12-04 07:45:02 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-04 07:43:53 · 15 answers · asked by realitycheck 3