Yes true they are doing for ratings, but also they are doing hell of a good job of spreading hatred of Islam among americans. Altough I will exclude Limbaugh though.
that does it, I'm voting for Kerry just to cancel out CMs vote
if the Muslims care so much about their native land - and wanna vote on the policies of the Presidential nominees - well then tough luck for you. :)
Most Pakistani / Muslims favor Bush /Republicans. Reason being that Republicans in general have been favorable to Pakistan. Bush with the War on Terror had no choice but to suck upto (or blow the living hell out of Pakistan) Gen Mush. As far as Democrats being pro-jewish, is utter nonsense. So what if 15 senators are democrats and of jewish faith, The number two man in Pentagon Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish. The only true US-ally in middle east is Israel and thats a fact so live with it, and if muslims countries are so jealous of this, then straighten yourselves up.
I would not vote for Bush. This guy has devastated the US economy and no jobs. To me the deciding factor is economy,jobs, healthcare etc.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SheikhSahab: *
Most Pakistani / Muslims favor Bush /Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think thats true anymore. Maybe in 2000, but certainly not in 2004. Both parties are pro-Israel, so thats a moot point. Dems are always better in terms of civil liberties, and that takes priority for muslims. Especially since an anti-Islam candidate may be more pro-Pak.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Dems are always better in terms of civil liberties, and that takes priority for muslims.
[/quote]
you said it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I don't think thats true anymore. Maybe in 2000, but certainly not in 2004. Both parties are pro-Israel, so thats a moot point. Dems are always better in terms of civil liberties, and that takes priority for muslims. Especially since an anti-Islam candidate may be more pro-Pak.
[/QUOTE]
It was in NYTimes that most muslims favor Bush/republicans. Search for past one or two months you will find it.
I totally agree that both parties are pro-israel, and BTW so am I.
I agree that donkeys are better in ACLU type activities and have a better track record than elephants, however; mulsims are still more inclined towards republicans, so your point on civil liberties doesnt apply, I am not trying to argue just stating a fact, I believe it was in the same NY times article as well (I was actually perplexed when I read that).
Are you calling Bush anti-Islam and pro-pak?
You think NY Times is unbiased that if they say most muslims support Reps, thats necessarily true? Whatever they print doesn't automatically make it a 'fact'. Its just a conjecture on their part to give an impression to their readers (right or wrong), and seems the tactic still works. I can bet they did not have any scientific or statistical evidence to back up this claim in 2004.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I don't think thats true anymore. Maybe in 2000, but certainly not in 2004. Both parties are pro-Israel, so thats a moot point. Dems are always better in terms of civil liberties, and that takes priority for muslims. Especially since an anti-Islam candidate may be more pro-Pak.
[/QUOTE]
dems are more pro civil liberities? the secret evidence and all that jazz was started during Clinton years, the rest has just been a further development of the same thing, btw Clinton era was not facing the type of terrorist threat that this era is. As reps have taken extrreme measures in extreme times (not that I agree with it), dems did the same, they took what would be considered extreme measures in not so extreme times.
I mean ashcroft is lame, after all he lost to a dead guy in missouri, but I can not really be sure that had dems been in power similar things a la patriot act would not have happened.
Thats a hypothetical that can't ever be answered by any certainity (that what would Clinton or Gore Administration have done if 9/11 happened in his Presidency), so I will leave it at that. The general perception is very clear that Dems are better for civil liberties than Reps. Do you think any Republican will ever make a key-note address in Rep Convention that says:
"If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties."
I really doubt it. Yes, its rhetorical, but it shows the thought process.
Faisal
u forgot to address my point about secret evidence and who started it. or how ACLU viewed Ms. Reno.
ACLU as a group will always find something to take up against the government of the day. Thats fine. Dems may not be angels about civil liberties either, but as I said before "the general perception is very clear that Dems are better for civil liberties than Reps". That should answer the point about secret evidences etc. It will be pretty hard to top Ashcroft.
Thats what ppl had said about Reno
I guess, Bush's re-election would definitely be good news for military regime in Pakistan and Pakistan should be able to gain more military and economic benefits from USA. Musharaff and Bush have definitively developed a good working relationship by now and it is time for Pakistan to gain more advantages for all sacrifices it has made in last few years supporting USA’ s led war on terrorism. Of course, in order to gain those advantages, Bush’s reselection would be a key factor for Pakistan.
With Kerry, it would be a new start. Frankly speaking, I do not see Kerry opposing Pakistan too much given the current military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan but still it will be fresh start between two leaders. Plus what really freaks me out what if John Kerry decides to bring Dr Qadeer’s issue back into lime light? Qadeer’s issue is a time bomb and it will explode one day for sure. To think that Qadeer’s issue is dead by now would be a plain stupidity. And I am positive that given the Democrat party’s record and policies, it is very likely that Kerry will be pushed by strong democrat lobbies to ask Pakistan to open up its nuclear labs for international agencies. So far Bush is there and we are cooperating USA on war on terrorism, we will be just fine. Plus it will give us 4 more years to diffuse Qadeer’s issue.
So I guess, I do not mind seeing Mr. Bush back in White House As mater of fact I will VOTE FOR MR. BUSH. However, it may increase problems for Muslims domestically. But I would prefer Pakistan’s long-term advantage to my domestic problems in USA.
I will take Reno over Ashcroft any day.
Democrats’ inclination towards civil liberties has grass roots, not lip service. And it has all to do with diversity in their voter base. Just look at the demographics of the delegates at their conventions; Republicans had only 2% Hispanic delegates, compared to 11% representing their states at DNC, 7% African Americans to 20% at DNC, and overall less than 20% minority delegates in NYC represented GOP while more than 40% were present at DNC.
I emailed two different senators about my irritating delays at airport screening, and the responses tell who cares more about my civil liberties & who cares more about security of their golf course.
ahmadjee
why did the same democrats who are all talk about civil liberties not oppose the secret evidence act prior to W taking office?
I dont think there is much difference between ashcroft and Reno..aside from the secret evidence crap she also has the feather of brilliant work at Waco to her credit.
P.S. did you get a response from a democrat senator?
Bhaijaan, parties are very diverse in their views. If a Zell Miller is part of Dems, than McCain runs on a conservative GOP platform.
It's the majority of the people/representatives that give face to a political party. It's a fact that historically Dems have bent over backwards on civil liberties & health care. While GOP have advocated strong military & tax cuts!
Re: Why muslims should vote for Bush
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
You wouldnt expect me to say that now would you? But this coming election Bush gets my vote. Why you ask? Well its as follows. It is between choosing two evils. Kerry and Bush are no different from each other on the war on terrorism or on any thing with regard to foriegn policy. They have the same policies. The difference is that Kerry is smarter. Not a good thing. Imagine Bush but smarter. There goes the earth and most of our solar system dont you think?
Secondly the democractic party is known for its pro-israel/jewish stance. There are i believe 15 jewish senators of which a majority are democrats. Thus it is obvious they are not well inclined towards muslims or muslim countries. Just take a look at the way AIPAC lobbies and what actions are taken against muslim countries. There is a very strong link between the two.
Third they (democrats) are not well desposed to Pakistan at all. Rather they see us as the next threat after China of course. We are a bigger threat than Iran according to the democrats. So the current good favor that the CE enjoys with President Bush will be non-existant under kerry also we will lose all our benefits and debt re-scheduling.
[/QUOTE]
For a minute I was actually going to believe you, oh but wait, you said that Pakistan is a threat in the Democrats' eyes. So what you're really saying is, "Why PAKI-HINDUS should vote for Bush," and not Muslims.
Get real, why're you trying to make it seem as if **Muslims **are threatened when its only your own that's in for it [like you said]?!
Lately, I have felt that his re-election would actually be fun in the long run.
I believe his and his administration's biggest embarrassment is yet to come.
Who knows McCain might be president on 11/3/2008.
Just some wishful-thinking. (and p.s. I am unaffected by US economy, not eligible for voting and never will be).
Trust me, it will be fun.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
It's the majority of the people/representatives that give face to a political party. It's a fact that historically Dems have bent over backwards on civil liberties & health care. While GOP have advocated strong military & tax cuts!
[/QUOTE]
Qibla
answer a simple question, if dems are so civil liberties focused, why was there a secret evidence law in place? why did some dems aka clinton, reno and his cabinet support it, howcome dems were unable to overturn it in congress?
in this case it appears that not only did the dems not bend over backwards..but they bent others over and screwed em with this secret evidence provision.
The majority...that gace face to dems were unable to get rid of this secret evidence bull