[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by sak01

I don't think American Muslims are even aware of the full extent of American Foreign Policy and how little the present candidates differ in this regard. If they are, then I don't understand how they can get excited over the current elections.

There may be a few differences in healthcare, taxes, immigration, protectionism etc etc but if you balance that against the opression and slaughter of Muslims directly or indirectly through tyrannous regimes around the world and the fact that this will continue no matter who is elected, then I don't see what there is to be excited about.

This is not to say don't vote, because there may be specific domestic, economic etc policies you want to see in place, but don't get too enthusiastic about it.

A litmus test could be policy with regards to Israel. Not that it automatically means the candidate is the one to go for, but every candidate knows full well the American sponsored oppression that goes on over there and if they're not prepared to do anything about it for the sake of their political career then it doesn't say much about them as a person.

its not always about foreign policy, people are hurting financially. people are set to lose thier homes in this mortgage crises. and pleny of people dont have health insurance, and you can bet most of those cabbies across america, and most of whom are muslim, dont have access to health care for them and their families. its no wonder in little india/pakistan i see alot of herbal medicine products being sold. and with a bad economy, less people take taxis, and that means less income for them and thier families. high gas prices dont help much either, especially when your paying $300 - $400 a week on gas expenses alone.

plus so many muslims in I.T. and so many Muslim engineers have been put out of work.

So many Muslim's of african-american descent, are out of work, or many Muslim's are basically underemployed, and that cuts across the board.

and then you have the patriot act, the harrassment by the fbi of Muslim activists and Muslim charities. hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise, and mosques are being vandalized all across america.

only the democrats can help us on these domestic issues alone. once we conqure the domestic issues, then we can move on to foreign policy. and so far we have made huge inroads. a man like ron paul in the past would never have been allowed in a nationally televised debate.

even obama has criticized isreali settelements. thats amazing right there in american politics and ill tell you why.

in the 1992 election, bill clinton ran straight ot the jews, stuck a yamaka on his head and said 'im not opposed to settelements". this was after the fight that bush sr. had with the isrealis over u.s.-backed loan garuntees that he refused to sign on until they confirmed that they will not use the money to build more settelements. yet bill clinton went there and went against the policy of every u.s. adminstration since 1967, which opposes isreali settelements.

the fact that in 2008 that obama is making those type of statements now, just shows how much inroads that Muslim's have made, and nowhere more so than in the state of Michigan. so it may take some time, but if we can get the politicins in d.c. to balance out the u.s. foreign policy, to a more fair one, than we have done alot.

take my congressman for example, danny davis of chicago's west side, he doesnt take any money from the isreali lobby, aipac, and is a huge supporter of palestine, and has very close relations with the Muslim community. im very happy that i get to vote for him in the democratic primary, which in chicago is the only real election, since a democratic nominee in the primary is automatically garunteed a win in november.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

However, influencing the election is a separate issue from whether it will effect the political system. Muslims are negative baggage these days. Individuals who rely upon the Muslim vote have a proclivity for abandoning them once in power. A perfect case example of this is George Bush. Karl Rove admitted that they could not have won the 2000 election without the support of the Floridan Muslims. Even he recognized that American Muslims played a role in helping the Republicans come to power, yet what benefit did that vote bring to the community? One could argue that the bloc vote completely backfired.

One of the reasons why politicians may "backstab" us after coming into power is because we lack the political infrastructure (lobbyists, lawyers, thinkers) to maintain meaningful relationships with elected officials. This goes back to the lack of funding. Lobbyists, lawyers, and academians, in order to do what they do best, need to get paid and there is a shortage of these professionals in our community, one of the greatest reasons being the lack of money. We have lawyers, but almost all of them go into private or public practice in fields that are of little direct benefit to the American Muslim community.

i understand the apprehensions there, and in many countries, not just in america, many muslims are used as simply nothing more than 'vote banks'. India is a perfect example of that and you can see how Muslim's are treated by secular and left-wing parties in India.

even many black's have complained about being used by the democratic party, which is why plenty of blacks switched to repugs, such as congressman j.c. watts.

but at this point in time we can only hope for the best, and the democrats at least have shown that they will repeal the patriot act, and, led by the efforts of senior party leaders such as ted kennedy, have allowed the act to expire, much to the ire of that idiot bush.

not only that, one of the biggest issues for most democrats is the iraq war. virtually all democrats want the u.s. to pull out of iraq.

and to prove this, several times the democrat-controlled congress have attempted to make laws for the pull out of troops, only to be veteoed by bush.

so if a democrat wins the white house, they will have no choice but to pull out trooops within a least a year. thats a given, because that is one of thier main election platforms, and the american public will not forgive them when promising something like that. its the same platform that helped the democrats win the congress back in 06'. so at least on these fronts we are making inroads.

and lastly, we live in the richest and most prosperous nation on earth. its a priveledge to live here.

i can show you plenty of fobs who are dying to get over here.

and with the horrible shape our economy is in, im in no mood to take up indian citizenship and move to india to work in an outsourcing job for peanuts.

its easy for a student to worry about foreign policy and all that, but get out there and see how hard it is right now to find a job in this economy, which is virutally on the siege of an economy depression and you will see quickly where the prioritys lay first.

a democrat winning the white house is alot better than a repug for just about every reason.

and i cant take another four years of a repug in the white house. and the only reason i care about this election, and the only reason why im paying attention to the primaries. i dont really care about obama, i just know he can beat john mccain in november and polls show this. and thats all i care about is a democrat who can beat mccain in november.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Precisely. Thats why I think its ridiculous for American Muslims to have this hidden notion that they can redesign American influence in the Middle East. It has less to do with politics and more to do with economic interest. Assuming our population grows exponentially, the anti-majoritarian checks embedded within the Constitution would still prevent us from making a long-term influence. By the time Muslim's developed the economic tools necessary to make real change in the US political system and change foreign policy, American hegemony would have declined.

Thats why, in my opinion, we need a global Ummah wide strategy that plans around the collapse of American hegemony, which is inevitable and will probably happen within a century or so.

if you really want global muslim's to influence u.s. foreign policy, then you have to them to stop buying american agricultural products.

the farmers of america have enormous influence and sway huge amounts of power in the u.s. senate. its why they recieve so many government subsidies, paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. not only that, most farms are owned by companies, not individuals. sunskit orange juice company, is a perfect example of this. only 2% of the population in the u.s. actually live in farms.

not only that, with new media out there, such as al jazeera, the u.s. govt is taking note, and is very worried what 1 billion muslim's are thinking. right now they are just trying to change the image, but that could translate into something else later on. after all no country in the world can ignore 1 billion people.

and get muslim's of the gulf to stop buying pepsi, you would virtually shut the company down if that happened, since most of thier money comes from there.

in fact coke and pepsi are so scared of an arab boycott of thier products, that they are already donating i think what 5% of their profits to palestinian charities. these are big companies, and china has proven that they can arm twist companies to arm twist politicians in washington to thier favor.

maybe that's when the chinese priemer made his visit to the u.s., he went straight to bill gates house first, before heading off to the white house, to discuss trade.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Maryland Democratic Primary

Tuesday, February 12 | Delegates at Stake: 99

Poll: The Sun Poll

Date: 01/6/08 - 01/9/08

Clinton - 26%

Obama - 39%

Edwards - 12%

Spread: Obama +13.0%

[GOTFIVEONIT]

you know what sak, i think in reality your just a sado-masochist and probably get your jollys off of watching women being flogged, taliban-style.

in fact according to people like you, the only 'true and just rulers' are people like mullah omar.

now i just gave you an example out of afghanistan, and you say 'afghanistan isnt being ruled by shariah', but the charges against the journalist are based on shariah, so how can you make this claim?

you also claim that peoples sins add to the decay of societies.

no it doesnt, what adds to the decay of societies, is places like pakistan where only 40 fricking families rule and they are all wealthy land owners. musharrif himself owns $10 million dollars worth of land there.

you blame government incompetence, corruption and massive poverty on people's sins. and the only way to rectify it is to FORCE THEM TO PRACTICE ISLAM.

the last time i checked, there was a little verse that says there is no compulsion in Islam, meaning you cannot force anyone to practice Islam. it has to be done by thier own free will and choice.

and yes there is a revivelism of Islam in secular arab countries, or you wouldnt see mosques overflowing into the streets come jummah, but in your view whoever isnt a fanatic talibani, isnt part of your version of revivilism.

the fact is, that you simply want to impose your sect, wahabism, upon everyone else. and only your version of Islam has to be imposed upon everyone. im not a wahabi, why should your sect's beliefs be imposed upon me?

its very easy to use use people from history as examples, but history judges past politicians in a more better light. im sure during thier days, there were plenty of people moping and groping during their rule.

the fact is there is no such thing as a 'just and true ruler', your just living in a fantasy, and simply repeating propoganda put out by groups such as hib-ul-tahir.

the vast majority of people dont believe in such fundamentalist beliefs, and watch for jamaat islami to be booted out of office up in nwfp, come the next election.

even movie posters now are banned, putting painters out of work. ooh ya real nice job there. lets put the poor painter, who earns barely enough to feed his family out of work, so rich fundamentalist desi doctors can feel better about themselves.

and claiming you have the authority of god, isnt a valid excuse, because i can claim the exact same thing too in my arguments as well.

you are making FALSE accusations that most Muslim's are complete total sinners, would you include the list of people who write in this website too? you cant make that type of accusations, who are you to make such an accusation?

if it really bothers you that much sak, dont preach to people, dont call them sinners, simply set the example. its what i do. explain your beliefs, and why you believe in them, and then show it, set it out for other people to emulate, and trust me you go a long more way than preaching and passing judgement on other people.

its up to individuals, not governments, otherwise you sound no different than Bush, and all his southern hillbilly bible thumpers who make the same arguments you do.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

TIME Poll: Clinton More Beatable than Obama

By MICHAEL DUFFY/WASHINGTON
Thu Feb 7, 5:45 PM ET

Though the real election is nine months away, Sen. Barack Obama would fare slightly better than Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head to head match-up with Sen. John McCain if the general election were held today, a new TIME poll reveals.

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

For much of the year, Democrats have enjoyed a wide margin over any Republican rival in theoretical match-ups. Those margins have begun to shrink in recent weeks.

According to the new poll, Democratic voters favor Clinton over Obama for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 48% to 42%.

Seventy percent of the voters polled by TIME said Bill Clinton's recent performance on the campaign trail had "no influence" on whether they were more or less likely to vote for his wife. Nineteen percent of voters said Clinton's recent comments made them less likely to vote for her; nine percent of voters said it made them more likely to vote for her.

The poll also sampled all voters' views of several possible vice presidential choices - and their various impacts on a potential race. According to the survey results, 62% of likely voters want Hillary Clinton to name Obama as her running mate. By contrast, only 51% of the same voters want Obama to return the favor. The same voters, by a margin of 55% to 11%, believed that Obama would help rather than hurt Clinton's chances were he to become her running mate. If Obama tapped Clinton as his running mate, that margin shifted, with 38% saying it would help his chances and 31% saying it would hurt.


The survey of nearly 1,000 likely registered voters was conducted February 1 through February 4, before Super Tuesday and the departure from the Republican race of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

[MaleFashionista]

Is it just me, or are all the candidates practically competing with each other to see who can alienate Muslim voters the most? I mean, who do we really have to choose from?

Obama...who's been itching to bomb Pakistan for the past 4 years now, and will hurt you if you so much as imply that he may have had something to do with Islam/Muslims at any point in his life.

Hillary...who, just this past summer, attended a fundraiser hosted by a Pakistani lobby group which raised over $100,000 for her campaign...but then refused to let them take any pictures, lest the media learn that she had been fraternizing with a bunch of Pakis (not to mention the the $50,000 donation from the American Muslim Aliance than she sent back during her senate run).

and McCain...who apparently 'admires the Islam' but wouldnt feel comfortable with a Muslim leading his 'Christian nation.'

I honestly don't feel comfortable voting for any of them.

[nectar]

You're right, and it's not just the muslims: Daily Herald | Some voters who aren't Christian feel left out

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

Is it just me, or are all the candidates practically competing with each other to see who can alienate Muslim voters the most? I mean, who do we really have to choose from?

Obama...who's been itching to bomb Pakistan for the past 4 years now, and will hurt you if you so much as imply that he may have had something to do with Islam/Muslims at any point in his life.

Hillary...who, just this past summer, attended a fundraiser hosted by a Pakistani lobby group which raised over $100,000 for her campaign...but then refused to let them take any pictures, lest the media learn that she had been fraternizing with a bunch of Pakis (not to mention the the $50,000 donation from the American Muslim Aliance than she sent back during her senate run).

and McCain...who apparently 'admires the Islam' but wouldnt feel comfortable with a Muslim leading his 'Christian nation.'

I honestly don't feel comfortable voting for any of them.

And then of course, there is Paul; a constitutionist who wants to end support for Israel and end the wars, proposing a non-interventionist policy, where the US and the ME countries can go back to being friends again, before Israel came along and messed everything up. He also wants to restore people's individual rights and liberties. I think I'd be pretty comfortable with him. The "he has no chance of winning" rhetoric is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Sugarberry]

In reality this country is to racist and to sexist to for either obama or hilary to win....I cant wait till the rest of the country realizes that.

at the end of the day the question really is...are you gonna vote or not vote? and if your gonna vote who would it be?

[ChotooMotoo]

I'm just happy that Romney dropped out. He was the neocon dream.

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

And then of course, there is Paul; a constitutionist who wants to end support for Israel and end the wars, proposing a non-interventionist policy, where the US and the ME countries can go back to being friends again, before Israel came along and messed everything up. He also wants to restore people's individual rights and liberties. I think I'd be pretty comfortable with him. The "he has no chance of winning" rhetoric is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm sorry, but as a member of a minority group, I simply don't feel comfortable voting for someone who fraternizes with former KKK leaders, and denounces the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unconstitutional. Not to mention his kooky views on returning to the gold standard, abolishing all gun control, etc...

As far as chances of winning...I think its pretty clear now who's going to get the GOP's nomination. And as far as I know, he has virtually ruled out running as an independent, so the point is moot.

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by MaleFashionista

I'm sorry, but as a member of a minority group, I simply don't feel comfortable voting for someone who fraternizes with former KKK leaders, and denounces the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as being unconstitutional. Not to mention his kooky views on returning to the gold standard, abolishing all gun control, etc...

As far as chances of winning...I think its pretty clear now who's going to get the GOP's nomination. And as far as I know, he has virtually ruled out running as an independent, so the point is moot.

when you're effed up beyond all recognition, its gonna take something crazy and radical to get back on track

as far as the racist thing goes, you can find similar blemishes on pretty much all candidates.

for example, Barack Obama has ties with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Rupert Murdock supports Hillary

[MaleFashionista]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

when you're effed up beyond all recognition, its gonna take something crazy and radical to get back on track

as far as the racist thing goes, you can find similar blemishes on pretty much all candidates.

for example, Barack Obama has ties with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Rupert Murdock supports Hillary

So the way to "get back on track" is by taking our currency policy back to the turn of the century, banning all human embryonic stem cell research, and giving every nutjob out there legal sanction to carry assault weapons if they want. Brilliant.

In any case, as I already pointed out, the issue is moot.