Kaleem has hit it on the head. iWhat is good for the USA and what is good for my balance sheet is Bush. Now if he would just be a good bachcha and kill the estate tax then we wouldn’t have to buy condos in Malta. 
^ In what way?
Hain??? Kaam apney liye ya gov't kay liye tHoRa kar rahaa hoon...bachchon key liye kuch toh choRna hai...saaley sab kamai par tax daal deytey hain. marne bhi bahin deytey chain say!! :(
Matty, I have been known to do that...hitting the right spot that is :). On a side note, start using the phrase "death tax" instead of "estate tax". Estate Tax makes it sound like its only for rich people.
yaar faisal say baat karni hi paReygi…voh in cheezon main bahout hoshiyaar hai…do annay bhi chupa kay gadday key neechay rakhta hai… 
Aur, agar mujhay estate tax kehnay ka shauk hai…toh tumhara kya bigaR riya hai? 
kuch toh choRdo mere liye… Greenspan ka bachcha!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Yeah, becasue we saw clinton making the mockery of every decent person in USA.
[/QUOTE]
Kaleem.. with due respect, if you are to put Clinton (and his sexual escapades) on one end of the scale and Ashcroft (and his attempts to violate civil liberties of Americans) ... then its practically a no contest. Ascroft will win hands down. Its a slam dunk.
I know you are a die-hard Republican, and you have very good reasons to believe that you are right, and on many social issues and fiscal policies I do think Reps are more aligned to my views as well, but none of that condones the conduct of Justice Deptt and the way it used the war on terror to violate civil liberties of residents/visitors of the United States of America.
ps. These are my personal views, ofcourse.
Faisal yaar, I agree that personal and cilvil liberties have been violated. However, these are different times. Did Bush administration go overboard on some of the issues? Absolutely, however, I do not think that so called rights that have been taken away are such a big deal. You dont think that Intelligence Agencies would have been able to do all of these activities covertly? Of course they could( Pls, see ECHELON). They just made it public knowledge and the law.
PS.These are my personal views and are prone to misjudgement and bias.
wow. i thought this thread would go the way of all my other threads - i.e., die a slow painful death. i'll respond with my comments tomorrow Insha'Allah when i have slept and have some regenerated brain cells to think with.
Faisal Bhai, With this or any other of my threads please feel more than free to transfer it to ANY forum you wish, that is not my call. You have all the right to do so. Last dozen replies or so truly indicate a political discussion, i think i was half daydreaming when i opened this in Religion. Thank you.
Okay lets look at it from 4 diff angles
1) what the candidate would do for you- healthcare, tax etc
2) what the candidate would do for USA
3) what the candidate would do for your old country (Pakistan)
4) what the candidate would do for other issues you are interested in- environemnt, globalization, mid-east etc etc
now when you sit down and evaluate candidates u have to base it on all or some of these facets, now this is not an exhaustive list, but just to give you an idea. some people may not need all 4 categories listed here, some may have many more, some may just look at #1..
then the question becomes..how much weight do you assign to the different categories, and how the candidate scored in each category.
People just have to stop being reactionary, and use their strength to support the best overall candidate..based on what is known at that time.
no one knew of 9/11 (well except the morons planning it) so no one could have gauged how GOP would react to it. assigning someonelike ashcroft was a joke, afterall dinn he lose elections in his own state to a dead guy?
The question remains, by clinton admin track record, and the attitude of ppl like maddy albright which generated much debate here, do you think that a Gore presidency would have handled things in a significantly different way?..we dont know..maybe not as bad, and maybe worse..who knows.
A lot of people tout the democrats civil liberties and what nots records, dont forget that secret evidence and detentions was a modus operendi made normal business by the clinton administration.
hind sight is 20-20, but not the sight of a different probable future. I for one am not convinced that a Gore presidency would have handled these things in a satisfactory manner..could they have, maybe, could they have been worse..possibly. For all I know my taxes would be sky high, and money being wasted on programs that dont make sense, pakistan would have been attacked alongside afghanistan, conflict in mid-east could be worse and larger..who knows.
That's why I am a proud member of green party! Just yesterday we were ditching Bush while being doped in an herbal medicine from somewhere east(ern).
I only support toga party. although bachelor party is not bad either.
I wouldn't mind joining the bachelor party ... anything to piss the self righteous extremists like Bush. And I might vote Dem for that!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
Just yesterday we were ditching Bush while being doped in an herbal medicine from somewhere east(ern).
[/QUOTE]
You were 'ditching' Bush yesterday??? Or were you 'dissing' Bush? Either way, 'ditching' aside, frankly Bush can't win without the active 'support' of Green Party. He got it in 2000, it seems he will get it again this time. Good job, sir! :-P
Faisal Bhai, when you are doped, it's hard to tell the difference.
But on a serious note, third party contributions to the US political spectrum have been far more than what people admit. The abolitionists were not the main streams like the Green Party today & so were the early civil right's activists. Sooner or later one of the two big parties has to shift their view point to accumulate more votes & they assimilate into these heretic third parties. In the end the most committed wins!
Anyway, this year, sad to say, Bush will win. As long as Democrats will act like Republicans & don’t know jack about what they really want to do, I would much rather vote heretic than to give my vote to any of the two lunatics.
Just because people share a particular trait, doesn't necessarily mean that they do or should vote as a block for voting purposes. It's only when that shared trait is perceived as carrying with it highly important shared interests that the group acts like or becomes defined as a voting block. Thus, we get to Muslim Americans. Clearly, black American Muslims view their race as more significant in terms of voting behavior than their religion. Typically, black American Muslims vote in conformity with the black American voting block. i.e. Almost entirely Democratic.
Now consider what I'll call the Muslim immigrant group. What they share is a historical immigrant status and their Muslimness. If you can generalize, on social issues they share conservative values much closer to conservative christians and which are more predominantly espoused by the GOP. I'm making a little bit of a leap on this next one but, based upon my perceptions, immigrant groups that come from countries that are NOT social welfare states are some of the best advocates or examples of capitalists and have a strong entrepenurial interest. They are not begging for handouts, they start small family owned businesses, young Pakistanis and Indians (especially) have flocked to high technology hotspots and have a can-do attitude and strong instincts and desires for upward mobility and they are not thrilled with high taxes. Generally speaking, because of the political environment in which they or their parents or grandparents escaped to come to America, they are distrustful of government and authority and don't view government and authority as the place to find solutions to their problems. If there is a place to find solutions to problems, for immigrant Muslims, it is the Mosque not Washington. ** As I see it, those traits are more imbedded in the GOP than in the Democratic Party. **
Turn to foreign policy. Prior to 911 and the war on terror, America's immigrant Muslim population were not (how should I say this) enamored with Israel and Judaism. There is a strong Jewish lobby and voting block in the US whose main issue is support for Israel. That voting block goes 7, 8 and 9 to 1 for Democratic Presidential candidates. Does any person really believe that the historical Jewish support for the Democratic party is the product of a mistake regarding which party is perceived to better advocate support for Israel? The Jewish voting block in the US votes Democratic for a very good reason. And that reason is simply not simpatico with the historical beliefs and leanings of the immigrant Muslim American.
All of the above suggests that if the immigrant American Muslims vote as a block significantly in favor of Democrats in the coming election, that vote will be antithetical to a whole range of historical beliefs they have. It will be a negative response to the Patriot Act at home and to the war on terror abroad. It will be a personal rejection of Bush rather than a rejection of the policies and interests that are shared by and between the GOP and the Immigrant Muslim community. That voting block, if it emerges as a cohesive voting block, will return to the GOP in future years.
Ahmajee,
Visit their websites.
I think Bush campaign ads don’t say a thing about what he intends to accomplish. Ones I’ve seen basically degrade John Kerry.
Example…
As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror:
"Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more.”
As if we don’t have enough of these all ready?
As if we would set Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets on a terrorist cell positioned in a friendly country??? Maybe Florida perhaps? [9/11 terrorists]
Is he talking about Iraq in his ad?
If so…how many does one need to surgically drop a bomb?
On taxes…
Not sure about you…
beside the $300.00 to $600.00 sent out to some the summer after Bush was elected…
I see no difference in amount I paid when Clinton was president.
I do see that last summer I paid around 1.17 per gal. of gas and yesterday I paid 1.99 per gallon.
I do see that 1 month ago I paid 1.89 per gal. of skim milk. Yesterday I paid 2.99 for same.
I see that overtime rules have changed under Bush’s watch… but gee..Look at this:
6.7 million workers earning less than $23,660 will have their overtime protections guaranteed. For workers in the middle, the final rule is more protective, or at least as protective, of their overtime rights than the old rule.
Wow!!! That GBJ seems very concerned over those in lower income brackets. Won’t take away overtime if I earn under $23,660 annually.
Tax…
Bush’s dividend tax cut…
According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, an independent, foundation-supported research group, 64 percent of that $364 billion goes to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.
* Those who have plans **other** than IRA or 401 and like.*
According to CTJ, the top 1 percent of taxpayers—making $374,000 or more—would reap an average $11,483 from the dividend tax cut. The next 4 percent, making between $154,00 and $374,00, would get an average break of $1,332. But the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, making between $29,000 and $46,000, would get $27.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/home/
And not to forget the loss to states of income generated thru tax free bond sales......with likely result of increased:
State income tax
Sales tax
Realestate tax
Personal Property tax
So let me get this straight...Vice President Cheney benefits to the tune of around $327,000.00.????
hmmm...and if I earn between 29k and 46k annually my overtime pay is forfeit and in exchange I get about $27 bucks....????
Exporting Jobs...
So..it's okay on the bases of free trade that Americans in manufacturing, and other business' experience job loss because outsourcing benefits the economy?
But if same Americans.....
instead of purchasing their needed medicines locally....
decide to outsource their funds...it might hurt the economy?
And ya think Bush is the right guy?[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Having said that, lets look at both parties' historical tendencies, cz that provides us guidance on how they will react (cz both lean towards their core constituencies). However, after that everything else is downhill from Dems as far as muslims are concerned. Dems are historically more pro-Israel...
[/QUOTE]
The candidates are pretty much the same on broad issues. But on cultural ones, what has the Republican party done to actually slow the liberalization of American culture?? Nothing. They throw out some hokey measure every now and then.. usually doesn't go anywhere, the extent of their cultural protection is in proposing meaningless token bills and screaming really loud like a bunch of whiny bitches. Nothing practical at all. Hell, the only areas I can tell where they accomplish things is in segregating their communities and defending WASP breeding grounds.
I would have to say, based on my observations, that the Republicans do far more harm to Muslim concerns than help. Now Dems, yeah, they're just as bad. But at least you know where they're headed with their stupidity and how to avoid it. One thing I do believe will be bad under the Dems is US/Pak relations. Those idiots think that in order to oppose Bush's idea of the War on Terror without being labelled wusses they have to find another party to smack around and it looks like Pak is it for them. But they are wusses, so I'm not really afraid of whatever they could try to do. Bush's WOT is a lot worse in its consequences than anything they would try.
But also on Israel.. I don't really understand how the Dems are worse here? The Dems support Jews, not necessarily Israel. But of course any US admin will support Israel. But the Republicans support it in militaristic ways whereas the Dems just coddle up to the Jewish businessmen. Plus, the Dems are a bit more willing to consider the Palestinian side of things too. So, I just don't get what the fuss is about.
Another thing, related to the Republican's inability to do what they say.. if Kerry wins next year he will most likely face a Republican Congress. So that means Kerry would be severely limited in his ability to pass much unsavory legislation.
There's no harm in voting Bush out.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon: *
But also on Israel.. I don't really understand how the Dems are worse here? The Dems support *Jews, not necessarily Israel. But of course any US admin will support Israel. But the Republicans support it in militaristic ways whereas the Dems just coddle up to the Jewish businessmen. Plus, the Dems are a bit more willing to consider the Palestinian side of things too. So, I just don't get what the fuss is about.
[/QUOTE]
I think that analysis is flat out wrong. I think the GOP has historically been far more receptive to Arab and Palestinian voices than Democrats. You will never find a narrowly elected Democratic President stand opposed to any issue related to Israel that is of significant importance to the American Jewish lobby.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I think that analysis is flat out wrong. I think the GOP has historically been far more receptive to Arab and Palestinian voices than Democrats. You will never find a narrowly elected Democratic President stand opposed to any issue related to Israel that is of significant importance to the American Jewish lobby.
[/QUOTE]
How is that any different than what our current scantily elected Republican president is doing? What has the GOP ever done to champion the cause of Arabs and Palestinians? The GOP has always been (and now more than ever because of Israel's ties to the Christian right) extremely one-sided on this issue with any and all concerns being for the security of Israel at the expense of Palestinian issues.
I don't see Muslims voting Democratic as only being "anti-Bush". Bush is the representative of the party in power and is implementing the policies and wishes of the GOP (bombing, civlil liberties, Israel coddling, etc.)