Ok...so Im sittin hear at the ol computer and wondering if any one is up for a subject change? Ohh,dont get me wrong I love talkin beer...but what does everyone think about the political race? Mccain or Obama...Hmmmmm...When is america going to take a stand against the system that is obviously broken. arent we all tired of the same ol bs and its time for change.....so obama says...change...but what is he going to change,and are they the right things ? Just wondering If im alone.

Come on...isnt any one alive out there?

ok, guess ill watch the game

Maybe no one wants to get drawn into this sort of thread. These types of threads can get ugly real quickly. Most "political discussions" I have seen online are nothing but name-calling and hate-filled diatribes.

well thats what it has come down to, hasnt it.

Here, I want to talk about beer and brewing. I don't want anything else when I visit this board. There are PLENTY of other places with the sort of discussion you seek. Not here.

fair enough, I,ll search elsewhere for that conversation....just thought since we were already here...

Don't forget that this forum has been described by the author as being a "virtual pub".

We don't have to just talk beer in the pub...........do we?

Of course I would like to think that people here have at least a little restraint when it comes to "name calling" and such.

That said, I don't want to talk politics right now, I'm to busy trying to figure out how to afford enough gas to mow my lawn...

Oh Ya, and Hillary..............Naaaaa can't go there.........

Macain=old boy network...........

Obama? who knows. I'm leaning............



CLB

I think that the virtual pub idea rocks personally. Almost to a person everyone has been cordial even when we disagree on this site AFAIK . I believe as long as this practice exists we can discuss just about anything. I'd say though that the threads are almost 100% beer related. My god! The focus we have!

I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't disappointed in HC's defeat in the race for nomination. I saw it coming a long ways off. I thinking now if BO is elected it will go a long way towards healing some rifts we have in this country. I thought a woman would be first though. It'll be another tight election.

all i have to say is that i think this election scares me. i think that a lot of people are not going to be voting FOR someone, but AGAINST someone else. that, in my opinion, is a terrible way to elect our president. i know that when i cast my vote in nov, it will not be for who i really WANT to run the country, it will be to block someone else.

Good point Jeff, I'll be doing the same and will be voting, hoping to heal those rifts Rad is talking about and hoping that that will help to put gas in CLB's mower

Picking the lesser of 2 evils is pretty much an American political tradition. Any candidate that demonstrates the ability to think for themselves and exersize independent judgement will never get the endorsement (or money) from either of the 2 political parties. I know my leanings are pretty far to the left but that doesn't mean that there aren't viable ideas presented from other angles. What I see as the best aspect of this country is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that through honest discusion real progress can be made. Unfortunately what has happenned for the past 8 years is that BOTH parties have dug their heals in and refused to work with the other side. There are alot of dificult issues that must be dealt with and tough times to come, one can only hope that whoever is elected will do what is best for the country (mainly the middle/working class) and not doing what suits their ego and what they think their legacy will be. As has been proven throughout the history of this country we can accomplish more working together and we have the potential to accomplish amazing things for future generations, stressing the word potential.

Anything but politics....

Think for yourself. Question authority.

jeff - Your statement about voting for the lessor of two evils is interesting to me. In the past two or three elections, I think most people on both sides would agree with you. This time around, I think you would get a lot more agreement amoung republicans than democrats. I will vote for Obama, but not to keep McCain out. McCain doesn't really scare me. I think a McCain presidency would still be an improvement over what we have now in most areas.

The problem for McCain, from my observations, is that I have yet to meet or hear about a single person who is excited about McCain or is voting for him because they think he will be a great president. I have a feeling that most people who wil vote for McCain will do so in a half-hearted effort to avoid a president Obama, but I don't sense any passion there. On the other hand, many conservatives are pasionately AGAINST McCain and will probably stay away from the polls or vote for someone like Ron Paul just to make a statement.

I don't see how McCain could possibly win, like it or not. There are a good number of people that are passionately positive about Obama. There are, of course, people who are passionately against him, but the alternative for most of those people is barely any better. In fact, many consevatives (Limbaugh for example) said a long time ago that they would never vote for McCain. If there is anyone who really likes McCain and would vote for him no matter who was running against him, I would like to hear about it just as a matter of curiosity.

Coctyle,

I pretty much agree with you and Mr. Coffee. I think if the vote ends up being fair without any "irregularities" then Obama would win by a decent margin, mosyl because of the passion issue you mentioned. As it is, the electronic voting machines are mostly made by one company which has very strong Republican ties. In an election that is close, it is very easy to change a few votes here and there. I think when they tested the machines it took something like 5 minutes to hack.

What will change is that now Ohio has a Democratic governor, so the practice of having something like 3 voting machines for all of Cleveland won't happen.

The biggest difference between the two candidates: When Obama talks his numbers go up and when McCain talks he has a harder and harder time of keeping that foot out of his mouth.

Good luck to all and I hope whomever wins will do a lot of work to heal the ties in this purple country and throughout the world.

Actually, I already voted for Obama in the primaries, but that was just to keep Hillary out.

I'm voting for McCain, because all I hear from Obama is that everything has been wrong. I never hear what he's actually going to do. I also have a big problem with a man (and his wife) who don't seem to love this country. Is McCain my favorite, no, but IMO he's the better of the two choices.

Brewboy-

Vote for whomever you think will be the best president. I personally believe that the bit about the Obama's not loving their country is spin crap. Obama pretty much has had the American dream. The most important thing is to be informed. If you are wondering what Obama's plans are check out

http://tinyurl.com/yp92p4

64 page plan

Now a transition back to beer:

How will Cindy McCain vote on the AB buyout by InBev?

PS I also think it is great that there can be a civilized discussion on politics..

"Vote for whomever you think will be the best president. "

That's why I'm voting for McCain. I think Democrats believe that they've got this election in the bag, but IMO they may be disappointed.

We'll see. I definitely don't think they have it the Presidnecy in the bag. But I think some essential states for the GOP are in play (Ohio and Pennsylvania) for the Dems and a few midwestern states (Missouri, Wisconsin). Texas, probably not. Florida will end up going for the GOP. I think it will come down to the results from the four states above. If either candidate can take 3 they win. If only 2 then it depends on which ones.

I think they will retain control of the Senate due to the fact that the contested seats are primarily currently Republican seats. The House is always a toss up.

It will be interesting to see who the VPs are.

BB-
You mentioned that you never hear what Obama plans to do. That's why I posted the link

Is there a real difference between Obama and McCain? I'm voting libertarian this time around.

I looked briefly at the link. I noticed that civil rights and ADA were on the top of the list. Are those really big problems in the grand scheme of things?


"when McCain talks he has a harder and harder time of keeping that foot out of his mouth."

Ask yourself this, do you really want a smooth talker? I'd rather have a person that stumbles a little than someone like Bill Clinton (great speaker, I might add) that you just know is coloring the truth.

"I'm voting libertarian this time around. "

I'm not opposed to a third party candidate, but you might as well stay home on election day and save your gas.

Burp,

the answer is yes.


Smooth talker- I don't care how well they talk. I care that they have some idea of what the problems are in America. I am sure that McCain has no clue. Obama doens't just say what you want to hear. One example, maybe we should enter into some sort of dialogue with countries. It beats the hell out of blowing them up and then figuring out later that all those reasons"which change with the prevailing breeze in America" we went to war were wrong.Then they pretend that there was no way they could have known they were wrong. Except half of America and the whole world said that it was wrong. Go figure they were right.

I'm not saying go talk to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. I'm saying it is important to understand what Iran's motives are. A country can be talked to and has much more to lose than does a terrorist group. Countries do things we don't like and so do we. Besides, who we think the terrorists are seems to change often. Iraq and Hussein in the 80's was our friend.

I'm tired of being the World's Police. It isn't our job, we shouldn't be doing it. It just causes problems for us.

I'd take the way things were the 8 years Clinton was in office vs the past 8 years any day.

Brewsci, you just said what I wish I could have said. Those are my main reasons to vote the way I plan to, there are others but those are on th' top.
Matt

"I'm tired of being the World's Police. It isn't our job, we shouldn't be doing it. It just causes problems for us."

I agree, I'm tired of my tax money going to make the world safe for capitalism and democracy. France, Germany and England are strong enough now post WWII to protect themselves, close our European bases. Japan and South Korea, close them too. Get out of Iraq quickly then finish up in Afghanistan.

Universal health care? Is that gong to be anything like Universal retirement, aka, Social security? Reform the laws so groups of people can buy into a group plan.

Remember Obama and McCain both supported the immagration reform bill that was going to give $15,000 to immigrant children for college and amnesty to illegals after they paid a fine.

Open up our offshore areas for oil drilling, build more nuke power plants. Read in the paper over the weekend something like 20 nuke permits in the works, but the steel containment vessels come from Japan. WTF, all of our heavy industries are now overseas?

I don't see how a command of the English language can be a liability. It conveys not only intellignce, but a degree of respect for the listener.

And the last thing we need is a president who loves his country blindly. Nationalism is the opposite direction that we need to be going. Why would Obama ever have gotten involved if he didn't want the best for America and didn't love the potential of this country?

I too would love to go back at least before 911, which might have never happened if Clinton would have had the balls to take out bin Laden, when he had the chance. However, it did happen and it was something that we've never had to deal with. History was not repeated, so how do you know the exact way to deal with it. Maybe Bush didn't handle it properly, but most everyone sure seemed to be okay with it once the bombing started.

As far as Iran, Bush and the UN have made every effort to deal peacefully with that idiot over there. Do you think we should just sit back and let him blow up Israel?

I have a problem with Obama immediately starting to pull our troops out of there, even as much I don't want another American life lost. Progress has been made and we should finish what we started. At least McCain seems to be patient and willing to do things systematically.

That being said, I too am tired of spending our money to protect the European countries that can take care of themselves. Lets also take advantage of our oil resources in Alaska and off shore. It CAN be done in an environmentally safe way.

First, it is not our job to deal with Iran. That is one of the biggest problems - the Bush administration going around the UN. The UN and atomic watch agencies should be dealing with this. Is Iran's leader crazy? I doubt it. He is just espousing the nationalist crap as do our leaders. The crap is just different. North Korea's leader IS certifiably crazy and he has nukes and they can reach us, but you don't hear the same stuff about him because Korea isn't in the Middle East

The problem with "finishing what we started" is that we will never finish it. We are trying to impose our way of doing things on Iraqis. It doesn't work, like Vietnam didn't work, like Korea didn't work, like Afghanistan has never worked, like the US didn't work when the British came over. Invading countries and telling them how to run their country doesn't ever work. Not everyone wants to be like us or have or system of government.

The only way it ever works is the the way the US did it. Annihilate the indigenous population. Clearly, I am not supporting that idea.

And"most everyone sure seemd okay with it when the bombing started". If you are referring to bombing Afghanistan and the Taliban, then maybe you are right. If you are talking about Iraq then it is utterly wrong. Do you remember all the people protesting saying "This is wrong"? The whole world told us and a good portion of America said as much. But the Bush administration did not listen because they already had there plan. And congress deserves a good amount of blame too.

I think you will find that Obama will not pull our troops out immediately because that is not a feasible option. But the status quo "We'll stay there until the Iraqis submit" will never work.

"I think you will find that Obama will not pull our troops out immediately because that is not a feasible option."

A quote from your link to the Obama website:

"Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."

Should we not believe what he says?

I think it depends on what you mean by "remove our troops" and immediately. I know that sounds very much like"What is is?"

Will he begin a troop drawdown - yes

Will he immediately remove all troops in Iraq the day he is inaugurated- no

Will all the troops come home within a year? I doubt it.

Will he stop screwing the military as the current admin has. I sure hope so.

And McCain voted against veterans benefits recently saying that basically it would encourage people to leave the military. I know a fair number of people in the military and they aren't happy with the way they are being treated. Again McCain is out of touch - Did he ever think that maybe these were enticements to enlist in the first place? Has he talked to any recruiters lately about not meeting recruiting goals?

"That is one of the biggest problems - the Bush administration going around the UN. The UN and atomic watch agencies should be dealing with this."

Since when has the UN been anything other than a figurehead group? They have shown time and time again that they have no power. How are they going to stop countries like Iran and N. Korea? Are they going to draft a whole passle of resolutions? The UN is as powerless now as the League of Nations was prior to WWII.

The Bush administration has kept a major attack, off of our soil, since 911. I'm afraid to say, and I hope I'm wrong, that Obama can't do the same. In fact I predict it will happen within his first year as president. Again, I hope my prediction is wrong.

And gestyr, you're correct, the UN is worthless. They proved that in the days leading up to the Iraq invasion.

The anthrax attacks weren't major? They shut down and eventually bankrupted the postal system, caused repeated evacuations of every building in Washington and killed a few people. Sure, 9/11 was a lot more dramatic in terms of loss of life and the spectacle of it all, but the anthrax attacks were far more effective, IMHO, in actually making people feel terrified, which is the goal of terrorism.

And by the way, did we ever find out who did that? Did we even look?

Exactly. The UN can't keep us from doing what we want to do. Pre-emptive strikes on bad intelligence is not good policy. Times are a changing and if we keep ignoring everyone we will get burned.


"In fact I predict it will happen within his first year as president"
--You mean just like it happened in the first year of Bush's presidency.

I think the reason it hasn't happened is less to do with something Congress or Bush has done and more to do with terrorists being focused on other things Iraq, London, Madrid, etc. The Bush admin even acknowledges that they can't keep it from happening.

Now off for some of my Belgian Wit.........

What about the sniper attacks in DC? I was there. That was pure terror. Every morning you woke up and someone was dead. And it happend in full daylight. WE have much more to fear from inside America.

The goal of the Bush admin is to keep us scared so we won't think about what they are doing to the world and America. Throughout history this is a tried and true method for maintaining control.

""In fact I predict it will happen within his first year as president"
--You mean just like it happened in the first year of Bush's presidency."

You know that had nothing to do with Bush.

"but the anthrax attacks were far more effective"

That couldn't be further from the truth.

I registered to vote for the first time in my life to try to keep Bush Jr. out of office thinking that the world or the people that hated us in the world would do something to us .I didn't know what ,just had a feeling something bad was going to happen if another Bush, the son of the one that put our troops in the thick part of the first Gulf War, was to be "our" leader. My vote almost counted. Something bad happened. I'm just a dumb ol' country boy but I saw it coming.
So I voted a second time to try to have someone in office that would clean up, as much as they could, the mess that GWB made. My vote almost counted. Now if I'm able to vote again. it will be to get someone in office that will try and clean up this huge mess we're in now. That's all I can do. Brewboy GWB prolly did keep us from getting attacked again, but I don't
that we'd be in this duck and cover situation if it had not been him in office to start with but that just an opinion, nothing more. Brewsci I agree with everything you said.

I think I saw on TV, Jim Koch saying that our founding fathers got together in a tavern and over a few mugs of ale talked about witch way the country should go, so I don't have a problem with talking politics here and I know it's a tricky subject- so far so so-I'm having a nice
dark ale as I type(pecking be more like what I'm doin')

Matt

brewsci, I think you're going to be real disappointed if Obama is elected. Bush is not the whole problem and Obama is certainly not the whole solution.

However, have no fear, if he is elected, I'll be here to remind you of your lost dreams.

"I think I saw on TV, Jim Koch saying that our founding fathers got together in a tavern and over a few mugs of ale talked about witch way the country should go, so I don't have a problem with talking politics here and I know it's a tricky subject- so far so so-I'm having a nice
dark ale as I type(pecking be more like what I'm doin')"

Matt- I am drinking a pale ale. wanna fight about it? lol

BB-

I never said it had anything to do with Bush, just as an attack in Obama's first year would not have anything to do with Obama. Don't think I'll be disappointed, I don't agree with all of his positions. I think I (and a majority of America) will have a big sigh of relief when we close the chapter on the last 8 years and begin to clean up the mess (it will take more than 4 years to cleanup)


And I'm sure you will be there to remind me of my lost dreams. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Agreed that Bush is not the whole problem and Obama is not the whole answer. Dems and Rep. in Congress take some blame too for voting for the war and other failed initiatives. I think whomever gets elected it can't be worse.

At least we have beer!

BB, gestyr, Coctyle, Matthew and anybody else who chimed in. Good discussion, maybe some day we can do it over a few pints.

Yup, its been fun.

I've been through a few of these election cycles and each one always promises change. Yet my taxes go up, my purchasing power of my dollar goes down, more of the goods I buy come from overseas and the public schools seem to get more money yet produce fewer capable students. The government budget always get bigger and they always spend more than they bring in. I've had enough from the Dems, and the Repubs. Its time for real change.

gestyr I bet my dark ale is better than your pale ale- I gest

My turn to chime in. IMO, we need some kind of change in this country.

McCain's desire to hold more town hall format discussions instead of traditional debates irks me. Why can't he stand alone and make his point? He wants to lead the country but he can't debate? It may seem trivial to some but to IMO if he can't hold his own in a debate then he can't think for himself he can't lead plain and simple. I like a leader, not someone who relies on others for his decisions and that's the impression I get of McCain. A leader should listen to all sides of an argument, but make decisions themselves. I have seen nothing but poor leadership from the Republicans and I see another poor leader on deck for them.

I believe that the federal government has more important things to focus on than Eliot Spitzer.

I don't see what is wrong with Obama's desire to speak to the leaders of the Middle East. Although I don't think it will do any good I think it is a better course than I believe McCain will do which is to expand George W's campaign into more countries without even trying to do something different.

I don't think that Obama is as racially oriented as some have depicted him. I believe the whole Reverend Wright(sp?) is a big spin. I'm not sure why everybody is touting that they have more leadership experience than him. They have exactly the same amount of presidential experience. The first President of the USA had exactly the same amount of presidential experience. I'm happy that his candidacy, and Hillary's campaign, has raised so much discussion and ruffled so many feathers. It's nice to see people thinking a little differently but it's scary to see so many people in this day and age who will not vote for someone based entirely on the candidate's race or gender.

I've heard the whispers of Obama's socialistic agenda. Honestly, I think a few years of socialism would do this country some good.

"Honestly, I think a few years of socialism would do this country some good."

We're the greatest country on the planet. Why do we need more government involvement in our personal lives? If you really want that, just take a short drive north.

Wow, this thread went alot farther than I thought it would, but talk is the best medicine.

Matt, wouldnt that be great if we could sit down to a couple of beers and solve the country problems like our forefathers.......what do you think they were paid? or did they do it for the better of the country? the problem lies with the greediness of america...overpaid politicians....thinking up rediculous laws instead of solving what would be best for this country.

Why do we give other counties such a break while we go in debt...Im not the smartest when it comes to politics....but what has happened to common sencse. Opec charges hundred of dollars for oil,how about selling grains for hundreds of dollars to other countrie and see how they fair. Why have we forgotten about the backbone of our country,the farmer,who grows food for us. what makes him any less important than the politian that sits in a chair debating their personal views and spending our hard earned taxes on golf, strippers, hookers,booze or what ever...and we end up continuing this circus show day after day!!

Time to change,exactly what....Im not positive but Im ready to sit down over a couple of beers and disscuss it with the country for the good of ALL the people. this really could be a better country!

Just my view, and oh yea happy brewing!

Matt.... I'll take that bet and raise you a raspberry ale and 2 aged porters!

For those of you on the left: http://livingliberally.org/drinking/

I help run the Ann Arbor chapter.

Gestyr you should have left out those fruit beers, you had me with the aged porters

I want to also say this is a great thread. We have exchanged views with out name calling. Thanks.

I have been reading the proposals from McCain and Obama concerning taxes. What strikes me is both promise to give back to the tax payer what the taxpayer has already earned. Seems strange to me that one can get votes from people by promising not to take what is already the voters property.

The other issue I have is estate taxes. I don't understand how the government can lay claim to assets that taxes have been paid on in the past. Its almost like one never really owns anything any more, they just rent it from the government. And what is with the AMT? They both agree it needs to be over hauled because inflation has made us all millionaires and subject to AMT yet the Senate and the House has done nothing but talk about it for the last 8 years. Seems there is alot of talk of reform prior to elections then alot of excuses after they get voted in.

And don't get me started on eminent domain where the gov forceably buys land from private citizens and sells it to developers using the excuses that the developed land will generate more tax revenue so therefore it is in the public interest, aka the Kelo decision.

Not one of them talks about elimination of major chunks of the government such as the Department of Education. I'd like to see some stats that show the number of bureaucrats (administrators, assistants, vice principals, i.e, overhead staff) versus teachers versus students. Isn't the function of the DOE duplicated at the state level as well as the county and city?

I've had enough, it is time for real change, less government and more individual responsibility and freedom.

A lot of people in Arlington lost their homes so Jerry, a$$hole, Jones could build his F$%^ing stadium.

OK, so I started name calling. Sorry, but I get excited over eminent domain issues. It's really being abused, to the point of being illegal!

Edit:
The same thing happened, in Hurst a few years ago, so they could expand a damn mall.

"Honestly, I think a few years of socialism would do this country some good"

Sorry......but alot of vets....myself included didnt fight for our country so that we could be like France

Like France, no thanks, but maybe make healthcare a little more avalible?

"I think a few years of socialism would do this country some good."
I'm afraid your not the only one.

Yeah, France sucks but I have known for many years a few people from Canada and Austria with nationalized healthcare who couldn't believe that USA doesn't and none of them ever had anything bad to say about their healthcare system either, another Republican ruse.

I think a lot of people are mistakenly reading the word "socialism" here and seeing the word "communism" instead.

Angler, the tax rate for social security in 1956 was 4%, 2% for employee and 2% employer. Now is the rate including Medicare is 15.3% split between employee and employer. Obama wants to extend the maximum wages to be taxed from about 115K to 250K. My point is gov programs start small then grow and once started are all but impossible to stop. The last thing we need is universal heath care. Lets remove the laws that restrict private policies and allow groups of people to buy a group policy. Individual income tax started at 1% and moved up to 7% for income over 500,000. Now the tax rate is tops out at 33% while most people pay around 15%.

"The Bush administration has kept a major attack, off of our soil, since 911."....you can't prove a negative. I could as easily say that there hasn't been an attack because I haven't seen elephants in my yard. There is absolutely no proof that anything Bush has done has prevented further attacks.

Wow some words off wisdom from denny that doesnt pertain to beer....cool.Keep rollin on den.

Burp, I went to the emergency room a few years ago without any health insurance at all. I ended up paying the doctor $900 for a half hour of work, that was just the doctor not the entire cost of the visit. We do need universal healthcare, we also need doctors that don't get paid like rock stars and it would all work out fine. I think too many people in this country get paid entirely too much.

"There is absolutely no proof that anything Bush has done has prevented further attacks.:"

With that logic, we should go back to the same old airport and border security that we always had. Airplanes should be allowed to fly over what ever air space they want to. We shouldn't monitor suspected terror activity on the web.

You won't give him credit for doing anything to keep us safe, but I'll bet you'd blame him in a nanosecond, if another attack had been made.

I'm not sure how to respond to what you say Angler. I agree the cost of medical services are extremly high as well as the cost of education. Why are the medical cost so high? I don't have a clue but if one doesn't address the cost of medical services but then implements universal health care doesn't the high cost of medical services get transfered from the individual to the collective taxpayers? So is Obama proposing the feds regulate the wages of doctors as McCain proposes regulating the salaries of CEOs?

I'm drinking the DC RYEPA with green gunk in the bottom of the glass. OMG, it is totally awesome. It has to be one of the best beers I'ved brewed. I dry hopped a batch I had brewed a few years ago and compained it was to strong. I was called a hop wussie. Now the beer is great. I might share this with my worker buddies to show them how good beer can be. I guess my taste have changed over the years as well as my political views. I look foward to a high hopped beer now while arguing for a smaller less burdensome governement.

Heres what will happen in the next election , but first back to 1980
JIMMY CARTER did not have a chance in hell to win I voted for him I lost he lost
ok know JOHN MCAIN does not have a chance in hell to win Once again I will vote democrat
I will win sorry BB
AND THAT JUST MY 2 CENTS and will be fact

I know this is a topic that is serious but that elephant thing cracked me up and this time dark ale came out my nose and when all over my brand new computer - was a mess-my computer starts smokin' I'm gonna send Denny the bill for repairs

What I thought was really funny was that they were referred to as "words of wisdom".

If you take out my dumb ass comments, there has been some words of wisdom spoken on this thread and it's nice to be able to "go down to the bar" again and talk/listen to the topics of the day no matter what they are and without the barroom brawls.

Denny, maybe there are elephants in your front yard.


December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Quote from Angler
"Yeah, France sucks but I have known for many years a few people from Canada and Austria with nationalized healthcare who couldn't believe that USA doesn't and none of them ever had anything bad to say about their healthcare system either, another Republican ruse."

Do you have family in Canada. My wife was born and raised there and the horror stories of just her friends and family with the "health"care system are outrageous. From not being able to find a doctor who will accept new patients to not diagnosing cancer((2 seperate people)both died after correct diagnosis here in the USA a little too late) with no ability to sue for the mistake(oops, sorry)

How can we expect the Government to do everything, and do it well. I'm not a religious man but we must think the Government is Godlike if we expect it to cure all our problems.

Take responsibility for your own actions and don't expect the Government to help you and we might be on the road to freedom












Yeah, like that's gonna happen

Burp, to my knowledge Obama has not proposed to regulate the wages of doctors.

Jim, no family just friends and none of them ever had a bad thing to say about their healthcare system, just surprise that we don't have a public system. On a side note my grandfather was just diagnosed with ALS after having been incorrectly diagnosed and treated for years for a mild stroke. He can't sue anyone. It's amazing how poorly the Veteran's Administration and VA Hospitals have treated him, a VFW. I guess you'll find horror stories on both sides of the fence if you look for them.

In my views I don't think any one of the candidates is any better than the other this go around.

I will also say that I'm moderate in my political views.
But in my opinion Obama won't get in because he does not have the experience to run the country.

We need someone in office who can fix things.
Hopefully we won't get the wrong person and end up getting bombed in the middle of it.

IMO the insurance companies gets a bad rap for the cost of medical care, but I think it's actually the doctors that are abusing the system. I had a doctor (actually a nurse practitioner) almost insist on a particular drug even though I requested a $4 Walmart drug. After I continued to ask about the generic, I was told that I would have to take 2 of the Walmart drugs. Okay, it's $8.00, does it do the same thing. The answer was, a quiet "well yes". Hmm, I didn't see any of the cute little generic drug brochures in the waiting room, but I did see a lot of the non-generic ones that they were pushing. Kick backs, maybe???

I had a little out patient foot surgery and I was required to come in for a pre-surgical consultation. I was asked the same questions that I had already answered in an online site from the out patient clinic and told the exact same things about the surgery when I was originally diagnosed. Cost to my insurance company, $165 and a waste of my time and gas.

I had an MRI ($3200) and then they tried to charge me for an office visit to get the results. I complained and they dropped the charges.

Question every thing your doctor prescribes and ask what the price is even, if your insurance company is paying for it.

I don't suppose that McCain's employment at an Anheuser-Busch distributor would skew any of you guys

I can't say I'm thrilled with the choices in candidates. It will be an interesting debate season if McCain chooses to debate.

A few things.

Brewboy-
Almost all of the things you mentioned were accusations against people. The others were "detained" indefinitely. Jose Padilla was detained for something like 3 years without charges in solitary confinement. He is a US citizen. The govenment CAN NOT be allowed to do this to US citizens. It means anyone can be picked up an disappear. Remind you of Germany in the 30's and 40's?
All this defense of Bush protectin our freedoms is crazy. We have lost so many freedoms in the past year. Read the Patriot Act. It is scary. And Congress deserves full blame for this too.

As for healthcare, one of the main reasons the costs are so high is that hospitals are required to treat people that come thru the ER reardless of whether they can pay. So if someone doesn't have insurance, they wait until they are really sick and go to the most costly place (not for them) the ER. Who pays for it? Well the hospitals/docs have to recoup the costs of workin for free so the costs et passed to those who can pay, those with health insurance.

I think the best option is that everyone ets basic healthcare coverae. That means you et to have an annual physical by a doc to check you out. And some of the other important screenings that are well proven to prevent further complications for you can costs for everyone. Then if you want better coverae you can purchase it thru a private provider. The concept of not providing basic health care to your citizens only occurs in our country and 3rd world countires like Myanmar.

And we as a society have to make some tough decision such as "We can treat this person, should we?" Most of that is related to end of life care which costs a bizillion dollars to extend life a few months. I think the stat is something like more than 50% of your health care costs are likely to come in your last 6 months.


As for airport security, it is a farse to make you feel better. TSA routinely fails test where testers bring thru knives, explosives etc. If you believe these measures do more than charge you ridiculous amounts for drinks once you et thru security I think you are sadly mistaken.

Brewboy-

sounds like you need a new doc. Everyone has to be proactive about their own healthcare whether it is demanding a generic prescription or asking questions about the risk/benefits of procedures. If your doc won't prescribe equally effective drugs at cheaper prices I would go elsewhere.

EDIT: I apoliize. The G on my keyboard seems to be workin intermittently

'Almost all of the things you mentioned were accusations against people"
I don't belive anything that GWB or his people say they have doctored the truth to suit them in the past(WMDs) and I think they do it now. Brewboy I agree that we needed a kick butt and take names kinda guy when we were attacked but he went to far,Iraq.

By saying that you think the Bush administration has done nothing to improve security or you can't prove a negative (must have studied a different math than me) is absolutely bizarre. What would you have done? If there is VALID evidence against one man or a whole terrorist group that relates to local or national security, then as far as I'm concerned, they can detain him or them for as long as they need. If those people or groups of people have other information that could possibly stop a terrorist act from occurring in the future, I don't really care how they get it. If you forget how these people think and act, watch the full length video of a terrorist sawing off Nick Berg's head. Every time I question what we're doing and what we've done, I watch the video of that poor man's brutal and needless death and remember that we are dealing with sub-humans. A far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay were weapons of mass destruction and the world, especially Iraq, is better off without them.

As for these being accusations against "people", who cares if they are alone or a whole group. I also don't care if they're American citizens or not, law enforcement had evidence that suspected them of a terroristic act and they stopped them. What should they do, slap them on the hand and let them go on their merry way to play with bombs. Yes, we've lost some freedom and if you've read other threads that I've posted in, you know that the last thing I want is more government intervention in my life or the loss of personal freedom. However, thousands of innocent people were killed on 911 and I don't want to see that happen again, ever. If it means that I might lose a little freedom, which was happening long before 911 anyway, then so be it.

If you don't like Bush's policies, then ask you're new president, (likely Obama) to get rid of Homeland security and all of the new security measures that have been implemented by the Bush administration, but when there is another major attack, don't blame Bush. Oh, and you might do well to get yourself a gun for protection, if Obama hasn't already taken that freedom away from you.

As for the doctor, I did get my generic prescription and ultimately another doctor.

Brewboy.
Sub humans? C'mon. Easy on the rhetoric.
Do you mean Arabs? Muslims? Iraqis in general?
As far as Saddam, he was a monster, but remember, we helped him for years.
I love the video of Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling with him. Oooops!
Ahh the memories.

"Sub humans? C'mon. Easy on the rhetoric.
Do you mean Arabs? Muslims? Iraqis in general? "

I mean ANYONE that would saw off a man's head, blow up a school bus full of children, walk into a crowded shop with a bomb strapped around their waste and them set it off. I don't care what race/nationality/religion you are. The chicken $hits usually wearing masks. How would I know anyway?

Why is it that the only thing that some people can bring up in a discussion is the subject of race or political correctness? Can't you do better than that?

Oh boy, here comes the PC police again. BB meant terrorists are subhuman, whether black, white, yellow or brown and whether Christian, Muslim or Catholic. It was amazing how this country came together after 911, but not less than 5 years later we were all complaining about having to be at the airport an hour early and not being able to bring toothpaste on the plane. Yes there is a point of too much govt involvement, but if it helps keep us safe, if only a small amount, then feel free to put on the latex glove sir. If there is nothing to hide, then why not.

Sorry man, I am the farthest thing from the "PC police".
Easy boys, I am just trying to figure out what you meant.
I grew up with alot of really messed up people. Alot of neo nazi bs and white power types.
I lost some good friends because of it. So I hear the words sub human it brings back alot.
I dont like it. I dont like hearing it. Seeing it in print.
There are better ways to voice your disgust at an act.

Fair enough, sorry bout the PC police thing then. Man this is a great thread. I'm not really political. Guess I'm republican by geography and employment, but if Barack really can change things up then I say let's see what happens.

Phil, I tried to think of a worse description of terrorists, but that was all I could come up with. They certainly aren't human in my mind. I have absolutely no use for people that have no respect for mankind. I wouldn't treat an animal like they treat their own people. Maybe a better term would be barbarians.

Hey, if "sub-human" really bothers you, than give me a better one.

This is a great thread, and its amazing that it has gone this far without the usual name-calling and BS that most political discussions have. I want to add my two cents to the whole discussion. I think that everyone's opinion is completely valid and most of the posts so far seem to have some real concern and thought behind them. What concerns me is our family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors who are "sheep" for the lack of a better term. The people who believe that Obama is a muslim or that McCain is going to pursue a 3rd Bush term and don't seek the truth. I think what we need to do is explore the facts and don't believe a story that comes out of the politicians mouth, or from CNN or Fox News. Do some research, scrutinize what you read and encourage the people around us to do the same. Voting is a serious responsibility and its disgusting to me that many people are going to vote against Obama because he is black, or because he defeated the woman. Likewise, those who will discriminate against McCain because he is too old or because his the media portrays him more as a moderate than a conservative. Get some of your homebrew together, invite the "sheep" over, and help them figure out a real, valid reason to cast a vote this fall. Ignorance has ruled politics for way too long. Lets take some of these concerns and arguments from this thread and help our friends make an informed decision. Keep it up! I love a good friendly debate with a beer in my hand.

Very well put, Dick!

I find it kind of interesting that many of the same people who rail against gov't. involvement in Social Security or healthcare, both of which are supposedly there to enhance our well being, also support gov't. involvement when it comes to security, again supposedly for our well being. There are just no easy answers.

Denny, that was probably aimed at me, and you are correct, I am against most government involvement. Please don't tell me that terrorists (internal or external) are not a threat to our country. Sure, I would love a world that we could let anyone into our country and us into their's without any fear. We could stand at the borders and pass out peace flowers, but that's just not the way it is.

What would you have us do, arm ourselves and take on the terrorists ourselves? Border security without any government involvement? Sounds like a good idea, but how do you do that?

I couldn't agree more Dick. When I hear the radio ads telling people to vote even if unsure who to vote for,(huh) I'm baffled.
If someone is too lazy or uneducated to research the candidates or innitatives on the ballot they should not be allowed to vote. The candidates promise the "sheep" the world to get elected, which scares the H*ll out of me!

It reminds me of this

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Jim,

Great quote. One of my colleagues when I worked at Indiana State University had that quote on his office door. He used to remind me all the time that America is technically a Republic and not a Democracy. His favorite saying was, "It's like trying to fix a Ford with Chevy parts. It'll work some of the time, but in the end you've got a broken down piece of sh*t!"

BB- The emphasis was on"accusations" not "people". Our gov't was founded with the concept of due process. You are innocent until proven guilty. We don't get to lock people up and never give them their day to challenge the accusations. Otherwise we are no better than the countries we are trying to change. It is the same as what happens in Iran, did happen in Iraq and other totalitarian governments.

My biggest fear is that the terrorists are winning. Not by coming to attack us, but by limiting are freedoms and having the government take away the reasons we are supposed to be fighting for (if you believe we are defending ourselves by fighting in Iraq). Al Qaeda's motives are not to kill all Americans. It is to destroy our economy and way of life. There is a reason they went NYC, our financial center.

As far as asking Obama to repeal some aspects of the Patriot Act, I fully intend to as well as continuing to ask my representative and senators. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for the illusion of security. I fundamentally do not think that the government has a right to know what books I check out at the library (most of them are related to beer and gardening) and other invasive aspects of the Patriot Act. Next they will want to know if I used FWH or just a 60 minute addition.

As far as Al Qaeda, clearly they do terrible awful things. No one is justifying that at all, including the countries in the Middle East. But if this is supposed to be all about 9/11, why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorists are from and where the terrorist teachings continue?

Iraq (currently) is not better off without Saddam. Hopefully it will be in the future. Just as you say you want security in the US and will give up some freedom for that, Iraq had security before Saddam. Now they have neither security nor freedom.

9/11 was a sad day for us and the world. Innocent people lost their lives. But what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and Afghans that we classify as "collateral damage" These are people like you and I and the rest of us. They have families and jsut want to have a job and not have to worry about the car next to them exploding. This country was as united as I have ever seen it my lifetime after 9/11. The Bush admin in the 7 years since has made it as polarized as I have ever known.

And the most important thing as Dick and others have said is to really look at the two candidates (and for all elections) and decide which one will be best. And then to press them on the things they promised to do once in office. Everyone can write to their reps and senators. The addresses are all on the web, house.gov and senate.gov

"It's like trying to fix a Ford with Chevy parts. It'll work some of the time, but in the end you've got a broken down piece of sh*t!"


That's brilliant

He used to remind me all the time that America is technically a Republic and not a Democracy.

Yeah technically It's hard to tell with all the rights the states have now. LOL

"Iraq (currently) is not better off without Saddam. "

You might want to run that by a group of Kurds.


"They have families and jsut want to have a job and not have to worry about the car next to them exploding."

I don't believe that we are the ones blowing up cars.

Do you not believe that we are trying to help the people of Iraq? In just the past few days I've heard of some great progress being made over there. We are not the enemy of the peaceful, only of the barbarians. There, I used a new word for the sub-human terrorists.

Odd, BrewBoy, I thought it was aimed at me. I think the best definition of what the government's role I've heard is "to build roads and keep the heathens out". This role fulfills the requirement to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Should the government provide cradle to grave care?
Perhaps all of us will acknowledge that once a government program starts it will grow in cost and benefits, just like social security did and does. Also there are unintended consequences of gov programs one of which is the underwriting of flood insurance. You think banks would lend money to build in flood plains if the risk wasn't insured? Now we are faced with the disaster along the Mississipi river.

So I went over to Obama's web site and scanned his heath care proposal. Alot of coverage promised. What I was looking for was the bottom line cost to the US taxpayers, Obama estimates once the program is fully phased in $50-65 billion a year. Hmmmmm.... couple of questions, what are the phase-in cost, where is the $50-$65 billion a year coming from (remember the US budget does deficit spending already), what is the track record of the estimator?

McCain and Obama both promise to give back what is rightfully yours.

Oh, found a cool gov web site of under performing programs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/index.html

So why don't they get the axe?

Maybe life is better for the Kurds, maybe. What about the majority of Iraqis? It doesn't make sense to slightly help a small percentage of the population and make life much worse for everyone else. And we were protecting the Kurds before with the no-fly zone.

Nor are most Iraqi's blowing up cars. No one was blowing up cars when Saddam was in power. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, but we can't just topple any government we don't like. and you can't lump all Iraqi's together and call them terrorists. It just isn't true. In fact, the Bush admin cliams that most of the terrorists aren't Iraqis. They are foreigners.

As far as awful things we do, I'm not going to go there because it is jsut sick other than to say "waterboarding" and Abu Ghraib. It goes both ways. It is too easy to justify (and I don't think one really can) it by saying they were bad people. Cause we often get it wrong. And then you wonder why people are pissed at us. The Golden rule "Treat others as you wish to be treated" holds true in this case. Torture doesn't really work (meaning getting actionable intelligence) and it does put our troops at greater risk when they get caught.

As far as helpign the Iraqi's.,I believe our troops really are trying to help Iraqi's as a whole. As far as the leadership makeing the decisions I question their motives.

And I have heard how much progress we have been making for over 5 years now. They constantly change what they are trying to achieve and ignore the problems. I honestly have no idea what the current objectives in Iraq are and I don't think the Bush admin does anymore either. The seem to change with the weather.

"No one was blowing up cars when Saddam was in power."

I think you may be a little mistaken here.

"you can't lump all Iraqi's together and call them terrorists. "

I don't believe that I ever said that all terrorists are Iraqis. That would be stupid of me, when we have American terrorists right here in our own country.

I think it is hard to argue that Iraq as a whole is more stable and secure now for the average Iraqi than when Saddam was in power.

Right now, for most, they're worse off. However, give it time and it will be better for all. That being said, they have to learn to get along with each other. There's still a lot of hatred over there and it's not all directed at us.

"No one was blowing up cars when Saddam was in power"

Saddam and his boys blew up alot of Kuwaiti cars if I remember correctly not to mention oil wells

It is hard to argue that Iraq as a whole is better off now......But while the Iraqi people may not be as prosperous as they were before the war......they really werent all that prosperous and secure then. If they owned a business that was doing well one of Saddams cronies came by and confiscated it. And people lived in fear of being abducted and tortured as well. Uday and Qusay and Tuesday and Wednesday kidnapped hundreds of young girls off the streets and raped and tortured them and killed them just for kicks.

The kurds are better off now.........but they sure werent when Saddam gassed them in 1988. We didnt have a no fly zone then to protect them

I am getting off point here......in my opinion.....if you are elected and surround yourself with good intelligent people then maybe you can do something to make a difference. Bush made huge mistakes with having Dick (Anyone got a shotgun) Cheney and Don Rumsfeld in his cabinet. The best guy he had was Colin Powell and Bush let him get away....I believe Cheney and Rummy have to bear some of the blame also. And so does Congress. All we here are how we should be bi-partisan but funny how that never works out.

Health care? As long as there is a buck out there to be made then it will continue to be a disaster...Doctors blame high insurance rates for malpractice as the high cost......insurance blames escalating doctor fees.....

Sorry guys.......just my 2 pennies

Like I said, Saddam wasn't a nice guy. But why just focus on him. What about the horrific things going on in Zimbabwe and the Darfur region of Sudan. And what about China. Why haven't we invaded all those places and tried to install a new gov't. bin Laden has a bunch of links to Sudan. Their government is friendly towards him. My point is, just because Saddam did some awful stuff isn't a reason to go invade a country. This happens all over the place.

Why Afghanistan? Plenty of conspiracy stories, but bin Laden WAS responsbile for 9/11 and we went after him. The Taliban supported and protected him. No one really argued we shouldn't og after bin Laden. Fair enough.

Why Iraq? They had nothing to do with 9/11. They didn't have WMD, while it was widely known that North Korea did. Can't be because there were bad things happening in there, persecution of its own citizens, that happens lots of places. Why Iraq? Maybe because they are sitting on the second largest stash of oil in the world. Maybe because Saddam had tried to kill his daddy. Maybe because it would be a really good place to surround Iran, especially after we are already in Afghanistan to the East of Iran, have ships in the Pershing Sea to the South, troops to the North in Khazakstan and Turkmenistan. We just needed troops to the west in Iraq.

The Iraq war wasn't about WMDs or we would already be out. It was never about stopping Saddam from persecuting his own people. It was never about establishing democracy in Iraq. So why are we there? I still can't figure it out.

BB-

I agree they have to learn to live together or at least not kill each other. But isn't our job to make them play nice and we can't force them to do that. We've tried and it hasn't worked for 5 years, it isn't going to magically happen. We had our opportunity to get out about 6 months after we invaded when the majority of the country was happy with us. Now we are occupiers and the majority hate us.

OK brewsci, I'll say why we are in Iraq, OIL. We are there to insure the west gets their daily fix of black heroin. We need that oil like a meth head needs another hit on the crack pipe. Without oil our economy would go into convulsions. One can conserve all day long, put up all the solar panels and wind mills but without oil to power transportation engines, trucks, ships and planes, our economy would come to a halt.

Maybe we should have started a national energy policy when the first oil embargo hit us during Carter. But we didn't. Maybe we should have built more nuke plants, drilled offshore, develop microbugs that poop oil from garbage, but we didn't. Now we are in the middle east with our lips wrapped around oil wells, sucking that black heroin into our veins. We are going to be there a long time.

I still want to know what was said in the meeting between our ambassador and Iraq people prior to Saddam going into Kuwait.

Yea, remember when going into Iraq was going to mean cheaper gas and the war was going to be financed by all of the oil wealth Iraq just had to pump. I think the Iraq War just means rich Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cronies and lots of destruction.

That's it. I'm making a black beer next time.

I can agree with that.......I thought that we should have finished Afghanistan before moving on to the next job....and since Sudan was mentioned...... They offered to hand Bin Laden over to us in 96 because he was trying to run their government.... Bill Clinton said no thanks.......we dont believe he is a threat to deal with......so there is blame for him to share as well.

Was the war about WMD's? They didnt have WMD's but North Korea did? That is still up for debate. Just the other day another Mig-25 was dug up out of the ground. If they can bury airplanes think how easy it was for them to dispose of anything liquid or powder. I doubt that we will ever get the truth on that matter. But to me mustard gas is a WMD and Saddam has used it.

And yes......the Shia's and Sunnis have to learn to live with each other. But I dont see that happening in Iraq because its not happening anywhere else in the region. Shias have little very little rights in Saudi and Shias represent the majority of Iraqis and they want payback for all the years of oppression. In other countries where the Shias are the majority then the Sunnis are oppressed. The Shias will never forgive the Sunnis for desecrating one of their shrines and it is always going to be a festering wound that gets worse with time.

I agree with the democracy remark. There isnt a democracy in the middle east now.....monarchies and theocracies but never have been a democracy here and I just dont think its what the people want and or understand. Its different over here.........democracy really would seem out of place here. As far as I know democracy would be for everyone but over here women would be excluded. Kinda makes it a non-democracy in a way.

Can they get a government that both sides like? Doubtful......we cant even do that.

Bill takes some blame too. And he has said as much. He regrets not going after bin Laden when he had the chance. Also I agree that there is the potential for nuclear WMDs buried in Iraq. But after 5 years of searching we haven't found even one. And yes North Korea had nuclear warheads with missiles that could at leat reach Alaska if not the western continenetal US.

Really instead of going to war with Iraq, I think it would have been much more fruitful to attack Belgium and sequester all the beer.

Didnt Napoleon try that and get his butt kicked by the monks?

If you can't beat up a bunch of monks, you'd better get a new army.

Monks are vicious when it comes to beer.

Wow this thread started slow but has really taken off....

Robert P, While I'll agree with you that Obama will probably win, I fear he will not survive and his VP hillary will become pres.... I fear they will make this happen some how or another...

I personally will vote for McCain just to try and keep the clintons from getting back in the office, in any way shape or form...

Just my tuppence...

"I personally will vote for McCain just to try and keep the clintons from getting back in the office, in any way shape or form..."

I love you, J.

j- are you looking a the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket? If not then no real reason to vote for McCain. As it is, suddenly my man is out (sorry Hillary) and I have to back OB evidently. Well I can think for myself and maybe he isn't the best candidate. I'll probably end up voting democrat anyway if the status quo endures.

Speaking of government intervention:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

Voting Democrat or Republican is a vote for the status quo. These two parties have been in power for what, 100 years? All that has changed is the federal government has assumed more power, more of our income, more of our land and more of our freedoms. Remember the Dems controlled Congress when the Patriot Act was passed, when Bush went to war with Iraq and when the Supreme court judges were appointed that decided the Kelo decision. They are both to blamed for deficit spending, the national debt and the falling purchasing power of our hard earned dollars. They both pushed NAFTA as the end all for illegal immigration. Neither party has put forth a plan to wean us from foreign oil, they conveniently blame the other. Its almost like they play good cop, bad cop with us the voters. They both take large sums of money from special interest groups.
See what the other party is saying, read the platform of the Libertarian party. You might just find out you agree more with the Libertarians than the Dems or the Repubs.

Brewboy, wish he had dropped the bulb in the House. That would have made headlines.

Anyone catch the proposal that the US gov nationalize the oil refineries? Your Democrat party at work.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2033142/posts
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+US+gov+nationalize+the+refineries%3F

Had enough?

I was listening to the news last night and they showed Bush stating that he wanted to open up the waters for off shore drilling and Alaska, as well. I agree with that. The response from an environmental group was that it would take at least 5 years before we would see any effects from that.

Uhh, didn't they say the same thing 5 years ago?

I think we should elect Denny C, Rob H, or N8 or heck it could be BrewBoy, me or possibly the Pooper as National Dictator.....

I'm sure anyone of us would declare Monday-Friday national homebrew days.... all homebrewers get paid even we play hookey and stay home to brew...

Off shore drilling is not nearly as heinous as the Pebble Mine bullshit that's quietly progressing in Alaska.

Chris Schroeder, your thoughts?

Guess the gov is gonna look at our Ebay purcahses and selling now.
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2571

Your dems and repubs at work.

Had enough?

MCCAIN IS DONE

Don't think so.

Robert, Thems brewing words.....

I heard Obama wants to make homebrewing illegal again... I have no evidence but.....

BrewBoy That'll get em... hehe

I heard that too, but I also heard that he's considering taxing malt and hops at 25%. No firm evidence here either.

and McCain is vetoing every beer. I have evidence

Holy crap, haven't been here for a few days........................can of worms opened?............didn't read it all, hope everyone is playing by the rules.

Hard to not say your piece when things are running amuck.

CLB

CLB,

It has been a remarkably civil discussion. Maybe we can eclipse the bopper stou thread for # of posts

You're right, doctors should all work for free after going through their extra school and years and years of additional training while still drowning in medical school debt. Those docs who work 100-140 hour weeks should work for free. The $900 went straight into his or her pocket.

Doctors are not the problem with our health care system. Health care workers (docs, nurses, techs, orderlies etc) are in short supply and it's going to keep getting worse. Putting the blame for the problems with our health care system on health care workers is one of the most ludicrous things I've seen in this thread.

Are there some unethical health-care workers out there who are trying to charge you extra or talk you into not buying a generic med? Sure. It happens. But it's like blaming the oil situation on car mechanics.

No one said they should work for free.

Simpledad, I don't care what you type. When I get charged $1200 for a half hour emergency room visit and $900 is for the doctor something is wrong. My asshole really bleeds for the guy with all his extra educational debt.

A lot of times you go to see the doctor and they stick you with a nurse practitioner and charge you the same.

I know I?m a little late to the party, but I just want to clarify one point.

To say that we are in Iraq because we wanted their oil is a knee jerk reaction and masks the truth. Sure, the base reason has to do with oil, but petroleum is a world wide commodity market. It does not matter from where it is being pumped or who is securing the oil field. IF all we wanted to do was secure more oil