Deep Thought

I am researching a story. I need to get a realistic idea of the statute of limitations for a bank robbery where a large sum of money is stolen and no one is hurt in the commission of the crime.

I am greening and need to put together more stand up material. I'm running into writer's block and am throwing the question to the Yahoo answers group.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Is this the most merciful thing that could have been done as far as Republicans are concerned? I mean, now he can retire and the scandal can go away, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/military.deportat...

I asked this here because I feel that people on this board are more even keeled. This is a question that touches on a few different aspects: Military duty versus family responsibility. Immigration law and how it treats those who are attempting to follow the correct channels.

What should happen in this case? What man would not immediately leave his post to take care of his family in this situation?

As always, looking for well thought out answers.

Howard Dean has chosen to court the Christian vote. What are the implications for the upcoming election, if the religeous right is fractured as a voting block?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1299...

http://tinyurl.com/yoscch

As always, serious responses requested.

The editor at The Rocky Mountain Collegian, at Colorado State posted a four word editorial (Editorial not posted here for a better chance f getting through Yahoo screeners) Granted, it is protected speech. However the paper relies on advertising to run and since the incident has lost $30,000 in revenue. Other student workers have had to take a 10% pay cut to keep the paper afloat.

My question is: While David McSwane will of course catch the brunt of the backlash from his four word exercise of his first amendment rights (He may be fired from the publication), other students who didn't utter the words or for that matter have veto power over them are being punished financially for his statement. Does David McSwane have a responsibility to those students who are suffering for his actions?

http://tinyurl.com/yoscch

As always, serious responses requested.

The editor at The Rocky Mountain Collegian, at Colorado State posted a four word editorial "Taser this: F@-K Bush!" Granted, it is protected speech. However the paper relies on advertising to run and since the incident has lost $30,000 in revenue. Other student workers have had to take a 10% pay cut to keep the paper afloat.

My question is: While David McSwane will of course catch the brunt of the backlash from his four word exercise of his first amendment rights (He may be fired from the publication), other students who didn't utter the words or for that matter have veto power over them are being punished financially for his statement. Does David McSwane have a responsibility to those students who are suffering for his actions?

With fox news reporting that Jesse Jackson is calling out Barack Obama for "acting white" and not taking a stand here, I figured this would be a good time to ask the group's opinion on the case.

Link to Foxnews article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297332,00.html

Overview of Jena 6 case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/national...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCuWwRgWCiIEtAp...

OK, I've seen the railing against Senator Clinton's plan. Romney also has a plan which he started in Massechusetts. Several candidates have all pointed to National health plans either through the creation of a new system or the encouragement of market expansion, seemingly because the American public wants it to happen.

With that said, what I would like to see is why there is such vigorous opposition to the notion of expanding coverage for all citizens.

Read this prior to commenting

http://tinyurl.com/228qpf

The article brings up an interesting question: Is the Republican party getting too old and conservative. Can a party get too set in its ways to be effective in the political discourse?

As always, with my questions, take your time think it through and answer. One liners and political slams without much substance to them are ignored.

Take a moment and read this link prior to answering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_c...

Is the quote from President Eisenhower warning of the rise of the Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex a prophetic statement foreshadowing the last 40 years of combat or was it really a shot in the dark by an old man?

If what Eisenhower was warning about is correct then that means that none of our elected officials is without blood on their hands, even if they lobbied for the removal of Congressional in the speech they still represented the contractors in their respective districts and states. Knowing that your elected officials have a hand in the mix, how does that make you feel?

Again, if he were correct in his assumption, how does the American public ever get that control back from the powers that be? Or, is it best to let them keep running the country? Your thoughts?

It wasn't more than 20 years ago that you had probably one of the most liberal people to ever run the House (Tip O'Niell), continually facing off with the man who personified the modern conservative movement (Ronald Reagan) on education, taxes, welfare, military spending and several other topics. Somehow, in spite of the obvious differences in ideology, they found a way to have a civil discussion and in the end, get the American people's business done. Don't think these two had a great love for the other's ideology. It's probably safe to say that each thought the other was full of cr@p. Still Republicans and Democrats could discuss topics and find a solution that was good for all.

My question to you is in two parts:

Part 1: Why have the political dynamics in this country changed so drastically? You might feel that everything is ok. Feel free to explain why you feel that way

Part 2: What can be done to fix it?

I'll pick a winner in a couple of days.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/rove.car.ap...

Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the state of our National Security, even if it was done for fun.

I as a former prankster, must bow to the pranking geniuses that pulled this off. I salute them as they arrive in Guantanemo.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/vi...

1 in 3 adults in the US admit to being well versed in US politics. As repercussions go, what does that say about our electoral process in general?

Does this mean the current front runners are there because they are inspiring candidates or are they there because we as a people recognize the names?

Do you feel we as a society bone up on the issues as we get closer to election or is 1 in 3 in the know the best we can achieve?

Hilary Clinton in the polls is sporting an almost 2 to 1 lead over the next highest polling Democrat, Obama. If you listen to the network news it's almost fait accompli: Now before you say anything, consider this question:

Could this be a set up to insure that the Republicans get exactly the candidate they want in the 2008 election?

Think about it:

1) The candidate with the highest disapproval rating of all candidates is leading the polls. She's hated by the right wing and listening to Air America out here in California, she's definately not loved here either.

2) Of all the candidates in the Democratic field, who do you think that the Republicans can throw the most dirt at? There is easily 15 years of dirt just from the second Bill Clinton took the oath of office to draw on.

3) Rove isn't retiring after Labor day for his health or a rap career. If the dirt flies, will the boy genius not be close to the shovel?

Just think about it a bit and answer.

OK Karl Rove is leaving as of August 31. I see people as happy as can be on this board that he not attached to the current White House. But conceivably what makes you think that he won't resurface working on a Republican's 2008 campaign?

You have to admit that he's about as skilled a political strategist as there is and there are about 8-9 Republican campaign staffs that could desperately use him on the Republican side to craft their message. (McCain would probably sell his kids for some insight now on how to turn his ship around) And Democrats, as much as they may want to demonize the man, they are 0-2 against his campaigns.

If you're happy he won't be in the White House soon, what makes you think he won't be back?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/business...

Picture if you will: Your company tells the State seven years prior an accident that crushes a 39 year old woman that the wrong epoxy product was used and instead of fixing the problem, they let it ride until someone dies and then blame it on you for it. Thousands of people involved in the big dig over the years and you are the only person implicated in a manslaughter investigation.

How many of you think that of all the people involved in the Big Dig, this was the only company that wasn't connected politically?

In the 2004 Presidential election, 55.3% of voting age people voted. Which means that 44.7% of voting age people did not vote for whatever reason.

Now, if you were of voting age in 2004 or 2006 and didn't vote, does that mean you tacitly approve of the current administration. I'm not asking you to out yourself and say if you didn't vote. Not my concern but while I don't believe in the notion of "If you don't vote, you can't complain", if you were able to vote and didn't take the 10 minutes or so to fill out your ballot and vote, should we really give a rats rear end what you think of the current administration?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292151,00.html

At the Daily Kos convention Hilary Clinton was openly booed over her stance on taking special interest money. Two questions come to mind:

Does this show that at least at this point, Hilary Clinton does not have as good a read on the pulse of the Democratic voter as she thought?

And How much influence will the Democrat bloggers (Netroots) have on the nominee?

Obama came out with his Anti-terror plans which could include cutting aid to Pakistan and if needed sending troops into the mountains of Pakistan if they have good Intel that there are terrorists holed up there.

And as if almost on cue every other Democratic candidate bellowed their disgust at even suggesting that the U.S. might need to have an incursion into another country which ironically is an ally of ours, in order to root out Bin Laden. It's been lambasted by several people here but considering the geography in the region and the fact that the only logical escape route for Bin Laden was into the mountains of Pakistan, also considering reports from US Intel and Chertoff's gut, Al Qaeda in that region up to its pre 9/11 strength, I have to wonder:

What if Obama’s course of action is right and in this fight, inevitable?