User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7589 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
When at a loss for cogent rebuttal, opt for facile (and tangential) sarcasm. How about trying to graft A Modest Proposal onto your jeering attitude? That's a real winner.
Given your tedious defenses of grammatical and definitional atrocities, that's about all the energy they deserve. The funny thing is that it's extremely unlikely that you'd ever misuse "disinterested" or say "between you and I" yourself, in any context other than trying to be ironic/literary or simply provocative. And why? Because you're neither stupid nor uneducated.
Bottom line is that you just love to argue for argument's sake---not that there's anything wrong, etc.
You say that with a straight face? That is choice.
HAH!
Now THAT is funny.
EDIT:
Added the poster's handle.
This seems to be very much an overstatement of what is happening. Now I agree eventually much of the GOP will get there, but to suggest what is going on now is that is (I think) a stretch.
Agreed, it would be far more accurate to say, "as of March 2013, that’s the direction a significant element of the GOP is heading." The looming question remains, will these particular lead elephants get the bulk of the herd moving behind them, or is this only the early manifestation of a true schism.
Well I think the country at large will get there very quickly (next few years we will see a cascade of states I suspect), but the GOP will have a hard time with it (Gay Marriage).
Immigration is I think the more interesting case for the GOP. It is a subject where the GOP is losing support on one side and gaining on another, and though the trends are against them, at every point in time the number of votes (short term) they gain by switching positions is outweighed by the votes they likely lose.
Classic case of it is best in their long term interests to change, but politicians care about the next election and not the long term.
There's a marriage bill currently wending it's way through the Illinois legislature, and Ernie Banks and Richard Dent just announced their support for it.
You're right in the first paragraph but wrong in the second. There's no way it's in the GOP's long-term interests to change. The demographics might overwhelm them eventually, but in the meantime, flip-flopping on low-skilled immigration — especially low-skilled Latino immigration — would be a suicide play for the GOP.
In a survey I saw last month, the average Latino "Republican" favors big government more than the average white Democrat.
Even on immigration, I don't see such an immediate shift. Has anyone (other than Jeb!) actually reversed a position? In the pres campaign, people step back from opposing the nominee's position. After, people step back forward. If you see organized support for an immigration bill in the Congress, that would definitely confirm that article's hypothesis. Until then, I'm doubtful. There are and always have been both centrist, mainstream Republicans and wild-eyed ideologues in the party. What has changed is the electoral power of the second group, and I don't see any signs that this group has lost its power or experienced a conversion.
So where's Michael Jordan on this issue? "Homophobes buy shoes too"? :)
I think it's where the GOP leadership -- at least, the insider/DC/'elites' leadership -- is trying to push the party... but that's always a dicey proposition to try to lead the base to water. I have a hard time thinking of any time in the nation's history when a party has succeeded in leading the base somewhere.
Generally, what happens is that you either fracture the party (as JFK/LBJ found in the 60s), or, the insiders/elite/leaders get replaced.
In the case of the Dixiecrat split -- the southern Democratic wing of the party never had a problem with a whole lot of the New Deal cornerstone of the Democratic party... and it would take really, a good 30 years until they wholly let that go in favor of the predominant economic theory of the GOP.
On the reverse side - you could look at Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose split... The Republican party used to have a rather vibrant progressive wing in its own right -- and if you go back a century, it was the Democratic party that was generally suing people over teaching evolution and insisting on 'America as a Christian nation'... don't forget - it was WJB who faced off against Darrow in Scopes and Woodrow Wilson was (I think) a former minister.
Anyway, when Teddy split with the GOP and the GOP establishment rallied around Taft over trust-busting (in some areas.... Taft went after Big Steel - while Teddy pointedly avoid picking fights with Big Steel) -- he took virtually all the then-progressive base of the GOP with him and they never came back.
You can look, too, at the Whigs -- everyone points to their ineptitude over slavery, but actually -- it was as much immigration as anything else that destroyed the Whigs.
I suppose the GOP has one advantage - the evangelicals and Christianists certainly won't be going Democratic... the question is whether they slow fade, quick fade, or become something else. If Big Labor hadn't suddenly done a 180 on immigration reform, I think it's entirely possible you might have seen a nativist strain take root in the Democratic party... but not sure I see that as possible anymore (and if it were to take root, I think the Democratic party leaders would do their best to stamp it out... they're consolidating the Latino vote - and anyone that can count knows that's a better bet).
Still... just saying... if the Republican party can manage to pull off this transition without an extended wilderness period, my hat is off to them because I don't think any other party has really managed it.
I have no idea what the Nation says, but there is a little something to this in the abstract. One of Chavez's biggest failures was the explosion of crime, especially murder. If you're going to be at all authoritarian you should at least crack down on the murderers. Mussolini would never have let the murder rate get so out of hand.
The most logical conclusion to be reached then would be that the murders served the purposes of Chavez, even if they were not directly ordered by him or his people. A sky high murder rate would be a useful tool for an autocrat trying to pass as something better than a brutal dictator; enemies could be easily disposed of and written off as victims of the crime wave.
For sure. Any speculations as to what pulling that off would entail for this GOP in this era?
Their central challenge is that the base that the realists can't afford to lose seems to hold refusal to compromise or negotiate regarding anything at any time as their prime directive. Thus a brokered, cooled-down party platform is going to be especially hard to forge. And that suggests eventual divorce, and whatever good for the conservative cause that might come from that, it unquestionably means an extended wilderness period.
Yes they will make it out (and will win some elections along the way no matter what) and it will likely happen faster than I think it will, but a mouse can dream can't he?
Bingo. Precisely. Exactly.
This is EXACTLY how the filibuster is supposed to be used. Brennan was being filibustered properly and in broad daylight - over an issue directly germane to his confirmation.
Other than the 'wise old men' like John McCain -- I don't know of anyone that had a problem with this... Even Dailykos had a frontpage posting that was lauding him -- and DK was and remains big on filibuster reform.
What McCain is defending is absolute nonsense... he's defending everything that is wrong with the Senate. What Rand Paul did is actually demonstrate how the filibuster and Senate rules SHOULD work.... 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.
In fact, one of the Senators who crossed the aisle and supported Paul in this filibuster - Ron Wyden - was the champion of the failed filibuster reform efforts.... Wyden was one of the guys who did the neat little 'question (so you can take a breath and get some water)' deals yesterday.
John McCain is so hopelessly out of touch and emblematic of what's wrong in the Senate on this matter it's ludicrous.
It's funny that it's always the GOP — and only the GOP — that's destined for the wilderness, especially when it comes to immigration. The idea that working-class Democrats will remain loyal to the Dem party ad infinitum, despite stagnant wages, a stagnant if not declining standard of living, and a less-than-booming job market for their debt-ridden, college-educated kids, seems overly optimistic, if not irrational.
In the current economic climate, the United States needs more low-skilled workers like it needs three more Hurricane Katrinas. It's not like the GOP, in blocking amnesty and an expansion of current chain- and low-skilled immigration policies, would be hurting the country. It would be doing the opposite.
This is what I heard from a democrat senator on CNN this morning as well (Cardin from Maryland I think).
Who else are they going to vote for? Dems hear Rep and think 'Tea Party crazies' - faced with that they default to voting Dem. GOP voters have a choice, moderate leaning Reps or hardline Tea Party.
I am all for getting rid of party primaries. Hold open primaries to reduce the number of candidates on the final ballot but don't take party affiliation into consideration. If two reps make the final ballot, fine, two dems, fine.
As much we like to talk about what the Republican party have to do to change, issue 1 is electing an party that looks more like the people they're trying to represent. Frankly, I hope the old generation just retires. Politics isn't supposed to be a life time job like men like John McCain has taken it to be. Its also why I hope Biden and HRC don't run in 2016.
And Joe, when the Republican party offers an economic policy that addresses those concerns you just mentioned outside "Tax cuts for large businesses", you might see some younger people move towards Republicans. But that won't happen anytime soon.
It is hypocritical to describe Republicans the party of Big Business and the Democrats the party of 'labor' when both parties accept billions of dollar each political year from huge corporations, but then, the Democrats have been better at pulling off that coalition of Big Business funding and labor votes.
TO be frank, the Republicans have a branding problem, and its nobody but the Republicans fault for it.
Well the Dems got out of the wilderness not long ago, it is your turn. Plus it is not like we are making this up, a huge percentage of analysts on all sides are suggesting the GOP has a tough row to hoe going forward because of demographic changes.
Sure working class dems might change (though most of those that would already have - remember the Reagan Democrats?), but anything could change including your "hispanics love big government" that you pointed to upthread, so what?
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?
The Democratic party was in the wilderness for the majority of my adult life, so I don't know where you get this.
I would absolutely like the GOP to lead on this issue. I expect to wait for quite a while. Even so, white working-class men do not a majority make. The GOP will have to appeal to women, Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans.
P.S.: You forgot to mention growing economic inequality.
If the Republicans could do better among white women in that group (or among white women overall), then they'd have a lot more ground they could make up. And they might figure out a way. We'll see.
I get the sense that he's desperate for a headstone... the Presidency is now gone - so he wants to become the Senate's new Teddy Kennedy... the wise old man that commands universal respect in the body.
The problem is - McCain has virtually nothing to his name that demonstrates any capability to push anything through. McCain-Feingold is the only thing I can think of substance attached to him - and it's been all-but-gutted. Sure, there's plenty that one can say about Teddy Kennedy for better or ill -- but that whole "lion of the Senate" did have some meat behind it... Teddy was instrumental in getting NCLB passed, for better or worse... and while he ultimately voted against the final version of Part D -- it wouldn't have survived to the point where it got without some early "better than nothing" on certain provisions.
In effect, whatever his personal faults and partisan vigor -- Kennedy could still move votes and issues in the Senate... like it or not, he had 'juice'.
What does John McCain have? A monopoly on Sunday talk show appearances and a standing invite to join up with any forming Senate "Gang of however many" that inevitably fails to actually get anything done.
He wants his legacy, but he seems to be of the impression that some combination of his seniority, his occasional (most now long gone) maverickyness, and failed Presidential bids have somehow entitled him to this position of prestige and authority...
Right, so importing and/or legalizing millions of new low-skilled workers who are natural Democrats would help the GOP how?
***
As Lassus would say, "Cite?"
The demographics issue is a long-term issue, not one that's going to doom the GOP between now and 2014 or 2016 (or 2020). Most of the pants-wetting about demographics among Republicans last fall was just knee-jerk nonsense by establishment Beltway types who feared for their places on the cocktail-party circuit. And as I've said before, a major financial upheaval could cause a bigger and faster political realignment than the demographics issue. Just look at the hysteria among liberals over a piddly 2 percent cut to federal spending — a cut that was Obama's idea. Quite a clown show the Dems are putting on. (No more White House tours for school kids? Really? Next Obama will be claiming Bo is starving to death for lack of presidential dog food.)
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.
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?)
***
I thought ultra-snarky was the required style in the OTP threads? Did the rules change during my time away? Regardless, I just re-read my three comments on this page and didn't see anything that seemed "brutish and nasty."
Are any of the old German Nazis still alive in Argentina?
Again - a brief glimpse of exactly how the Senate's advise/consent role, the relationship between the executive branch and Senate, filibuster are SUPPOSED to work.
Uh.... so you want to import people who naturally lean right. Exactly which region of the world is that? Republicans consider Europe to be 'Socialist'. Asia has the biggest straight out Communist country in the world, and all of their democracies from Indonesia, to Thailand have a welfare system that would give Republicans a heart attack.
So, you want to import people from a place with little to no support system and the expectation of none in the U.S... so... Penguins from Antarctica?
At least they don't dress like farmers.
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.
Reductio ad Hitlerum?
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.
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.
yes it is.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
it means, "us in, them out"
that's what it always meant and likely always will mean.
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.
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.
No, it didn't. (But I'm sure you knew that.)
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.)
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
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.
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.)
True dat.
I initially read this as "The cheaper the cook, the gaudier the platter," which seems to make more sense.
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.
I like to think I'm cowardly enough to be afraid of Christians too.
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.
***
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?
Yes, I think everyone outside the right wing echo chamber disputes that.
It's not a fact it's a right wing delusion, just like the rightwing delusion that Romney was winning.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
***
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.)
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 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.
You first.
***
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.
Exceptions? What the hell are you talking about?
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.)
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.
???
Are you having some other dialogue in your head or something?
***
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'.)
***
Ha ha. The funny thing is, when I'm not here, he asks people where I am.
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.
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.
How can you boo something that doesn't exist?
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?
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.
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.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main