Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
The Truth
So if Obama and Dems support OWS than don't they support....?
The communist party of the USA [ironic isn't that one] and the Nazi party of the USA [another irony]? Anti-Semites, Racist, Bigoted, Anti Capitalists, etc.
Or because I am a conservative I am totally up in the night.
4 AnswersOther - Politics & Government10 years agoMonochromatic Tea Party demo's vs. Monochromatic leftist Wisconsin demo's?
Why are 'White' tea party demo's vilified by the media more than 'White' leftist protests in Wisconsin?
6 AnswersPolitics1 decade agoWho would join me in boycotting Keith Olbermann?
Not that I watch Glenn Beck but Media Matters attacks due to lack of integrity on their part so hence my call to email MSNBC advertisers to stop advertising with Hate Mongerer Keith Olbermann as well. Beck is defined by the left as a Hate Mongerer, I would put Keith in the same pool. Post your emails on Yahoo Answers, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.
12 AnswersOther - Politics & Government1 decade agoWill the benevolent religion of Islam contribute to Haiti?
4 AnswersReligion & Spirituality1 decade agoWhy is Detroit's unemployment rate 50%?
I have never lived in Detroit, but as an American, I am very ashamed that an iconic, legendary city has succumbed to the wolves. Good luck Detroit, I hope your future is bright, Merry Christmas!
10 AnswersOther - Politics & Government1 decade agoDid you know Obama was in a movie?
Yes, he was Xerxes in 300.
Merry Christmas everyone
6 AnswersElections1 decade agoIf you support Obama do you support this?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1...
The state knows best I guess for those that can't think indvidually for themselves.
This is repulsive!!
3 AnswersMental Health1 decade agoTwo Additional Healthcare Bills Folks Don't See?
If you think this isn't all about power, take a peak at these two bills. This is carefully thought out legislation to transfer power from the legislative branch to the executive branch.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/a-white-house-...
2 AnswersGovernment1 decade agoWith ClimateGate should all Climate Change data contain an *?
If Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire are considered to have * next to their names in the history books, I would think something of this SIGNIFICANCE should garner the same. Don't you think?
4 AnswersGlobal Warming1 decade agoAre the 9/11 Terrorists getting a better shake than McVeigh?
Being tried in a civilian court 8yrs post event. McVeigh was put to death very quickly. Non US citizens getting a better deal than a US citizen.
7 AnswersLaw & Ethics1 decade agoIs Paul Krugman Julius Caesar or....is Barack?
Pretty much word for word of the health care rhetoric being spoken about. Not a fan of this approach.
3 AnswersPolitics1 decade agoAnd we still think the Gov't can run healthcare, why?
The US Treasury Inspector General came out and stated that roughly $139mm in Home Buyer Tax credit fraud has initially been uncovered. 53 internal IRS agents (Yes, IRS agents!!) are actively being investigated for fraud, 600 underage individuals have applied and received the tax credit and my favorite, 3000 ILLEGALs received the tax credit.
How can we even conceive the US government running ANYTHING efficiently and without fraud. They can't and they continue to illustrate their inability to run anything, period. WAKE UP!!!!
5 AnswersElections1 decade agoHealth Care Saves $81bn Over 10 years... What about Welfare Spending?
The House and Senate bills contain a half dozen or more new welfare entitlements or expansions to benefits in existing programs.[6] The pretense that these welfare expansions will lapse after two years is a political gimmick designed to hide their true cost from the taxpayer. If these welfare expansions are made permanent--as history indicates they will--the welfare cost of the stimulus will rise another $523 billion over 10 years.[7]
Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year cost of welfare increases will not be $264 billion but $787 billion. This new spending will amount to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax in the U.S.
The overall 10-year fiscal burden of the bill (added to the national debt) will not be $814 billion but $1.34 trillion. To this figure must be added the interest on the debt issues to finance this spending deluge.
Wow, that's a net savings of........adding another $950bn to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cf...
Nice Savings!!
4 AnswersGovernment1 decade agoDYK: Politics is a Competition?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, insisted she has the votes to move forward with the plan despite concerns among fiscally conservative fellow Democrats.
"When I take this bill to the floor, it will win. We will move forward, it will happen," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
I thought Politics was doing what is best for the American people. Wow, I stand corrected!!
Too bad it's not a full contact sport. Hmm, maybe that's how we solve this stuff from now on. On a football field, Republicans vs. Democrats. What do you think??
2 AnswersGovernment1 decade agoShouldn't Our Justices be Colorblind?
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor
Everyone preaches equality, a judge, no matter what level, SHOULD be unbiased in their view of a case. I mean attorney's select jury members that answer a series of questions that legitimizes or eliminates their biases towards a case. A judge is NOT supposed to be empathetic but impose LAW.
4 AnswersLaw & Ethics1 decade agoWhat does this mean for the U.S.?
Does this now mean that we have re-written BK law and put unsecured debt ahead of secured debt? I feel this will further weaken our credibility as a country where developing nations look to a stable code of law to model.
2 AnswersLaw & Ethics1 decade agoWhat do you think of the letter to Eric Holder?
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already release
1 AnswerLaw & Ethics1 decade ago