Steve G

There have been too many innocent deaths. Most of this has been in countries we are at peace with. Sure, quite a few really evil people have been taken out, but I don't think we can accept the random killings that come with it. Is there bipartisan agreement on this, at least outside the government?

Everyone knows Saddam Hussein had WMD's during the Clinton Administration. Clinton took some limited military action, which may or may not have had any effect, but at the time Bush ordered the attack on Iraq, a series of sanctions had certainly changed the situation, and the leader (Hans Blixt I think was his name) of the UN group charged with monitoring the WMD's in Iraq was satisfied enough with the progress that he strongly opposed any military action.

Reagan accused Libya of having WMD's, but when Khadafi was removed from power, no WMD's were found. Did Reagan lie, or was he deceived? Neither! Khadafi got rid of the WMD's (and admitted culpability for Lockerbie) because Libya's economy had declined due to sanctions.

http://www.cps-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08...

Probably everyone agrees that there are problems with Obamacare. It is a huge, complicated piece of legislation, and so it is not surprising that it is not perfect. How about both parties agree to a framework for fixing some of the problems as a condition of passing a CR. This would give the Republicans an opportunity to save face without getting the Democrats to throw the whole package out the window, something everyone knows ain't gonna happen.

This is unbelievable. Does the guy have no concern left for the well-being of the country? Even if it makes sense politically (and I don't see how, except that it will appeal to the Tea Party faction), this would be an economic disaster for the country, and an economic downturn for the entire world!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Avyw9...

This person thinks that saying that "black people are only followed in stores because they gave up their privilege not to be, when they attained their reputation for causing trouble" is not racist, and implies that all blacks are responsible for the situation and it is only fair that all blacks have to put up with this! Even if you think such racial profiling is justifiable, how can you possibly conclude that it is fair to blacks who have never done anything wrong?

So, why do they not want to cut spending for the spying program that the Obama Administration has been running? Obama is wrong on this one, in my opinion.

If, as many maintain, Zimmerman is generally a good person, and not a racist, he has unfairly become a scapegoat. I give him the benefit of the doubt, but what happens now will be telling.

I hope he regrets what happened and wishes that he had let the police take care of it. Not just because of the trial he had to go through, but because he ended up killing a young person, and that can't feel good.

My advise to him would be to be public about that, and to become an advocate for racial harmony. It might help to relieve some of the animosity that has developed, for which the press is largely responsible, in my opinion. Thoughts?

We can't ignore our treaty obligations. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Background checks do not take your guns away. Banning certain models of guns might not be good policy, but it doesn't take anyone's guns away. Banning large clips does not take your guns away.

His name was in two US terrorist databases. The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (Tide) has nearly 750,000 names. I don't recall the name of the other one, but it is also large. Smaller databases also exist; these are the broad-brush lists.

Where do we draw the line between freedom and security? Should we round up everyone in those databases because there is a risk they might perpetrate a terrorist action? Should the Obama administration be criticized for not doing that?

One conservative here said that they supported background checks. Another said, in a response to a question about background checks, that criminals don't follow the law anyway, implying that background checks don't work. Which of these people most represents the prevailing conservative position?

Currently, someone with a felony conviction can buy a gun at a gun show with no background check. They can't legally buy the gun, but they can legally avoid the background check. Why all the opposition to closing this loophole?

Is gay marriage an appropriate subject for federal legislation?

What is being proposed is a limit of 3 terms in the House, and 2 terms in the Senate. If you are in favor, do you think someone should be able to run for Senate after serving 3 terms in the House?

There was a recent question from a conservative about this. I highly suspect his premise was correct to some degree, but when I asked for examples, he just said something like "they are everywhere". That may be the case, or maybe not. I don't watch many violent films, and I don't pay much attention to the political stances of film makers. Are there many hypocrites on this issue? Who are they? Please, no "all of them"-type answers. I know that not everyone in Hollywood is liberal, and not all films promote violence. I do know that Schwarzenegger and Eastwood are Republicans because their Republicanism has been much in the news.