leftist1234

We're hearing conservative gums flapping constantly about "activist judges", yet they're fine with activism on the Supreme Court. More and more frequently, their judges are making partisan stands in SCOTUS decisions without regard for what the Constitution and prior law/decisions actually say. (Such as today's "partial birth abortion" decision.)

Should the justices be making decisions along partisan lines, as we see increasingly happening, or should they deviate from their current course of action and actually make choices based on Constitutional law?

According to Senator James Inhofe, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/gore_con... '"Senator Inhofe objects to having any events on the Capitol grounds that are either highly partisan or politically controversial -- and the proposed Gore concert is both," said spokesman Marc Morano.'

Is the issue of global warming really a partisan issue? Granted, Republicans through their rejection of science have made all issues of science "partisan" in the most raw, basic, and useless of definitions... but is the problem of global warming (which is happening regardless of whether it's caused by CO2, the sun, or other factors... or any combination thereof) really a partisan issue?

I say no... these kinds of problems are problems for all of us, not just one party. What say you?

Further, does this kind of rhetoric hurt the productivity of the government to solve major problems facing the world?

I regularly see attempts to disprove global warming from the right-wing that include comparing the "scare tactic" of global warming with the "scare tactics" behind the ozone layer and y2k.

The implication being made is obvious: that global warming is a myth, just like the hole in the ozone layer and the y2k bug.

I agree that global warming is a myth like the ozone hole and y2k, i.e it's not a myth, just as they weren't.

The ozone layer hole did exist, and we acted and now that crisis is less of an issue. Comparing global warming to y2k is even more puzzling. The y2k bug was not a myth at all. There were very serious issues in many operating systems and programs that required patching and code changes to avoid failure or problems.

The exact reason that y2k was not a catastrophe is that we acted. We made changes.

Why does the right take two examples of situations where acting averted catastrophe, and claim that they are a reason that we should do nothing about global warming?

I've heard this word tossed around by the right-wing quite frequently... I hate the Islamic Fundamentalists, but considering their belief system, then considering the Fascist belief system, where do these belief systems coincide?

According to both definitions, they don't coincide in many places. So why does the right-wing refer to Islamic Fundamentalists as "Islamofascists"?

Is it because they generally don't understand what a Fascist is?

Is it because they want to distract people from thinking about addressing Fascism here at home in the United States?

Or is there some other aspect, such as an overt business relationship between the clerics of Islam and other terrorist leaders, that isn't widely talked about?

It is a military fact that those who are attacked tend to respond in kind. The history of the United States of America matches this historical truth, regardless of the politics of the administration being discussed. It's true for all parties equally.

The difference, however, is in platform. Democratic administrations, historically, tend to be more goal and less rhetoric minded when executing these types of wars. Consider the stark contrast between the execution of the war in Bosnia and the war in Iraq. Also, the rhetoric of Republican politicians tends to be more focused on security and the military (even if their action doesn't reflect this rhetoric appropriately).

Given these political facts, Osama bin Laden would have known that a response was going to come. Forcing us to spend ourselves into oblivion is part of his acknowledged strategy.

Given this objective combined with a Republican tendancy to not restrict military spending, have the terrorists already won?

During the past few years, Republican members of the Senate have accused the Democratic minority in the Senate of being "obstructionist" and threatening the "nuclear option" of negating the filibuster via rules changes if the Democrats used their power of filibuster. Now the Democrats have the majority and last month, when the minimum wage increase bill came to the Senate floor, the Republican response... was to filibuster.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical?

I don't deny them the right of filibuster, and I do personally think that perhaps some tax relief for small businesses is in order (whether that's what the Republicans do or not)... but my focus is on the rhetoric. If using the filibuster as a minority party is so "obstructionist" and wrong, why was it one of the first actions taken by the Republican minority in this Senate?

Is their rhetoric entirely disconnected from their reality or is there some loophole in everything Republicans say that says they don't have to abide?

Science itself isn't really divided on the issue of Global Warming. The data in support of the human contribution to global warming is vast. The motivation for Big Oil and right-wing radio shock-jocks to attack global warming is obvious ($$$).

But what reason does the average unwashed person have to attack those seeking change in climate and energy policy?

Reducing emissions would reduce polution, reduce long-term energy costs, and increase economic prosperity across the entire Western World.

What motivation does the average right-wing person have to so visciously attack the policies of climate change? Why isn't the connection between Big Oil profits and current policy as obvious to them as it is to any informed individual?

Given that there are no real downsides to adjusting energy policy to utilize better, more efficient fuels... why is the right-wing so focused on attacking science?

Some Yahoo! Answers members are asking if Yahoo has an agenda by promoting the Hillary Clinton question about improving Healthcare in America. What do you think their agenda is in attacking Yahoo! for allowing a public figure to ask a question of the public?

Further, does trying to squelch the asking of open ended questions by public officials actively work to undermine efforts by the those officials to collect information and better lead the country?