English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i personally am disapointed in the way america voted. what they dont realize that bad things are on the horizon. mark my words. and having nancy polocei as speaker of the house scares me have to death,shes 3rd in line to become president, o my secret service please protect george bush and chaney.extra.,,,,alot

2006-11-08 08:44:16 · 24 answers · asked by freebird403us2001 3 in News & Events Current Events

24 answers

Very concerned, but we made it through Carter's inflation and Clinton's indifference. I am worried that the terrorists will wait until after the 2008 elections before they strike again and people will think Democrats actually solved the problems in the Middle East and elect Hillary.

2006-11-08 08:57:42 · answer #1 · answered by Knowledge 3 · 3 1

I'm afraid that the Democratically controlled House and Senate will follow in the footsteps of their former leader, Bill Clinton, and not do anything about global terrorism. What exactly did he do after the first Trade Center bombing? What exactly did he do after the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia. What exactly did he do after the USS Cole bombing? I'm frightened to think of what they will come up with as an exit strategy. They have made it clear that they want out of Iraq NOW! Guess what, you can't do that. I do not feel bad that we went to war there or Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. Sadam Hussein himself was a WMD. People tend to ignore genocide and this is a disheartening matter, especially with what is going on in Darfur. Even when 5 democratic Representatives were arrested in April for a Darfur protest, we never heard anything about it. Our liberally biased media was too busy covering what the President did wrong or the other scandal of the day...does that tell you anything?

2006-11-08 09:02:35 · answer #2 · answered by Stephanie W 2 · 1 1

Nothing's going to change. The Dems aren't a cohesive unit, so it would take about 270 seats to get their agenda through. You can pretty much call the next two years a throwaway. Any legislature for change will be vetoed, and nobody has the numbers to override.

2006-11-08 08:53:00 · answer #3 · answered by togashiyokuni2001 6 · 2 0

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the pulic treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore : 19; Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million; Bush : 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush : 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty-million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say good-bye to the USA in fewer than five years.

2006-11-08 08:59:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No I am not scared I am a Rep and I voted for Bush 4 times
We survived the Clinton years plus every dark cloud has a silver lining. Jimmy Carter gave us The greatest president of my time Ronald Regan.
So yes I am concerned but not scared.

2006-11-08 08:49:36 · answer #5 · answered by danzka2001 5 · 3 2

whilst Keeting grew to become into PM seeing the physician grew to become into loose for a pensioner John Howard took that away after he grew to become into voted pm in 1996. i might desire to be sure it returned or something comparable. i comprehend some docs bulk invoice yet mine would not. John Howard merely seems after the rich and not the regular Aussie. Ranjeeh D, costs of activity are increasing under the Liberals without lead to sight!

2016-12-28 16:22:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Stephanie, with the existence of living organisms, there will always be the threat of opposition. The United States will NEVER be able to root out the threat of terrorism itself, and America will continue to feel threatened and be attacked by others as long as we remain a country.
The project to police the world and to eliminate terrorist threat across the globe is an impossible task and it will never be accomplished. When you weed one out, only more will be created. During the Clinton presidency, people were definetly murdered, and obviously the threat of terrorism still existed at that point, as it will forever. The difference between Clinton's term and George W. Bush's term is the ingredient of FEAR. Bill Clinton didnt find it necessary to instill fear into every single American's mind in response to a simple terrorist attack.
Now the 9/11 attacks resulted in the biggest attack on US soil in American history. But who knows exactly what happened. Obviously the film "Farenheit 9/11" provides some speculation as to what happened on that day, mostly revolving around the Bush families PERSONAL relationship with the Taliban. Now I dont know any previous presidents personally, but I dont remember a business relationship between Bill Clinton and a large terrorist organization resulting in a massive attack on US soil. But then again, who really knows about those attacks during his term. Obviously you can only speculate unless your inside.
The US will do much better without fear being including in our diet, and just the absense of fear itself, is the best policy for homeland security. Obviously fear also works in GOOD ways helping to maintain the structure of society and keep people in check. But there are other ways to keep people in check, mostly awareness, not fear.
Im not a democrat OR a republican. I am formless and can take the shape of either party at a given point in time, I guess is the best way to put it. I think that a bad politician is a bad politician regardless of the little label they carry around with themselves. I dont know that having a majority of democrats in government power is necessarily going to do anything for the better. But with this change comes the opportunity to create something much better.
The only thing we have to watch out for is the trigger happy politicians engaging Iran or North Korea, and beginning a new era of warfare. With this no-doubtedly comes the draft, which some people want, but the average American DOES NOT want. Im not a miltary expert or a war analyst and I try not to watch too much news because it promotes fear. But what I do know is what I said before and that is the fact that there will continue to be a threat to America for the remainder of our life as a country. If we start a new war by attempting to disarm Iran, we will only find ourselves attempting to disarm another country just months later, according to the current policy.
Like I said, im not a miltary technology expert, but I would assume its possible to begin working on some sort of nuclear warhead interception device? With our powerful technology, why dont we just insist to these Iranians that we ARE worth a damn and that we do belong on this planet. Obviously if this curltue feels this way about us, they see us in a different light than we see ourselves. These people, as well as North Korea need convincing, and YES it is tough as **** to do something like this, but the convincing can come without using military force.
While we continue to use warfare as a LAST resort, we dont waste much needed energy, we eliminate fear from peoples minds, and we continue to develop the worlds best military defense technology as a security measure against the threat of terrorism.
The biggest weapon Bush's former busines partners... I MEAN terrorists have, is FEAR.

2006-11-08 10:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by Sir 3 · 0 2

If you want to be really scared, check out her voting record:
http://issues2002.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm
She makes me sick. I guess we will have to brace ourselves for high taxes and no security. It's funny how the democrats never tell your THEIR plan, they only condescend to those that have one. That's because they know their plan or ideas include nothing but big government and big spending and they are going to use the upper class to do it. I guess it serves the upper class right....I mean how dare them be successful and work hard for a living.

2006-11-08 08:53:18 · answer #8 · answered by Darrick B 2 · 3 1

Your spelling is atrocious.
Do you think the current administration has been good for this country? Totally polarized the people so that we were forced to clean house to fix this mess! Last week Bush vowed that Rumsfeld would stay in his position, and now, days later, he's replaced by another henchman with "Stay the Course" attitudes... What scares me most is people like you who, in spite of the handwriting on the wall that we are being led by greedy, self serving autocrats, you want us to "stay the course" till the crap hits the fan for real!

2006-11-08 08:51:04 · answer #9 · answered by Clarkie 6 · 2 4

Evil is on its way. Democrats will allow stem cell research and many other things that a majority of Americans don't want.

They allowed partial birth abortions if you think that is a good thing you are an ignorant wretch and should look at this web sight to see what a partial birth abortion is it is disgusting and evil.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

2006-11-08 08:51:52 · answer #10 · answered by dreson k 4 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers