Well, the one-side basing on this issue has begun: On Hannity and Colmes tonight Mr. Colmes asked a guest if the Republicans would look “cowardly” for not appearing on the U-Tube debate. Much hollow and frankly unconvincing noise was made about the U-Tube debate not being a serious venue, but that’s what it sounded like – hollow and unconvincing. The appearance to any objective observer was that Colms had struck a good point and it stuck because no one brought up the double standard about the Fox debates. That’s the message the average viewer who couldn’t care less about MM.com or any other insightful internet source is getting.

The idea that Rebulicans are cowardly to debate in venues not suited to their viewpoint is certain to be a hard-core Democrat talking point. Always it is that Republicans feel a need to strike back only at the last hour, when a good portion of public opinion has solidified in favor of the opposition.

It was too easy to predict this one and if grassroots Republicans don’t start making some noise now before the liberals set the terms of the national debate, it’ll be too easy to predict the result of the 08 elections, also.

We’ve seen this time and again on the part of conservatives who feel they are above fighting back on a level they feel is beneath them, forgetting the old theatrical addage” nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Reagan knew the slogan and framed his responses fast and clearly and effectively.

We’ll yell and scream about abortion, gun control and immigration, but like a collective idiot mind never follow Reagans example and make the loudest noise where it counts: getting people elected who will carry out our views into something practically manifest. newt knew the power needed, and mobilized it, but without him, most will sit out the details in favor of the larger issues while the details eat away the larger issues out from under us.

We’ll never learn, and shame on those who know better, including everyone here, for not raising their collective voice on so clearly a winnable and substantial issue for the Republicans. To those who say the issue is not substabtial, I say take your head out of the sand: keeping the playing field level is about as important as it gets – indeed, the founders created the electoral college with exactly that intent in mind, which seperates us from the European Democracies where the large concentrations of the urban elite decide the elections.

Shame on those who know better and say nothing. And don’t bitch when the Dems win in 08 – you’ll have had your chance when the time was right, and decided to be “above it”.

Above winning.

And I’ll be hear to tell you to shut up, because nobody needs a lazy whiner.

Well the Democrats are now on the issue, as predicted: thanks to the people like those here who’ll say nothing, the Dems have learned that we’re the patsies we’ve always been, and they’ll keep driving the point about U-Tube home along with everything else while those like those here sniff the air haughtily and do nothing that is beneath them – like fight back. Pathetic.

Shame.

Shame.

Shame.

This means you.

“I see, I’m “vitriolic” and I guess that makes you the “victim”. Sigh.”

Another leap on your illogic trapeze.
See ya round.

I think I can let things rest where they lay. It was great to air views so thoroughly.

We can micro-clarify til the cows come home. My point to engaging your views was to exchange ideas.

We have accomplished that. Cool!

I see, I’m “vitriolic” and I guess that makes you the “victim”. Sigh. Okay, so far you haven’t offered much so it won’t take alot to debate your points, a debate which I find myself wanting to hold the Dems feet to the fire and availing ourselves of an opportunity and you – maybe not.

“…in theory I agree with you about maintaining the high ground. The problem is it has never worked for us in the past when it comes to media-covered politics, because the media is against us.
In theory?

If one agrees, then one agrees.

This ius ridiculous and I’ll bet almost every reading this sees it that way, also. You agree in theory by seperating the theory from the actual fact, which is usually far less desireable. Are you trying to tell everyone that you’ve never heard that phrase before? This sounds like absurdist parsing. In this instance, “agreeing in theory” means yes, in theory it would be nice to always take the high road, in this instance seeming defined by you as not calling the Dems out on not debating on Fox, which in the cold light of reality is just ignoring an opportunity and a problem. You know, I feeli like I’m just wasting my time debating a point so uttery, totally stupid that even a 5 year old would immediately grasp the difference (ooh, golly, I’m being “vitriolic” again!)

“To go back to Bill Clinton’s hooey gooey with Monica is an obvious, but specious, point about the MSM’s focus.

The Republicans impeached The President of The United States. Was this not “media covered politics”?

Sure the media covered it, and he was impeached but not removed, and he seemingly feels no shame about his disgraceful actions. Do you? The media coverage was tepid in terms of putting the heat on, and now most teenagers feel oral sex isn’t sex. So what are you saying, Bear? – that the MSM, about which Michelle and others always say – rightfully – is unfair, is fair enough that we need not worry about them this election season?

So, let me see if I have this right,Mr. C_C.

1. You are advocating vigorously for a Republican CNN/YouTube debate.

As a bargaining chip on the political playing field to challenge the dems to debate onthe only neutral-to-unfriendly venue they will have this election, Fox News. You have a problem with that, somehow? If the Republicans don’t do it, the MSM will paint them as cowards without mentioning Fox, or ignore the point. Will the u-tune debatye hammer the Republicans? of course, but our guys are used to that and they have the right arguements on their side. To do it for the fun of it? No. To do it as a grandstanding challenge to the dems to face hrsher music in a debate by going on Fox, of course!

2. The Republican debate would somehow impact a viewing public’s opinion of Democratic candidates, (but not necessarily a voting public’s opinion of Democratic candidates).

Now this is where you’re getting stupid again, and you now sound like one of those stealth liberals trying to screw things up onb the right because you’re too well spoken not to understand the absurd content of this last question. I assume you mean republican candidates and not Democratic candidates in your last sentence.

It would impact their view on Republicans maybe. It might impact their view if Democrats take the challenge and get hammered on Fox. It would definately impact on the Democrats if, after much noise is made by republicans, they still look to cheicken to appear on Fox – that is a message anyone can understand, but the broader audience isn’t getting the story so they don’t get the message.

3. You attribute to these intra-Party debates (or a Republican decision not to have one on BoobTube) a risk of losing the margin of victory in the 08 Presidential election.

Sigh, Geez, just read my answer to 2. If that isn’t enough I’m guessing you’ll never ubnderstand, don’t want to understand or want to appear not to understand for some other underlying purpose, but I can’t believe you’re so stupid as to not be able to follow this very simple thread of logic, and it’s getting irritating. I’ve spoken to two readers here off board and they think your responses, quite frankly, are full of sh*t. “Nobody can be that dumb” says one.

4. You offer a failed argument for holding the moral high ground saying it “never” works.

Yet, you illustrate your “point” with a Presidential debate between the two finalists.

Geez, there you go again. 1. there is no moral high ground by not holding the dems accountable, so stop patting yourself on the back for winning that point without debating it directly – not holding the dems accountable is called being a pre-election sap. Yes, I illustrated the point between two finalists – meaning two opposing parties, which is the same situation here, the ground rules for the debates as relates to the two parties, even if the debates themselves are between members of the same party. once again, you’re smarter than this, so I’m beginning to question your motivations big time. (”moral high ground” by not stepping forward and leveling the playing field. Jes*s Chr*st, gimmie a break! What far-off planet did you come from?)

The debates between finalists do influence the margin of points in an election. You will be hard-pressed to document the predictive value about a YouTube debate.

Dammit, I wish you would keep your head together on this. It isn’t about who goes on U-Tube, it’s about the dems not going on Fox – the only place they will be asked tough questions. Is it possible you finally get the idea now? (Sheesh!)(if you don’t, everyone else here does, so if you want to make it look like you can’t follow simple idea to it’s conclusion, I guess you are entitled to represetn yourself thusly (”moral high ground” I can’t get over that one!)

You also fail to address the alternative I’ve presented to you: If the Democrats say OolaFungutz to FNC debates, and then say “Hey let’s party on YouTube”, does that not in the least look like a strategy to frame the process?

No, because nobody outside political wonks pay any attention and nobody gets it. You think that everyone in the world follows politics like people who log in to places like this, and you should know better.
And if it doesnt to you, why not? Besides, we go on U-Tune only if the Dems go on Fox. Our guys can stanbd up to U-Tube, but should only have to as a trade for the Dems going on Fox for tough questions. I’ve only repeated what the strategy is about 500 times, but still at this juncture you either don’t get it for real, somehow, or want to appear dumb on the issue.

“Has Rush made this itch a personal cause as you seem to have made it? I have heard him register his talking points about Dems and the FNC issue, but has he insisted that YouTube debates swing an election with the alarmist vitriol with which you feel compelled to lead?”

This sin’t a legit point in this debate but to make this clear anyway, I don’t listen to Rush. Everyone owes him an enormous debt for the obvious reasons, of course, and I like his old TV show, but his one-man-band radio show is a style and format I simply never cared for. So take from that what you will.

“2. I suggested holding the debates “in Baghdad”. Takes imagination on how to do that. But you aren’t curious about this position. So you don’t know what that might entail. Real time streaming video from the US to Baghdad would put the Republican candidates square in the picture with troops asking the tough questions about the war. Do you think it might influence what the public hears and sees about the Pelosi Congress? “

I’m smiling tbut this is worthy of LOL status. Put all the leading republican candidates – with much advance warning to skilled and funded murderous terrorists – into one of the most dangerous places on earth to grandstand for political points. Bear, you need such a reality check on this on it’s pathetic. Bagdad?! God help us.

“3. Ya see, Mr C_C taking the high road means leaving the chicken Democrats who won’t debate on FNC holding their own bag while the Republican debates do more to expose the Democrats on substance than on the superfluous concern of whether or not FNC is “fair and balanced”. That requires some heavy lifting from Republican candidates. It is not an easy way out.”

I guess for you this constant “either or” approach makes sense. You can have it both ways: the Republicans will do in the debates what and how they’ll do and that’s that. But you can also call the Dems out for running scared on Fox. Once again, you assume the dems running scared from Fox will be upper most in the minds of the average voter, and it should be but it won’t because the MSM media won’t cover it (for the millionth time) just like they aren’t covering it now. So we and the candidates have to make it an issue the media cannot ignore. there is nothing “high road” about what your suggesting, unl;ess this high road business is all in your head, in which case that’s where it’ll stay because no one else will think the Republicans are going low road by challenging the dems on their cherry picking of pro-liberal news outlets on which to debate.

“Mr. C_C said: No, if Rush, Sean Hannity and this board’s own host Michelle were likewise that irresponsibly charitable, this country would be more deeply embroiled in liberalism than ever.

(sigh) You, Mr. C_C, are getting carried away with your name dropping”

LOL, I see. Let me tell you, Bear, I’ve worked with some major names in the entertaiment industry, if I wanted to drop names I could do it by the truckload.

“Again: raising the bar is not a charitable act.”

Whewther it is or not generally depends on the ciurcumnstanbce, but your idea of not calling the Dems out on cherry picking their venues – which is important – is only “taking the high road” in your own head. I’m sure you’ll snort heartily while looking down your nose at those absurd democrats as they take control of the white house. Boy, you’ll really have showed them who takes the high road then, eh? Sheesh!

“Stick to my arguments. You asked for me to be straight and to the point.

So far, you have been neither.”

I can only respond with what you’ve given me, and it’s tough to be straight when I have to untangle the absurdist, pro-defeatist ans elitist knots in every one of your sentences. I think I’ve done all I can here – soime people will see it my way, and others your way (though I have no idea why the latter could be the case unless they’re stealth liberals trying to sabotage the 08 elections from within on a grassroots level, and this wouldn’t be the first time). You’re so far off in some weird, academtic/theoretically, elitist la la land that anything resenbling street smarts will bounce off you like rubber missles of logic against you rock of gibralter stand in favor of – taking some abstract concept of the high road?!

I’m done, you can have the last word if you want to, but my life is too filled right now to continue mixing it up with someone who either can’t understand a few simple, street-wise realities or thinks it’s cute or sophisticated to pretend not to. I don’t have to to convince a single person who seems to have a vested interest in not being convinced, to argue for the fun of it or to be your buddy. You can have the last word and spin it as much as you want. I’ve done as much good on this thread which is slowly falling to the bottom of the list as I’m likly to, and that’s what it’s about for me.

“What could be worse, I wonder, than losing and watching millions of kids raised in Hillary Clinton’s view of the world? “Losing our gentlemanly values?” In politics?! That isn’t taking the high road, that’s being unconscionably negligent to the innocent, and they desrve for us to do better than that to protect them from an awful future.”

You have opened the door on this, Mr. C_C.

We started by talking about the advantages and disadvantages of debating on YouTube/CNN.

All of a sudden the balance of our children’s future hinges on Presidential Primary debates as a zero-sum event.

But, anyway, here goes-

Who said anything about “Losing our gentlemanly values?” ? I certainly did not.

And besides, values are lost when they are not put into ACTION, Mr. C_C.

At grass roots level we are losing our kids to socialism disguised by Baby Boomers’ mantras of “Caring for the People”, “Doing the Right Thing”, and “Give Peace a Chance”.

It isn’t Hillary’s view of the world: it is Saul Alinsky’s view of the world.

And the Nation is vulnerable to such filth because:

1).The National electorate has failed to articulate its own vision for the future.

2)The National Electorate has failed to eradicate Marxist doctrine from public institutions where it influences policy and planning. (Just as it is failing to take on ISLAM).

Instead, like you are doing with your FNC obsession, the National Electorate is settling for reactionary political fights based on vague points from a Boogey Man threat matrix, such as the one you offered above.

Millions of kids are already living an “awful future”.

Where have you been?

This has been going on in the US since its creation.

What do you read?

What do you know about this?

Am I saying America is evil?
No, I am saying I am an involved parent who has worked at all levels of the educational system in the Nation in 4 different states, and interfaced with social services agencies in each.

The next President will not impact the entrenched bureaucratic elite-based system that is sucking the tax dollars out of Washington, state treasuries, and local coffers.

Kids being raised in a Socialist Nanny State is not going to begin, nor is it likely to increase appreciably because another Clinton gets elected.

The long term trend is already in motion. It is over 200 years old.

I am not referring to being raised on talking points either: we are talking about the millions of kids and parents who know their lack of worth to both Republicans and Democrats who maintain their respective versions of Nanny State policies.

That is a result of what is happening at grass roots levels, Mr. C_C.
Not Washington D.C.

Bananas and condoms don’t come from Washington.

Here in California they come from unelected Commissions,. “Planning Boards”, “Educational Consortia” etc etc etc. I bet it happens that way in more states than one.

The Republican reluctance to engage in the scheduled September YouTube debate has created a fierce debate in the blogosphere, including something of a civil war at Hugh Hewitt’s Townhall blog. Hugh himself has adamantly insisted that Republican candid…

Mr. C_C: said-“This remark assumes bad retribution if we engage the Democrats.”

Well, Mr. C_C, you are speaking over the remark with, again, a distorted projection.

The saying is an expression with an unstated payoff.

To the naïve (and I am not suggesting that you are naïve) and the uninitiated to this bit of country wisdom, it raises a question: “Why not?”

To which the informed and experienced one can reply “You will ALWAYS lose.”

Whatever vaguery is implied by your projection- “this remark assumes bad retribution if we engage the Democrats”, it does not *address* the practicality of the wisdom of my remark.

Therefore, you-again- are not being straight in this discussion as far as your commentary is concerned.

In addition, your projection smears some stinky stuff on my original argument to raise the bar with the debates.

You say that there is some non-will to “engage the Democrats”.

My argument encourages nothing of the sort.

Take the high ground and shoot down on your enemy. Straight enough metaphor for you?

Pin them down and emaciate them with their own choice of positions.

In 20 years, NOBODY will remember FNC and it’s itch to defends it’s own noose “Fair and Balanced”.

People will remember the Republicans talking to Snow Men about dying polar bears.

People won’t remember the Democrats doing it, just the same way they don’t remember Clinton firing prosecutors en masse.

Engaging the Democrats by raising the bar with substantive debate while calling out Democratic positions in the process, would initiate press coverage of what each respective Republican candidate said about each Democratic candidate’s position.

Simple idea: Moderator of a Republican debate asks the same question to each candidate- “So and so: Compare and contrast your position on the War in Iraq with your Democratic competitors, namely Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

Go right on down the line and pound the Democrats.

The MSM loves to spread gossip. “Mrs. Clinton, what about Rudy Giuliani’s comment about your position on the war last nite to the troops in Baghdad during the webcasted debate?”

And her reply: “Well, we invited them to debate on YouTube but they refused.”

It wouldn’t pass muster with voters who are not sure about her.

The MSM would not be able to help themselves in trying to give her a chance to respond. And however she tries to respond, and protect her allegiances to the Lefty Peace Moms, she will fall flat.

BINGO! Engagement on.

Now, Mr. C_C, be a mensch and, for a moment, demonstrate that you grasp this concept of taking the (moral)(tactical) high ground.

Suspend your judgement of me as the messenger and my message.

Try and control your obvious personal issues (evidenced by your seeming compulsion and need to project onto arguments and using the word “stupid” about my freely offered and defensible positions, drop names of celebrity conservatives to bolster your operational style in debate).

Then we can proceed in a manner that is fair and balanced.

(Bear1909 said): “I am already “said congress”. The current woes of the Nation are not in effect because men and women of goodwill sat by and did nothing. To assume we are in the mess we are in because no one has done anything is costly. The cost is the ear one might hope to reach by a call to action, which is what Mr. Paul’s campaign amounts to on its face. I will act based on the equity I have established by my political actions on the grassroots level in the face of Presidential administration and Pelosi Galore’s Congress.”

Fed Up says: I disagree Bear, but you did get the “costly” aspect to the issue correct. My point was that we voters have voted for exactly what we have received; almost 9 trillion of debt and the honor of being the world’s largest debtor nation (let alone the budget deficit, trade deficit, pension deficits and the 40 trillion bill coming for Medicare and Social Security). The grassroots effort you may be putting forth I don’t know well enough to comment upon. If you have a website or something you can point me to I can then reference it. Ron Paul’s campaign, as you know, is simply a return to following the Constitution, a sound monetary system, limited government and free markets. Naturally we both agree upon one issue and that is the hard fall. I believe it’s unavoidable at this point, but at least Paul can eliminate some Federal bureaucracy to possibly make a difference.

(Bear1909 said): “Are our laws being circumvented by LAWCAP (Bucky Fullers moniker for the legal cabals which manipulate supra-national powers over nations for the sake of finance capitalism the world over).?
Has LAWCAP made it necessary for each individual citizen endowed with certain inalienable rights to be vigilant in their fight to curtail the influence of LAWCAP on their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness? Yes. (Shamnesty as a case in point.)

Granted, this is a total drag. And if I was the Managing Director of the Known Universe, I would end LAWCAP altogether to reduce the high opportunity cost of “Liberty” in the USA.

The Founding Fathers and the people living here at the time fought everyday of their adult lives against the continuous encroachment of the earliest form of LAWCAP- the British and their mercantile companies, East and West.
And this continuous striving was the norm. It is no different today.

From its inception, the Constitutional Government of the USA was vested to the landed interests which held the country’s commercial interest together.
The struggle against that source of “big government oppression” has been constant and tirelessly fought against in this country.”

Fed Up says: You get no argument from me here Bear. Don’t the Austrian economists have the solutions for these issues?

(Bear1909 said): “The premise is a bit high-handed for this forum. And to passively assert that I am being fooled into this false political dichotomy is not productive here with me.
The parties do not usurp by virtue of our mere voting for them.

Fleeting political advantage occurs on an issue by issue basis; but, that does not make for “usurpation”.
The party politicians and their blocks are defeated yay or nay because that is the DNA of representative politics.
The people are defeated, at least for a little while, yay or nay, because that is the DNA of most political bodies of the people.

The pendulum swings.”

Fed Up says: The issues is that the pendulum swings only one of two ways. When one way isn’t going well, then the people switch to the other way. Ron Paul sums this up best; “We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.” Wouldn’t you agree this is an accurate description?

(Bear1909 said): “Why must we consistently hear the impossibility of transformation being tied to “overnight”?

I know that tipping points happen through a simple conversation overheard by one.

The irony here is that to believe transformation does indeed happen overnight is simplistic, while the trigger of most transformations are highly simplistic- one of the rare beauties of the human psychic world.
As for the 4 generations of abuse, I prefer a sidestep around that mental obstacle.

First, a national conversation about what constitutes Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness would lift the cesspool lid on what our People of the United States have endured at the hands and minds of our elected officials at every level and those of LAWCAP.
30 days. 24/7. Web-based. Get it out. Transcript it. A national town meeting where we say “OUCH and GLORY HALLELUJAH”.

Bring the pain and glory out into the light. The pain loses its power and the glory incites the will to act.
30 days. I guarantee one thing: the “debates” would change.”

Fed Up says: Ron Paul has been on the House floor for years spreading the message of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and many more Freedom issues, more than any other candidate running for President, yet his message is only creeping out to more and more people here in 2007.

My “overnight” comment was utilized for others to read so that they understand that Ron Paul’s plan is one that will take time to come to fruition. There has to be a transitional period to help those who have become accustomed to the welfare state (those on food stamps, welfare, medicare, social security, etc.). Now before someone jumps in here and attacks this position, one must understand the fact that these programs may not exist in the future for the simple reason that there will be no money to pay for them anyway.

Just like the college graduate who receives a credit card with a spending limit from a bank and goes on a wild spending spree, at some point his credit is zero and the payments to the bank must be paid out of current income. If his income doesn’t meet the minimum payment plan, then bankruptcy is his only solution. America’s solution is to print more money. The college kid can’t do that. As long as people believe in this game of monopoly money, it will continue…..till the gig is up and bankruptcy is America’s only option (we’d already be in bankruptcy if we didn’t have the world’s strongest military backing the dollar).

(Bear1909 said): “Coming from my limited experience that combines the hierarchical patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the matrilineal indigenous societies of which I am a part, I do not agree. “Ball rolling” by a politically privileged member of Congress is antithetical to what works in the making of a lasting political movement. Your assertion implies that change begins at the top.

Every time I have “stepped in it” within traditional Indian societies, it has been because I tried to initiate something that was not my place to initiate.

Yes, Ron Paul is elected. Yes, he believes it is his calling to run for President. But did anybody else here *HIS* phone ringing?

How does he know that he should be the Big Duck in the Puddle? How does he know that his role *NOW* is not to be grooming the embodiment of leadership in someone else *YOUNGER* *SMARTER* and *INFLUENTIAL* than himself? I listen to Paul, and I don’t “feel” him.

Libertarian values don’t speak to me. I won’t *invest* Ron Paul with my vote because he hasn’t addressed the unasked questions I posed above. And it is his duty, as it is for all of the “candidates”, to address the unasked questions. Not just answer “What makes you qualified to run for President of the USA?” We are all qualified to run in America, right?”

Fed Up says; Ron Paul has the youth movement on his side. It’s their future he is fighting for. He has answered every question that anyone has posed. He is the only candidate running who has a track record of such. He doesn’t waver in his position depending on which corporation is trying to get him to see things their way. He is not a corporatist. Do a google on Fred Thompson or Romney or Guiliani with the word “speeches” and see what comes up. Then do this for Ron Paul. The difference is as dark is to light. Does one really think the so called big 3 have any more qualifications than Paul? This is where the ignorance of the people stands out IMO.

(Bear1909 said): “You may be right that the “neo-con” (the kneejerk reactive term coined by liberals who were spanked with the use of the term “neo-liberal” after LBJ Great Society Democrats morphed into something “new” and “different” a la Pelosi Galore) camp used it to get elected. But it is a non-sequitur to say that Muslims living in America are people just like you and me.

Yes, they bleed red and they love their kids. But they are not like me.
Just like Jews are not just like me. Just like Bible Belt Christian Fundamentalists are not like me. Or Orthodox Catholics.
They are beholden to Islam if they call themselves Muslim. And- they stand to benefit from Sharia Creep and the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate. When you speak with them, do you speak about these finer points. Or is it polite chat similar to the ones I have with non-Indians who are exploring with me (politely and nervously) whether I am a good Injun or a bad Injun.

Instead of such tiptoeing through the tulips with them, I ask them what they think about all the broken treaties still on the books, about the bounty and scalping laws that were still on the books in Vermont until the early 1950s, or the role of that state’s flagship land grant University and its Extension Service in the role of Hitler’s Germany in the extermination and sterilization plan for Jews (no, I didn’t read this in Ward Churchill’s books- I lost my job back in the 90s for unearthing from the institution’s own archives the history of the American Eugenics Movement and its role bit of history to the attention of scholars during a campaign to get tribal recognition for Abenaki Indians in Vermont.)

So when you say Muslims living in the US are just like you and me, what does that mean? I live next to a Persian man who left Iran as a child. He is Muslim, but doesn’t practice the religion.
He prays when he wants and eats what he wants. But what he lives in fear about is nothing like what my life is like.
He experiences the frailties of human life. Yet, there is something he harbors waiting for some shoe to fall.
This is not like me. He cannot tell me why he enjoys American life. Nor can the Halal merchants on the west side of town. They cannot say why they “love” this Country. They are not like me.

For all the crap American Indian people experienced and still do to this day, I believe in the promise of this country and the people who are here today. But I do not accept the pretense with which people who practice a religious politic have emigrated here, overstayed student visas, participate in anti-American education in mosques and madrasas on American soil.”

Fed Up says: It is good to get the perspective from an Native American point of view. Your definition of what it means to be an American is different than say an American Muslim. I can see your point of view, but let me clarify my statements. I have spoken to these Muslims. I have asked the hard questions (you wouldn’t believe how open taxi drivers are once you relate to them that you know a little about them).

When I say they are no different than me, I must clarify that I don’t mean as someone who practices their religion versus mine, or their nationality versus mine, but rather as someone who has constitutional rights and wants freedom to continue practicing their own religion in the Land of the Free. Is this not a right of theirs as long as that religion does not legally interfere with my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or infringe upon my personal property and obeys American laws. As such, they have a right to do as they wish as I do practicing my religion…whether my religion is satanic snake worshiping one or Fundamentalist Christian.

It is when Sharia law comes into conflict with national law where problems arise as is currently happening in Pakistan. Muslim radical groups are always going to exist and will probably prop up more and more here in America. America has it’s own radical groups already you know and they have nothing to do with religion…..the Crypts, the Blood, the Mexican Mafia, the Latin Kings or the Cosa Nostra.

The real issue is we in America are trying to spread democracy to other nations yet the word “democracy” doesn’t even exist in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. We are a Republic. We must remain a republic with laws that are adhered to. To franchise democracy to the world is a farce. Ron Paul understands this; “Democracy Is Not Freedom:” http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

I’ll let you have the last word and appreciate your thoughts Bear.

(sigh) You, Mr. C_C, are getting carried away with your name dropping and your projections onto my arguments with distorted editorializing. “Irresponsibly charitable”? I thought we were discussing strategy.

You seem to be shoveling out your dairy barn.

Again: raising the bar is not a charitable act.

Stick to my arguments. You asked for me to be straight and to the point.

So far, you have been neither.