It's a question on a homework assignment, but I have no idea what it is.  (I'm reading the Truman Doctrine and the question is "How would you describe what is meant by political vacuum?" although I don't think he mentions political vacuum in it)\n\n\nthanks
127936
I believe that it refers to either the absence of power (meaning, no one is in control) or it means that there are no politics going on.\n\nMy guess is that it refers to the absence of a controlling force or entity.  Right now, there is almost a political vacuum in Iraq.  No one is completely in control, which is why there is a civil war brewing.
662367
I read your comments, and I don't think that leon_trotsky1940 is calling you a communist; he is saying that he is a communist (or at least a Marxist) and that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. To him I say: it's true that capitalism isn't perfect, but in practice capitalism works out substantially better than communism or any other alternative. As an economist, I could give several arguments for why this is so, but they would be more appropriate in a discussion about froms of government. (I'd like to have a seperate discussion with the Marxist.)\n\nLike you, Michael, I support President Bush, though he certainly isn't perfect. My support for him is not unconditional, and there are certain policies that he has that I find questionable at best. \n\nFor example, I don’t support his warrantless wiretap program. There is no doubt the program has helped gather important information about terrorist attacks, but I’m not sure that the means justifies the end. One of the reasons that the colonists fought off the British is because the British troops were going into people’s homes and searching their property without warrants. Maybe the British had good reason to suspect that there was illegal activity taking place in these homes. Perhaps they thought that weapons were being stockpiled, or revolutionary plans were being drafted. In any event, this practice irritated colonists so much that they made it clear that warrantless searches were unacceptable and were a violation of people’s Constitutional rights. \n\nThis doesn’t mean that searches and wiretaps shouldn't be done; it only means that judicial warrants must be issued first. Failing to maintain a separation of powers is fundamentally dangerous to the integrity of out system of governance.\n\nBush authorized these searches, and though they probably helped thwart terrorist attacks, he overstepped his Constitutional power. A better solution would be for Bush to support legislation for a new department in the judicial branch. This branch could be set up to specifically handle warrants for suspected terrorists, and could process them much more quickly then the current system allows. This would lead to a positive outcome, while maintaining judicial oversight, and thus an appropriate separation of power.\n\nWith that said, I think Bush has done a lot of things right.\n\nFor example, Bush acted appropriately when he invaded Afghanistan. Terrorists from Afghanistan attacked the United States of America, and the corrupt Taliban government refused to give them up. Even when the Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan publicly announced that they were responsible for 9/11, the Taliban refused to bring them to justice. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were so intertwined that they depended on each other for support. The Taliban wasn’t about to give any Al Qaeda up. Bush did the right thing when he took out the Taliban and a huge portion of the Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan.\n\nBush was also right for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran and Kuwait before and had used WMDs in these attacks. During the Gulf War, Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and ordered to destroy his weapons of mass destruction as a condition of staying in power. He agreed to let U.N weapons inspectors come into the country to verify that the weapons had been destroyed, but as soon as the U.N troops pulled out, Saddam started playing games. He refused to let the U.N inspectors do their jobs, and he intentionally made it look like he still had WMDs. When the U.N inspectors came to check a specific site, Saddam made them wait. Satellite photos show that while the inspectors were waiting, Saddam had whole convoys of trucks drive out the “back door”. Saddam wanted everyone to think he still had WMDs and that is why almost all of the world’s intelligence agencies thought that he did. Bush made an intelligent decision based on the information that he had. \n\nInterestingly, Saddam made h
632233
Politics and Morality are both relative terms.\nUnfortunately for us, they both happen to be totally unrelated to each other !
97380
No, we mean that it was a bad decision to go in, and it will go down in history as a political and military humiliation.  It does mean we want to lose the war, but rather that it was obvious from the start that we were going to.  Yes, we did over through the Iraqi government, but now we're stuck there with no indication of any viable way out.  And if you think we lost in Vietnam because people protested you should consider picking up a history book.\n\n_______________\nI believe I did not misspell anything.  Your spelling comment was both ignorant and unnecessary, as is your apparent believe that political ideology is absolute and is the defining characteristic of the individual.  Oh, and it would be "the liberal who," not "the liberal that."
165836
I am not sure about the political aspect as it refers to areas outside of Denmark, but many Danes in the US, for example, are getting in touch with each other, buying all of the Danish products they can find,and in general showing solidarity.\n\nInside the country, try to find a way to stop Anders Fogh Rasmussen from being Bush's lapdog... \n\nhope this helps
403500
It's just you.  Politics has always been really intense. In fact, there were many, many times in our history when it was much more intense (e.g., Segregation, Vietnam, Women's Lib, Isolationism between WWI and WWII, Reactions to Cold War, Gas Crisis in the 70s, fights between Reagen and Congress in the 80s...) Welcome to being a citizen!
428842
Right now? It's defined by all sorts of clauses and such, it SHOULD be defined by a constitution, but since that hasn't been ratified, I really can't tell you exactly how it works.\n\nHowever, I think what is practiced now, is identical to what is in the constitution, so you could read up on that (don't worry, it is an easy read). I can't remember, and I think it in practice is useful for voicing Europe-Wide views in different political alignment separate from "national" interests.
653968
how can you oversimplify everyone into "liberal" and "conservative" labels? At this point, those words have no meaning, because they could mean absolutely anything.\n\nFor example, liberal can mean socialist, or it could mean capitalist, and conservative could mean noninterventionist, or it could mean interventionist. Since these are directly opposed, the words have no objective meaning.\n\nThrow away the labels and use some logic.
234671
Smoke and mirrors. So long as "they" keep "us" occupied with whatever they want CNN to broadcast so as to keep the populace away from things that really matter (like what clean air we're gonna breath 50 years from now, or what clean water we're gonna drink 50 years from now) its going to be the way it is. People need to think for themselves and FORCE issues. Its the only way things will change. But, some have sense and see through the smoke and past the mirrors. Hopefully enough do. But, hey, speaking of such perhaps you can answer a question of mine? I live with a cat. Cat and I often talk about things. Lately I've tried to get cat's views on George W. But whenever I ask cat this he just turns, goes to his litter box, and spends the next 15 minutes covering up poop. What gives, man? Why won't cat TALK to me about this???
397891
I am happy to disabuse here.\n\nLiberalism does not denote support for any type of hatred. In fact, by definition, liberalism represents open-mindedness, erudition and individualism. None of this is at all related to "hatred".\n\nRemember that the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" are often thrown around as generalized political pejoratives, especially by people who themselves hold relatively closed-minded attitudes. Anyone can throw a word around pretending what it means, but the dictionaries are the final arbiters of semantic verismilitude. \n\nAre you a friend to the English language? Can you trust a dictionary? I am totally unafraid of dictionaries. Are you?\n\n\nLiberals do not like government intursion in personal freedom (into personal health and family, etc.), and also tend relatively to disdain militarism and violence and preparations for violence (which is not really all that "hateful", is it?).\n\n\nGood luck.
237198
sorry, i couldn't find anything about it on google.\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nmoney, http://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\nbush & clinton http://www.philipdru.com/triplett_stream.html\nisrael http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/webb_stream.html\niran http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=131
68818
Peaceniks say this because it sounds smart to people that don't think for themselves.  Anyone that does ANY research would not buy it for a minute\n\nIt the same as conservatives calling liberals unpatriotic.  Both sides use extreme terms to convert people to their misguided way of thinking.\n\nWhenever I hear someone say that we went to war for oil, I ask them to explain why gas prices have gone up, to record prices.  This usually leaves them stumped because no one has ever questioned their position.
439785
It's called hyperbole.\n\nClinton is stating how closely he feels Israel is a friend and ally who must be supported, and he's colorfully illustrating how strongly he feels about it.\n\nHe wouldn't really pick up a rifle and go to a trench.  Just like people don't literally mean they will plant a foot in your buttocks when they say things like "kick your @ss"\n\nEdit:  Apparently one of the posters above thinks taking a deferrment is the same as leaving the country.  That puts almost the entire Bush administration in the same boat as Clinton, along with most of the right-wing talking heads.\n\nThat person also believes that Oxford is in Canada.  Maybe he/she should post a question in the geography section, since Clinton didn't actually spend time in Canada during the Viet Nam conflict.
469576
I think that depending on the issue; the divisions can be relatively shallow, if the issue is rather mundane.(zoning debates, civil suits)  In a really serious issue,(like declaring war or even declaring peace, something that strikes people in the cores of their being), The division would probably be better described as polarized, with no middle ground. Now, if we were attacked from outside, there would be a joining of spirits and all of a sudden we would all be on the same side, willing to share a foxhole with someone from a radically different background, drink muddy water, and die by the thousands together, if necessary. Just my thoughts on this.
560511
All of it. It is all under review, and due for a complete overhaul upgrade. Some aspects will be kept similar or the same, but the majority of the rules are expected to change toward more complicated, difficult to understand terms and conditions, allowing more loopholes, even though the authorities claim the purpose is to simplify and make it so anyone can understand. This is a commonplace political tactic used globally, particularly in Western countries, to impede the public understanding and increase control and ability to manipulate the masses for unjust purposes. There is very little you can do about this, now that you know. Sorry.
510267
I think it's means that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to know what you're talking about first.  For example, ask someone if they like a certain poltician.  Make sure it's one they know, even use President Bush if you have to.  A lot of people will give you a clear-cut yes or no answer.  Ask them why, and listen to all of the bogus excuses that most people will give you.  It's quite interesting to see how stupid and dishonest some people really are.
172139
no disrespect meant>> but did anyone even read the qustion?? my  anwser is that we feel we have become untouchable. we are ok with saying and doing anything our"freedom" allows and we have the audacity to then say you cant treat me that way. well isnt that a paradox.? you want to do and say anything and you dont let the other guy do and say anything he wants to back at you? thats pretty prideful at its core. and that is wat makes us do the dumb things we do to the wrong people we want wat we want and we take it. we are all (including the misinformed media victims on this site) a bunch of spoiled bullies. we do need to hate and fear, "communism" ............but the "communist" is not the enemy the enemy is our misdirected hostility.. if we live right.... feed clothe and protect. think about the other guy. the communists as you call them will die. and only the thankful poor fellow you helped will live next store not............ our enemy.