Owl, while I agree with what you said I would take it one step further; I would have expected Muslims living in this country to see the attacks as attacks on every person living here and not just on plain ol' Americans as they tend to see it. That they pretty much refused to show any kind of outrage pretty much has me questioning why they are here at all.

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:McCain has far more experience and works with the other side on many issues. Obama voted 97% with his own party. Obama is no different than Kerry. Far left liberal who doesn't work well with people in the other party. McCain has broke from his party for what is best of the country. Obama is your typical liberal.....bash the rich, bash the middle class who own stock in our large public corporations. Then insult the working class who have traditional family values. Liberals want to take away second amendment rights of americans. They want to redefine marraige to please a bunch of sexual deviants. They want to let terrorist and violent criminals have an advantage over law enforcement. McCain might not be 100 % conservative, but Obama is 100% liberal and that is what this country will get. You can just imagine Obama's supreme court. gay marriage freak show, black liberation salvery repartations, gun control, government taking more money and power from its people and businesses. the presidency is not a popularity contest. It is a job. The president runs the excecutive branch. Obama has no experience and its not even close. McCain atleast has been around enough to know how washington works. Obama has no clue how the state department works, how the military works, how the department of education works, how the treasury works, how the epa and health and human services works. McCain has been around enough to known what those department ask for and need. Obama has no clue what to ask of his cabinet. He speaks in general terms......MCCain gives us specifics because he knows what is going on. Obama can't fix this country because he doesn't even known where the problems exist. You need more than 2 years of experience in washington before running for president. Just because your were against the war and black doesn't qualify a person for president. The only reason Obama got this far is that he isn't Hillary Clinton and is black which is a nice story......now its the main event and Obama is vastly unqualified and inexperienced against a well qualified experienced canidate.

I don't think I would have phrased it exactly the way you did, but the gay movement is politically active and gets the democrats to pander to their belief that we need to change our moral standards to a more modern European standard. It's ok for them to be politically active, but not so for anyone that opposes their values especially Christians.

smn1256 Wrote:Here in the USA it's still difficult to get an American Muslim to say 9/11 was wrong and it not PC to confront them about it.

Hmm... then what is this.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Artic...AM0109-335

And this.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

smn1256 Wrote:Owl, while I agree with what you said I would take it one step further; I would have expected Muslims living in this country to see the attacks as attacks on every person living here and not just on plain ol' Americans as they tend to see it. That they pretty much refused to show any kind of outrage pretty much has me questioning why they are here at all.

I think that at least in part they felt very strong negative feelings from non-Muslim Americans. That put them on the defensive to the point that they were reluctant to say or do anything.

Yes, that's buying into the liberal approach of blaming society for the actions of individuals, but I think at least some of the blame does properly go there. And that's blame that we should have gone overboard to remove from day 1. If the terrorists got the message that US Muslims were clearly supporting the US instead of them, that would knock a few holes in their operation, to be sure. In Bush's shoes, getting that done would have been a MAJOR part of my strategy. By 9/14 it was clear that it was an afterthought, if a thought at all.

perunapower Wrote:

smn1256 Wrote:Here in the USA it's still difficult to get an American Muslim to say 9/11 was wrong and it not PC to confront them about it.

Hmm... then what is this.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Artic...AM0109-335

And this.

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

Let me tell you a true story.

While I now live in So California, my ex-wife lived in Jersey City at the time of the attacks. Jersey City, if you're not familiar with Northern New Jersey, is just across the Hudson River from Manhattan and offered and excellent view of the WTC buildings. My wife told me that when the 2nd tower was hit people on roof tops in Jersey City were jumping and cheering. Before anyone knew who had attacked us these people were glad to see it happen.

Now my ex didn't inquire from them their ethnic background, but she did note the way they were dressed. Some wore loose robe-like clothing, towel-like head wear, beards, one eyebrow...etc. Her neighbors, a husband and wife FBI couple, said that the particular area where the jumping and cheering came from was an ethnic neighborhood made of up mostly Muslims.

Now I might mention that I grew up in Fort Lee, NJ and watched the WTC being built from across the river. The wife of a friend of mine died in one of those towers. I have the news on all day at my office and I watch it while I'm playing on my computer at home. I read the newspaper front to back every day. There is little, if any, coverage of Muslim condemnation on any of the almost daily/weekly world wide attacks committed by their kinsmen.

I'm sorry, your links to apologetic web sites simply don't satisfy my need for someone in the Muslim community to come forward and be a global leader against extremists. When a Muslim speaks out against extremists and gets as much air time as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton then I'll be impressed.

smn1256 Wrote:When a Muslim speaks out against extremists and gets as much air time as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton then I'll be impressed.

Given the current media climate, getting the air time might be the hard part.

Hambone10 Wrote:The point I was trying to make was that although the question was... why not McCain... your answer is the same to why not Obama, and quite honestly, Bob Barr as well. Either he has flip flopped on his opposition to marijuana, or the party did. Either way, the inconsistency of position that you don't like in McCain (or Obama or whomever) ALSO exists in Barr.

Or his position changed over time, a perfectly acceptable result. My problem with McCain on immigration (the only thing I accused him of flip flopping on) is the position he changed to. The reference to him flip flopping was a tribute to my conservative friends here who love to accuse Obama of flip flopping every time he opens his mouth.

Quote:and if you'll recall as to the FEC... Obama opted out after saying he'd remain in... McCain can still do the same thing... this is not a crime, nor is it illegal... I don't believe Barr is yet eligible for public funds.

It's not quite this simple. Obama said he would opt in if his opponent did but decided he was better off with private funding (he never enrolled in the system). McCain actually opted in to the public financing system (though he did not accept any money) and later tried to opt back out and is currently operating with private financing. The FEC has ruled that he is not allowed to opt back out without a hearing, a hearing which likely won't happen until after the election (ain't the governement great), so as I understand it (and I'm far from an expert) he is technically operating outside of the FEC regulations.

Quote:As for intellectual property rights on drugs... he is not taking them away... he is proposing a reduction in their length... Does Barr support extending them or keeping them?? If so, how is he going to address the increasing cost of drugs to America?? WHY are they whatever length they currently are?? What is wrong with adjusting the length of those guarantees? Sure, it will change the math, but so what??

Reducing the economic incentive for drug companies will slow the development of new drugs. Reimportation at the volumes the federal government are capable of will likely serve as price controls, further reducing the incentives for drug companies. Unfortunately, it would be better if they actually just imposed price controls instead of using reimportation, which adds the overhead & profit of the middle man and another level of transportation costs on top of it. We still pay more than the Canadiens (or Mexicans) but the drug companies only get the lower price available in these other countries.

Quote:As to Obama and Wright being different from McCain and the right... You actually make my point for me... McCain sought the endorsement of the far right for his positions... he did not support THEIR positions... By requiring him to rebuke Hagee and Parslee, you are making HIM responsible for their actions... exactly what you say shouldn't be done...

My preference would have been for him to not seek their endorsement in the first place, but I can understand why McCain might feel the need as a Republican to seek the endorsement of people like Hagee & Parsley. It's part of the reason I'm not a Republican.

Quote:Once again, my point is... If you want someone who reflects all of your values/priorities, then run yourself. You have almost as good a chance statistically as Barr, and you wouldn't have to compromise your values at all.... "negative" votes won't change anything, other than to convince the major parties that they don't need to appeal to you AT ALL to win.

I'm still a little too young to run, and I hate public speaking (at times I make Bush seem eloquent). But I'll be old enough in four years, and I've joined Toastmasters, so who knows (that's a joke perunapower).

jh Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:The point I was trying to make was that although the question was... why not McCain... your answer is the same to why not Obama, and quite honestly, Bob Barr as well. Either he has flip flopped on his opposition to marijuana, or the party did. Either way, the inconsistency of position that you don't like in McCain (or Obama or whomever) ALSO exists in Barr.

Or his position changed over time, a perfectly acceptable result. My problem with McCain on immigration (the only thing I accused him of flip flopping on) is the position he changed to. The reference to him flip flopping was a tribute to my conservative friends here who love to accuse Obama of flip flopping every time he opens his mouth.

Given that the libertarian party helped him lose in 2002 on the issue, and he supported a libertarian candidate in 2003, then joined himself n 2004, thats a pretty big change for a relatively simple issue... but I get your point and agree 100% with you. I too, chose those words to mimic what supporters of BOTH candidates say about their opponents (and have for years).

Quote:

Quote:and if you'll recall as to the FEC... Obama opted out after saying he'd remain in... McCain can still do the same thing... this is not a crime, nor is it illegal... I don't believe Barr is yet eligible for public funds.

It's not quite this simple. Obama said he would opt in if his opponent did but decided he was better off with private funding (he never enrolled in the system). McCain actually opted in to the public financing system (though he did not accept any money) and later tried to opt back out and is currently operating with private financing. The FEC has ruled that he is not allowed to opt back out without a hearing, a hearing which likely won't happen until after the election (ain't the governement great), so as I understand it (and I'm far from an expert) he is technically operating outside of the FEC regulations.

I am even less of an expert, but obviously operating outside the FEC regulations isn't illegal... nor are candidates required to operate WITHIN the regulations (obviously)... so it's not really a valid reason to vote against someone... especially in that NONE of the candidates are operating within FEC guidelines, though I suspect Barr would if he was eligible for the money as it would likely be more than he could collect himself.

Quote:

Quote:As for intellectual property rights on drugs... he is not taking them away... he is proposing a reduction in their length... Does Barr support extending them or keeping them?? If so, how is he going to address the increasing cost of drugs to America?? WHY are they whatever length they currently are?? What is wrong with adjusting the length of those guarantees? Sure, it will change the math, but so what??

Reducing the economic incentive for drug companies will slow the development of new drugs. Reimportation at the volumes the federal government are capable of will likely serve as price controls, further reducing the incentives for drug companies. Unfortunately, it would be better if they actually just imposed price controls instead of using reimportation, which adds the overhead & profit of the middle man and another level of transportation costs on top of it. We still pay more than the Canadiens (or Mexicans) but the drug companies only get the lower price available in these other countries.

I don't agree with this. If the drug companies sell their drugs for the same price to everyone, then the only reason to re-import drugs is if there is a subsidy along the way NOT borne by the drug company... Why would Pfizer care if they sold 1 Viagra pill in the US for $30/pill and Canada for $30/pill. Why would they care if Canada subsidized the price down to $10, and the US bought it from Canada?? They now sell 2-$30 pills to Canada and none to the US. Is it really fair for Pfizer to sell Viagra for $30 to the US and $10 in Mexico? We end up subsidizing the worlds supply of drugs. Why would our rights as a country be LESS than our rights as a citizen? As a citizen, I can buy from whomever I want... even Mexico.

Quote:

Quote:As to Obama and Wright being different from McCain and the right... You actually make my point for me... McCain sought the endorsement of the far right for his positions... he did not support THEIR positions... By requiring him to rebuke Hagee and Parslee, you are making HIM responsible for their actions... exactly what you say shouldn't be done...

My preference would have been for him to not seek their endorsement in the first place, but I can understand why McCain might feel the need as a Republican to seek the endorsement of people like Hagee & Parsley. It's part of the reason I'm not a Republican.

If Barr's goal were to actually WIN as election, which it ultimately SHOULD be... I am quite certain that he will need to (if he hasn't done so already) solicit the support of people and groups that don't represent his views... Isn't that the point?? To get people who don't necessarily agree with you on a number of details to support your general philiosophy anyway... otherwise, it's just about bitching about how things are, isn't it?? Wouldn't you like it if the far right weren't so intolerant?? By getting them to support a moderate candidate, you have a chance to change them.

Quote:

Quote:Once again, my point is... If you want someone who reflects all of your values/priorities, then run yourself. You have almost as good a chance statistically as Barr, and you wouldn't have to compromise your values at all.... "negative" votes won't change anything, other than to convince the major parties that they don't need to appeal to you AT ALL to win.

I'm still a little too young to run, and I hate public speaking (at times I make Bush seem eloquent). But I'll be old enough in four years, and I've joined Toastmasters, so who knows (that's a joke perunapower).

I didn't really mean you particularly... I just meant that Bob Barr doesn't represent the priorities of the disenfranchised... He represents a relatively small minority of the population... with the individual being the ultimate minority. In order to be able to make a difference, he must appeal to a big enough and motivated enough group to matter... In other words, he will have to become at least a little more mainstream which will obviously COST him some of his supporters... those who simply want to complain about how things are... as opposed to actually CHANGING how things are... (I SWEAR I have this same conversation with my son about music) He wants to be paid well to do the music he likes... but people pay him to do more mainstream music... so... he can earn a living doing the mainstream music with a little edge, and throw in a few of HIS songs trying to make converts... OR he can live at home and keep playing the music he likes in the garage for his buddies.