Actually, having just finished reading Hunting Eichmann, that sort of thing is more on my mind than it would otherwise be.

Beyond that, a switch to a skills-based immigration system would naturally result in more GOP-leaning immigrants, simply for pocketbook reasons.

Yes, that explains why of all the identifiable non-African American ethnic groups, Asian Americans voted the most lopsidedly for Obama last November. There must be a lot more Chinese laundry workers and carryout delivery men out there than I ever remember noticing.

I know of absolutely NO Senate filibuster reformers who want the rules to change in any way, shape, or form that would prevent this... In fact - the reformers are pushing for THIS to be the norm.

Well, count me as one who thinks there should be no filibusters ever for any reason. That said, if there are going to be filibusters, they should be talking filibusters like that of Paul.

I thought ultra-snarky was the required style in the OTP threads?

yes it is.

Obama lost whites with a high school degree or lower by 20 points and won the election easily. There are not a lot of men in that Obama group. So if the swing group is white men with high school or less who voted for Obama but could vote for a Republican down the road, that's a small number.

#436. Yeah I think the real GOP answer is they have to find more people somewhere. I think they have hit ceilings in their core groups and so have to branch out.

Obama pulls in 80-90% of some groups- that's a ceiling- the GOP has not hit that ceiling with any group nationally- regionally yes- that "whites with a high school degree or lower" group? The GOP gets 80% or so of that group in the former Confederate States- if they could pull in 80% if that group Nationally they could could retake the Presidency in 2016 even with no in-roads among blacks, Hispanics, urban women etc.

Or start importing natural Republicans, via a skills-based immigration system rather than the current disaster of an immigration system. (With unemployment north of 8 percent, why in the hell are we issuing visas to McDonald's workers?)

Asian-Americans went from being natural Republicans to natural Democrats in less than 20 years. The Republicans have to turn some set of natural Democrats into natural Republicans.

What Joe refuses to acknowledge is that the 21st Century version of the GOP has effectively repelled two groups of imported "natural republicans*"- Asian-Americans and Muslim/Arab-Americans

and they haven't repelled such groups because such groups favor big government either.


* what the hell is a "natural" dem or repub anyway?

What Joe refuses to acknowledge is that the 21st Century version of the GOP has effectively repelled two groups of imported "natural republicans*"- Asian-Americans and Muslim/Arab-Americans

Asian-American voting patterns are a mystery. Muslim/Arab-American voting patterns, post-9/11, aren't hard to figure out, but it will be interesting to see what happens in another four years. It's not like Obama is the anti-Bush when it comes to military action in the Arab world, and the Dems aren't exactly the party of religion.

I'm not advocating mass immigration. With high unemployment and stagnant wages, the U.S. needs a more constrained labor supply, not an increase of labor supply.

Beyond that, a switch to a skills-based immigration system would naturally result in more GOP-leaning immigrants, simply for pocketbook reasons.

Uh, labor is constrained, especially legal immigration. You try and get a H-2B visa and then see if you think the U.S. has a unfetter supply of labor. The current system by its very nature promotes de facto illegal immigration, with the difficulties of acquiring a workers' visa. To keep out illegal immigration, we're building thousands of miles of fencing, for billions of dollars and all the drug smugglers and human traffickers do is build tunnels under the ground. We catch thousands of 'illegal' people whose only crime is being in the country and house them for months in detention centers because we don't have enough lawyers and judges to try out of all of these cases. The federal government just had to release thousands from the detention centers due to financial restraints caused by the Sequester. And you want to constrain legal immigration even further to 'high skilled' labor?

First off, who is going to decide that, the federal government you don't like? The same government that can't even keep out the 'illegals' you detest so much? You want the government to create a system where they decide who to keep people in and out of the country, when you don't even trust them to run something as mundane as the Federal budget.

Here's what I don't get about Republicans, they claim they're free market purists, but then claim they want to close the borders down. Shouldn't they allow the free market, and more importantly the people themselves to make that decision? But of course, that is too much freedom for the people to decide themselves. Just have the border secure, whatever the heck that means.

Asian-American voting patterns are a mystery.

Having married into an Asian family, nope I know why a bunch have switched parties (they've told me) and basically they are not voting "for" the Dems if you get my drift.

Sure they could go back given that the Dems really are not giving them any reasons to stay- but the GOP has to turn off the ethnic repellent first.

Muslim/Arab-American voting patterns, post-9/11, aren't hard to figure out,

Really, do tell, as you note neither party should have an edge based upon international conduct, and the Dems are NOT a "natural" party for such a conservative faith based group of people... Hmmmm, it really is ahead scratcher [go read Rany's piece on it]

* what the hell is a "natural" dem or repub anyway?

Where the carpet matches the drapes.

Just have the border secure, whatever the heck that means.

it means, "us in, them out"
that's what it always meant and likely always will mean.

I'm not advocating mass immigration. With high unemployment and stagnant wages, the U.S. needs a more constrained labor supply, not an increase of labor supply.

Beyond that, a switch to a skills-based immigration system would naturally result in more GOP-leaning immigrants, simply for pocketbook reasons.



Uh, labor is constrained, especially legal immigration. You try and get a H-2B visa and then see if you think the U.S. has a unfetter supply of labor. The current system by its very nature promotes de facto illegal immigration, with the difficulties of acquiring a workers' visa. To keep out illegal immigration, we're building thousands of miles of fencing, for billions of dollars and all the drug smugglers and human traffickers do is build tunnels under the ground. We catch thousands of 'illegal' people whose only crime is being in the country and house them for months in detention centers because we don't have enough lawyers and judges to try out of all of these cases. The federal government just had to release thousands from the detention centers due to financial restraints caused by the Sequester. And you want to constrain legal immigration even further to 'high skilled' labor?

First off, who is going to decide that, the federal government you don't like? The same government that can't even keep out the 'illegals' you detest so much? You want the government to create a system where they decide who to keep people in and out of the country, when you don't even trust them to run something as mundane as the Federal budget.

Here's what I don't get about Republicans, they claim they're free market purists, but then claim they want to close the borders down. Shouldn't they allow the free market, and more importantly the people themselves to make that decision? But of course, that is too much freedom for the people to decide themselves. Just have the border secure, whatever the heck that means.

I guess I'm wondering exactly what it is about 'skilled workers' that would correlate to the GOP...

'Pocketbook issues' sounds like a nice slogan -- but in fact, Obama (and the Democrats generally) seem to do pretty well (at least hold their own) amongst those sort of college-educated upper-middle class types.... and when it comes to 'skilled immigrants'... aren't we mostly in the modern economy talking about IT? I don't mean to take anything away from skilled machinists or whatnot - but the Democrats are absolutely cruising in Silicon Valley. Sure - there's a very strong libertarian lilt in that sector, but if anything, it's battling with outright liberalism for the top spot, with the GOP/conservatism a very distant 3rd.

A couple articles from the heart of silicon valley -- campaign contributions from silicon valley... and voting results from the areas that essentially have those 100-200k workers in droves...

Maybe if the GOP neutralizes social issues wholly - that split tilts back the other direction, but I'm just not seeing a lot of evidence that these 'pocketbook issues' are driving anyone into the arms of the GOP.... Heck - in fact - if memory serves, the KY county that gave Mitt Romney his biggest margin of victory in the nation also happens to the county with the most residents dependent on government assistance! Here's an article from Bloomberg on the phenomenon... Here's a heat map showing the distribution of those on government assistance -- compare that with a map showing voting patterns by county.

I'm not trying to draw any whatsamatta with Kansas conclusions here... I'm just saying that this idea of pocketbook issues making ready voters for the GOP doesn't seem to jibe.

Uh, labor is constrained, especially legal immigration. You try and get a H-2B visa and then see if you think the U.S. has a unfetter supply of labor.

Unemployment is north of 8 percent, underemployment is double or triple that number, and wages have been stagnant for decades. The U.S. has had a surplus of labor, especially low-skilled labor, for years.

The federal government just had to release thousands from the detention centers due to financial restraints caused by the Sequester.

No, it didn't. (But I'm sure you knew that.)

Here's what I don't get about Republicans, they claim they're free market purists, but then claim they want to close the borders down. Shouldn't they allow the free market, and more importantly the people themselves to make that decision? But of course, that is too much freedom for the people to decide themselves. Just have the border secure, whatever the heck that means.

You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. Pick one. (Also, it's incredible how liberals alternate between complaining about income inequality and wage stagnation and demanding more and more low-skilled immigration, as if the latter has no effect on the former.)

I'm not trying to draw any whatsamatta with Kansas conclusions here... I'm just saying that this idea of pocketbook issues making ready voters for the GOP doesn't seem to jibe.

or making ready voters for the Dems either

it seems to me that people in the US are voting more for "tribal" issues and cultural issues than they are with respect to economic issues than they used to

Re-reading that great piece from Jazayerli... How the GOP treated/treats Muslims is nothing short of ####### disgusting.

Beyond that, a switch to a skills-based immigration system would naturally result in more GOP-leaning immigrants, simply for pocketbook reasons.

Does it work that way in other nations? I haven't looked into it at all, but it was always my impression that Canada has a skills-based system, and it's also been my impression that immigrants vote Liberal much more than Conservative.

Re-reading that great piece from Jazayerli... How the GOP treated/treats Muslims is nothing short of ####### disgusting.

Oh, please. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 by radical Islamists. Did Bush round up all the Muslims and put them in internment camps, like that darling of the left, FDR, did with Japanese-Americans? No. A relatively few Muslims found themselves on a brand new no-fly list, usually due to sharing the name of a terror suspect; some other Muslims were investigated, some fairly and some unfairly. But the idea that Rany Jazayerli was somehow a new enemy of the state is utterly ludicrous, and little more than woe-is-me performance art.

The above quote is particularly funny given the enthusiasm with which a huge cohort of lefties on this site bash Christians on a daily basis. (The only reason liberals don't similarly bash Muslims is because they're cowards. It's assuredly not because the modern Dem party has so much respect for people of faith. They booed God at their convention last year, for Pete's sake.)

Re-reading that great piece from Jazayerli... How the GOP treated/treats Muslims is nothing short of ####### disgusting.

True dat.

Joe, do strangers hassle you at your chosen house of worship?

In August of 2010, when the Park51 Project controversy was at its peak, I happened to be exiting my local mosque in suburban Chicago after evening prayers. I ran into my friend Eiman, who pointed to a car in the parking lot and grinned widely. “You think that guy is here for prayers?”

He was pointing to a large pickup truck that was stopped in the driving lane between parking spaces, loudly blaring a Toby Keith song. We shared a laugh. The mosque shares the parking lot with a bank and several other businesses, so I didn’t think much of having a truck blaring music right outside our mosque.

Until I noticed that the truck wasn’t playing just any Toby Keith song. It was playing “Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue.”

Now this nation that I love
Has fallen under attack
A mighty sucker-punch came flyin’ in
From somewhere in the back
Soon as we could see clearly
Through our big black eye
Man, we lit up your world
Like the Fourth of July

Hey Uncle Sam
Put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty
Started shakin' her fist
And the eagle will fly
Man, it's gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom
Start ringin' her bell
And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue

Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you'll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way

“Huh,” I thought, “that’s interesting.” The car wasn’t parked, but it wasn’t moving either. I turned to Eiman and said, “I wonder if this guy is trying to send us a message.” Finally, the song came to an end.

And immediately, the same song started playing from the beginning.

Well, at this point we had heard enough. Eiman and I slowly walked over to the pickup truck, to see whether we could give directions to the driver, who was clearly lost and thought he was outside the caves of Tora Bora. At that moment, a big SUV pulled up behind us and the driver jumped out – it was the landlord of the property, who had clearly figured out the same thing we had. At which point the pickup truck hauled ass and drove away.

I’m not sure what the driver was trying to accomplish, honestly, other than to intimidate us with a crappy country song. (No offense, Toby. I love “Beer for My Horses.”) But it was deeply unsettling. Our congregation had been worshipping in that same building for the past eight years, and someone decided that this was the moment to make us feel unwelcome.

On the other hand, the mosque is located barely 800 miles from Ground Zero. Maybe he just thought our location was insensitive.

"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter."

I initially read this as "The cheaper the cook, the gaudier the platter," which seems to make more sense.

I hadn't been in on this thread in a couple days and saw it on the sidebar with "last post Joe Kehoskie"; I immediately thought, well this should be good let's check it out!

The only reason they don't similarly bash Muslims is because they're cowards.

You certainly don't disappoint, Joe. It's White Christian Males that are under attack in this country! If only the cowards in the Democratic party had some guts to stand up to it.

The only reason they don't similarly bash Muslims is because they're cowards.

I like to think I'm cowardly enough to be afraid of Christians too.

Joe, do strangers hassle you at your chosen house of worship?

Have Christians flown any planes into your place of work?

I don't condone idiots hassling people like in the clip you posted, but claiming that a few incidents like that are representative of the GOP as a whole is absurd. The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, as it was several times previously, by radical Islamists. In a country of over 300 million people, it should surprise no one that some people reacted in a stupid way. Hell, last year, on this very site, we had people telling other people to kill themselves because of a silly dispute over a blown call in a playoff game.

***

You certainly don't disappoint, Joe. It's White Christian Males that are under attack in this country! If only the cowards in the Democratic party had some guts to stand up to it.

That's why Furtado pays me the big bucks.

Jokes aside, do you (or anyone) dispute that anti-Christian bigotry is much more common and acceptable in modern American discourse than anti-Muslim bigotry? Assuming that fact isn't in dispute, do you (or anyone) dispute that fear plays a large part in liberals' reluctance to mock Muslims in remotely the same way they mock Christians?

Jokes aside, do you (or anyone) dispute that anti-Christian bigotry is much more common and acceptable in modern American discourse than anti-Muslim bigotry?

Yes, I think everyone outside the right wing echo chamber disputes that.

Assuming that fact isn't in dispute

It's not a fact it's a right wing delusion, just like the rightwing delusion that Romney was winning.

it should surprise no one that some people reacted in a stupid way.

no but the stupid came pre-dominantly from one side of the political aisle- if it had not, if it was evenly distributed the group in question would not have shifted from voting R to voting D, but the "stupidity" was very largely coming from YOUR SIDE Joe.

Yes, I think everyone outside the right wing echo chamber disputes that.

Liberals mock Muslims as often, and with the same vehemence, as they mock Christians? You must be joking. It sure as hell isn't true on this site.

no but the stupid came pre-dominantly from one side of the political aisle- if it had not, if it was evenly distributed the group in question would not have shifted from voting R to voting D, but the "stupidity" was very largely coming from YOUR SIDE Joe.

Really? Muslims started voting for Dems because of a few isolated incidents like the one mentioned above, and not because the U.S. declared war on radical Islam in general and two Islamic countries in particular?

***

Note: It's too late to edit #472. Just for the record, I didn't think it was a "blown call" in that Cardinals game last year. I should have referred to it as a disputed call.

Jokes aside, do you (or anyone) dispute that anti-Christian bigotry is much more common and acceptable in modern American discourse than anti-Muslim bigotry? Assuming that fact isn't in dispute, do you (or anyone) dispute that fear plays a large part in liberals' reluctance to mock Muslims in remotely the same way they mock Christians?

In speaking of actual existence, the kind lived outside instead of inside the computer, how many Christians are you seeing in everyday life being mocked in, say, Syracuse, vs. Muslims being mocked? Have you heard "stupid jesus freak" vs. "stupid rag-head" at the Western Lights Plaza DMV recently? Have you seen someone laughing at a man crossing himself in public vs. a man kneeling towards Mecca in public any time lately?

Live in whatever reality you want, but if I had said "piss on you and your jesus" to the TV in the bar I had lunch in today 45 minutes east of you (with the Confederate flag hanging proudly) instead of "piss on you and your Mohammad", which mocking statement would have gotten my teeth knocked out and which would have gotten a beer bought for me?

(B)ut claiming that a few incidents like that are representative of the GOP as a whole is absurd...

Facts don't bear that out, Joe.

Go read that article. Here is a list, from the piece, of the GOP leaders who decided to make political hay out of bashing Muslims: Giuliani, Gingrich, Palin and Cain. That's three presidential candidates, all of whom led in polls of GOP voters during their respective election cycles, and a VP nominee. If they aren't "representative of the GOP as a whole," who is? And that doesn't include lesser GOP lights such as Joe Walsh, Peter King, Ed Royce, Gary Miller, Chip Craavack and Ilario Pantano.

Your party, Joe - own it.

Who is the evil Liberal that Joe decries so vehemently? He must be the most evil man in existence.

And for the god-fearing among all y'all, I've recently picked up a sub conducting gig at a church. My GF is kidding that I'm THIS CLOSE to converting. I had to tell her it wouldn't be to the Presbyters, their music is frankly quite BLAH compared to various other Christian denominations I rather enjoy singing in and leading. (My apologies to the Presbyterians among our posters.)

In speaking of actual existence, the kind lived outside instead of inside the computer, how many Christians are you seeing in everyday life being mocked in, say, Syracuse, vs. Muslims being mocked? Have you heard "stupid jesus freak" vs. "stupid rag-head" at the Western Lights Plaza DMV recently? Have you seen someone laughing at a man crossing himself in public vs. a man kneeling towards Mecca in public any time lately?

Lassus, I plainly referred to "modern American discourse," not some guy muttering an anti-Muslim insult while driving around in his pickup truck. On this site and on the liberal websites (pardon the redundancy), Christians are bashed day in and day out, while Muslims get no such treatment.

It's really amazing that you guys can't even admit the obvious. I can probably find a dozen anti-Christian comments that were posted on this site within the past 24 hours, but I doubt you guys could find three anti-Muslim comments from the last six months. (I can't recall a single such comment from anyone here, let alone from any of the enthusiastically anti-Christian lefties.)

***

Go read that article. Here is a list, from the piece, of the GOP leaders who decided to make political hay out of bashing Muslims: Giuliani, Gingrich, Palin and Cain. That's three presidential candidates, all of whom led in polls of GOP voters during their respective election cycles, and a VP nominee. If they aren't "representative of the GOP as a whole," who is? And that doesn't include lesser GOP lights such as Joe Walsh, Peter King, Ed Royce, Gary Miller, Chip Craavack and Ilario Pantano.

They all bashed Islam and Muslims, rather than radical Islamists? (Also, I've never heard of the last four guys on your list, so I'm guessing the average Muslim-American hasn't, either.)

It's really amazing that you guys can't even admit the obvious. I can probably find a dozen anti-Christian comments that were posted on this site within the past 24 hours. I doubt you guys could find three anti-Muslim comments from the last six months. (I can't recall a single such comment from anyone here, let alone any of the enthusiastically anti-Christian lefties.)

Find it then. Also, make sure its by people who are 'admitted Liberals', not just people you think are liberals, because to be frank you throw out that word so often it has lost all meaning when its spoken by you.

They all bashed Islam and Muslims...?

YES.

They all said the Manhattan Muslim community center shouldn't be built, and Cain went as far as to say he'd never consider appointing a Muslim to his cabinet or as a judge. These politicians were not railing against Islamic extremists; they were simply against Muslims. Defend that, Joe. Please, enlighten us on why that was a good thing for America.

The exceptions you're so desperately trying to find don't exist, and we can see the glistening of your flop-sweat.

(Also, I've never heard of the last four guys on your list, so I'm guessing the average Muslim-American hasn't, either.)

Three Congressmen and a congressional candidate. If you were/are an average Muslim-American living in their districts, you knew them.

Find it then.

You first.

***

They all said the Manhattan Muslim community center shouldn't be built, and Cain went as far as to say He'd never consider appointing a Muslim to his cabinet or as a judge. These politicians were not railing against Islamic extremists; they were simply against Muslims. Defend that, Joe. Please, enlighten us on why that was a good thing for America.

Well, they might have been right about the community center. Hasn't that guy been exposed as a fraudster?

As for Herman Cain, he was an unknown who had zero chance of becoming president.

The exceptions you're so desperately trying to find don't exist, and we can see the glistening of your flop-sweat.

Exceptions? What the hell are you talking about?

Here's what I don't get about Republicans, they claim they're free market purists, but then claim they want to close the borders down. Shouldn't they allow the free market, and more importantly the people themselves to make that decision?

This is an even fairer critique of the Paul family, who have somehow come to represent libertarianism despite being extremely pro-life and extremely anti-immigration.

Trying to figure out how any of Latinos, Asians or Arabs are a "natural Republican constituency"...

They're against gay marriage? Well, I bet they ain't anymore, and that's only gonna become more true as time goes on. I definitely wouldn't want to rely on that one.

They're pro-life? Well, Latinos do tend to be Catholics, and I do assume that Catholics tend to be a little more pro-life than average. But it's not exactly like American Catholics are in lockstep with Rome on this point, or, really, any other point. I could be swayed on this one, but right now I'm thinking you can't hang your hat on this either. (I should disclose that I think pro-life is not even going to be a meaningful constituency in a couple of generations. But I suppose that, being pro-choice myself, I would think that.)

They're "religious" in some more abstract sense? I don't think that means anything unless it can be related to a specific government policy. Fever swamp "war on Christmas" type stuff isn't going to sway Joe Paycheck. (Or, obviously, Muhammad Paycheck ;)

They're "fiscally conservative"? So are white people, until you ask them what programs they want cut and the answer is none of them (besides foreign aid). I don't see this as a racial/cultural distinction at all.

Asians do well financially, so it would be in their self-interest to vote Repub? Assuming my factual assertion is true, that would probably be the best available argument. (Of course, the next step is to figure out why your natural constituency isn't voting for you. Whatever the Republicans have done to alienate the Jews the past few decades, I guess they should do the opposite of that.)

Keep squirming, Joe.

Joe, you made the assertion. Actually, more importantly, why the #### do you care?

Joe is right in a way. But it isn't because those critical of religion favor Muslim. It's more along the lines of you fighting more with those close to you on some things. You contend with the actual enemy before you, and in secular (and agnostic/atheistic) parts of America and the West that's going to be overwhelmingly the Christian contingent. It's kind of futile to engage in throwing punches at phantoms. The secular has hundreds if not thousands of years of dealing with Christians (and its Judaic antecedents) and their impinging on our public and private lives. Muslim doctrine and dogma don't yet have the political clout that Christians do generally, either socially or personally. But Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens all said some tough stuff about Muslims. You can Google it. If you are in a war with the category religion, though, you are liable to take on the subset with the big numbers first and foremost.

(Of course, the next step is to figure out why your natural constituency isn't voting for you. Whatever the Republicans have done to alienate the Jews the past few decades, I guess they should do the opposite of that.)

Jewish-Americans don't like it when Evangelicals claim to speak for them? Who knew?

We discuss men's rights for a few days, and grammar for one, and some people go ape #### to the point of tears. But they'll jump like fish to a hook embellish with a colorful lure to continue playing stupid grease pig games for weeks and months with Joe. That's a reflection on character and intelligence of the general populace here--and it ain't pretty.

Gee, sorry to let you down, Morty.

Lassus, I plainly referred to "modern American discourse," not some guy muttering an anti-Muslim insult while driving around in his pickup truck.

Fair point, granted.

However, you still am out in Bizarro World regarding who gets more grief. Isn't our liberal President killing the hell out of Islamic militants everywhere with robots and explosions, even Islamic Americans having tea on their respective verandas?


Yes, if only we were more like Morty.

Keep squirming, Joe.

???

Are you having some other dialogue in your head or something?

***

Joe, you made the assertion. Actually, more importantly, why the #### do you care?

Yes, I made an assertion — not an offer. I have no real interest in re-reading the last 24 hours' worth of posts here so I can bring examples back to you — examples you know damn well exist. (Only a couple hours ago, in this thread or another, that 'YR' guy was doing his latest anti-Christian performance art in reply to 'tfbg9'.)

***

Yes, if only we were more like Morty.

Ha ha. The funny thing is, when I'm not here, he asks people where I am.

Asians do well financially, so it would be in their self-interest to vote Repub? Assuming my factual assertion is true, that would probably be the best available argument. (Of course, the next step is to figure out why your natural constituency isn't voting for you.

It's not really that hard for a fair number of Asian Americans to see parallels in the demonization of Muslims and "illegal immigrants" today with memories of similar crusades directed at Asian Americans in the past. The bigoted mentality might change its targets, but it's still the same poisonous piece of #### underneath.

It sure is. I used to have genuine respect for McCain, but that seems like such a long time ago now. Has he gone off the rails as severely as I think he has?

Since you think nearly everyone with an R next to his name has severely gone off the rails, probably not.

Since you think nearly everyone with an R next to his name has severely gone off the rails, probably not.

Weak effort, Ray, even by your standards.

[quote...]They booed God at their convention last year, for Pete's sake.)

How can you boo something that doesn't exist?

I don't condone idiots hassling people like in the clip you posted, but claiming that a few incidents like that are representative of the GOP as a whole is absurd.

Then why did Republican politicians try to suck up to the Christian loonies by referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama and claim that he was a muslim? If they wanted to animate their base, why did they choose scare tactics like that, Joe?

Joe is right in a way. But it isn't because those critical of religion favor Muslim. It's more along the lines of you fighting more with those close to you on some things. You contend with the actual enemy before you, and in secular (and agnostic/atheistic) parts of America and the West that's going to be overwhelmingly the Christian contingent. It's kind of futile to engage in throwing punches at phantoms. The secular has hundreds if not thousands of years of dealing with Christians (and its Judaic antecedents) and their impinging on our public and private lives. Muslim doctrine and dogma don't yet have the political clout that Christians do generally, either socially or personally. But Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens all said some tough stuff about Muslims. You can Google it. If you are in a war with the category religion, though, you are liable to take on the subset with the big numbers first and foremost.

I think this is the bigger point, frankly.... people mocking the pope/Catholicism, Bill Maher making a movie, Stewart/Colbert doing the occasional bit --- there's a fundamental difference between that and say, the Park51 incident or any one of dozens (more?) instances where existing mosques have faced vandalism or actually been denied local permits to meet.

The forefront of the great Christian Bigotry battle seems to come down to three basic things:

1) Whether some clerk in a store says "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas"

2) Whether a secularly funded public institution - be it a town hall, school, or whatnot - displays some symbol or engages in some homage ritual to the Christian religion

3) Some comedian or internet poster says mean things


I think that's a far, far cry from being denied a permit to build a mosque or meet for prayer.

The simple fact is that saying "God bless America" is practically a requirement for any state-level office and it's certainly not going to cost you an election at any local level outside of what... maybe Berkeley?

However - say "all praise to Allah" - and I bet there aren't more than 2 or 3 (if even) places where you're going to finish anything but last for dog catcher.

I suppose bigotry is bigotry... but there's a fundamental difference between bigotry that manifests itself in jokes and arguments over shopping greetings and bigotry that manifests itself in being actually denied the right to congregate and pray in the manner you see fit.

LOL, I love this one:

Well, they might have been right about the community center. Hasn't that guy been exposed as a fraudster?

No. As a matter of fact, he's greatly respected in the local community by both muslims and non-muslims alike. In fact, some came to his defense.Jewish and Christian religious leaders

I gotta admoire the unalloyed bigotry encapsulated in your unwarranted assumption, Joe. You usually do a better job of disguising it.

They're pro-life? Well, Latinos do tend to be Catholics, and I do assume that Catholics tend to be a little more pro-life than average.

Actually, they aren't. Polling of Catholics indicates they flop down even with their non-Catholic co-citizens when it comes to birth control and abortion.