Which group is more deserving of your laughter and mockery?
Is using "Spammers" redundant here?
What do YOU think yahoo?
2007-09-13 06:19:37 · 9 answers · asked by Private Deek 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nothing more absolutely annoying than the healthcare whinners - Get jobs people!
2007-09-13 06:26:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well the spammers should be jailed for life without any electronic contact with the world. The other three just need to go Club Hedonistic for a month or so and they would wake up to reality.
2007-09-13 13:46:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you're judgmental. In the US, people are entitled to practice what ever religion they choose and they have the right to vote for the candidate they believe is the best choice. Spammers, on the other hand, are a slight inconvenience.
2007-09-13 13:26:34 · answer #3 · answered by katydid 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ironically, Jehovah's Witnesses are entirely neutral with regard to politics.
Around the globe, Jehovah's Witnesses respect the governments and flags under which they live. However, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the flag salute is an act of worship, and that a "pledge of allegiance" can only made to God. Ceremonies involving national anthems can also approximate "worship" and non-neutrality.
Jehovah's Witnesses view themselves as citizens of God's government, and thus do not involve themselves in human governments. Witnesses understand the bible to teach that Almighty God requires exclusive devotion; that is, he requires that worship and unrestricted allegiance belong to Him alone.
(Exodus 20:5) I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion
(Matthew 4:10) Then Jesus said... ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’
Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known as law-abiding persons. The Scriptures also teach that obedience is owed to secular governments, which the bible calls "the superior authorities". Of course, such subjection is RELATIVE to the unrestricted allegiance which is owed to God.
(Romans 13:1) Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God
(Acts 5:29) We must obey God as ruler rather than men
It may be helpful for non-Witnesses to read all of Daniel chapter 3, and note the connections between the ceremony described there and modern pledge of allegiance.
http://watchtower.org/bible/da/chapter_003.htm
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_10.htm
http://www.jw-media.org/edu_videos/vcfi_e.htm
http://www.jw-media.org/edu_videos/vcut_e.htm
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/5263723221/22812301.htm
2007-09-13 15:13:55 · answer #4 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Ron Paul people, of course. I don't see clear evidence of the others on here.
2007-09-13 13:26:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Dude. Nothing beats the hellish propaganda that Yahoo puts out!
2007-09-13 13:24:56 · answer #6 · answered by subprimelendor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You forgot Libertarians, NRA and Neo-Nazis
2007-09-13 13:25:08 · answer #7 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
All of them
2007-09-13 13:24:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton.
Ron Paul is not a pacifist.
He sees the terroists and their teachers as individuals and not as representatives of any nation or the religion of Islam.
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Paul, defining them as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.[17] He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Letters_of_Marque_and_Reprisal
Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans.
Obama and McCain were second and third in donations from military and veterans.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu6EwxOhGZI8ANxJXNyoA?p=%22ron+Paul%22+military+donations&fr=ush-360
http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/
1 Paul
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html
2 Obama
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431445/A_EMPLOYER_C00431445.html
3 McCain
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430470/A_EMPLOYER_C00430470.html
4 Clinton
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html
5 Richardson
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431577/A_EMPLOYER_C00431577.html
6 Romney
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431171/A_EMPLOYER_C00431171.html
7 Edwards
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431205/A_ELECTION_C00431205.html
8 Giuliani
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430512/A_EMPLOYER_C00430512.html
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter have the most conservative voting records on immigration.
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop2.html
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Tancredo and Ron Paul have the best voting records for reducing government spending according to the National Taxpayers Union.
They were the only candidates to score 100 percent "A" Grades from 1992 to 2005.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97#
Sportsbook.com rates both Paul and Romney at 8 to 1 odds which is approximately an 11 percent chance of becoming the next President.
Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 06/30/2007.
($3,176,525 / $2,354,855 = 1.349)
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80000748
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003353
Paul's campaign has almost 5 times as much money to spend as Tancredo.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P80003429
Romney's contributions from individuals dropped by a third from the first quarter to the second quarter.
Paul's contributions almost quadrupled from Q1 to Q2.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/?nid=roll_08campaign
Ron Paul received more than 10 times as much in donations in the last week of June as he received in the first week of April.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_DATE_C00432914.html
Ron Paul's $2.4 million in fundraising after the second quarter placed him:
4th in total receipts to date
3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Ron Paul has more friends in MySpace and more subscribers in YouTube than any other Republican.
As of September 4, Ron Paul has won 9 of 23 straw polls.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage).
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-small-donors-love-him.html
This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sutton1.html
2007-09-13 14:43:21 · answer #9 · answered by Eric Inri 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋