No, you said that it was "perfectly well spread" on both sides. It is NOT the same on both sides. Homophobes and anti-Muslim bigots are disproportionately Republican and/or devoutly religuous.

I'm not claiming that there are no bigoted Democrats. But homophobes and anti-Muslim bigots are more likely to be Republican.

Well, I don't know about that, we are much more conservative than any of Western Europe, which is all hyper-modern (like us) and social-democratic (not like us). There are a few economically-moderate countries in Asia that are definitely more conservative than us and are still relatively developed nations.

Either way, conservatism is a good idea, it's just been twisted by the religious right in the last several decades. Neoconservatism is logicless, it gives more freedom to corporations than to people.

I got a question for everybody here especially beeblebrox because he seems like he would know....were people in the 40's for the interment camps of the Japanesse or were they against it. I'm asking for the majority of people.

Yet, I still said well spread. As in there are both on each side. Did I say equal? Hmm? Nope. Why are you dwelling on this point? Its an observation, and a perfectly legit one. I'm not arguing, mkay, I know the homophobes are more likely to be republican. And, sure, whatever, the whitey christians dont like muslims. Happy?

I agree. And I don't think that's a matter of interpretation either. Clearly right-wing radio has an anti-Muslim slant overall.

But does that radio noise shape the conservative attitude toward Muslims, or is it simply feeding them what they already want to hear?

I'd lean toward it feeding them what they already want to hear, but I don't know. Certainly it could be argued that the television news media bias toward fear-mongering and sensationalism does indeed shape the public attitude toward Muslims instead of feeding on pre-conceived biases.

You said "perfectly well spread." That doesn't mean one side is more bigoted than the other. It means that the bigotry is "perfectly well spread."

Which it isn't.



I think it's a point worth noting, particularly from the party that advertises itself as advocating more freedom and less government.

Perfectly refers to it being perfectly common across all spectrums. Well spread refers to large numbers, albiet varying numbers, of people of both sides of the spectrum. Sorry for the miscommunication, as you obviously don't understand my statement.

What I don't understand is the whole reason for you bringing up the 'pefectly well spread' point over and over. I know it's on your agenda to spread word of conservative wrong doing. I think most of your points are a crock of shit, but thats beside the point. Maybe, just maybe, by understanding what I said, which, hey, I understand the point of confusion, you can stop quoting the line.

Oh the TV is pro-Muslim, anti- Christianity ...it seems like that the radio is the only conservative media left.

No doubt, Muslims are treated unfairly. Do I think it should be stopped? Yup. Do I think its so massivly horrible? Not really. I don't see that much of it. Maybe thats just me.

You're right. Its not like the 44% or whatever are the KKK taking them out of their houses, hanging them, torturing them, etc etc etc

The study, as reported by Detroit Free Press, is very loose with defining civil liberties.

I'd love to read the actual study, though, not a newspaper summary.

Where's the beef to support that one? And if you got it make sure it's not from some crackjob anti-republican source.

I agree about the religious right and neoconservatism. But conservatism itself exists simply to curtail liberalism. It's good in that it keeps liberals in check, but virtually all of the progress of our country over the past 150 years comes from liberals, not conservatives.

Listen, in refence to internment, the Hollywood 10, or today's muslim sentiments, the fact of the matter is few people consider themselves to be racist or xenophobic. $10 dollars says that if you asked most of the interviewees flat out if they hate Muslims or not, only about 10% would look you straight in the eye and say "yes." The point is, with all the above situations (and Archie pointed this out with his PATRIOT ACT comment) people don't realize what they are supporting or do not choose to coach it in such ways, but rather prefer to consider it a necessary move in the name of securing the nation. Much like the Japanese were put in camps for "their own good," and "our own good."

Racial Profiling is definately targetted towards particular features right now, and most people just don't realize that when they say its a great idea to beef up airport security in such a fashion. Do you guys realize that? When someone says they're put together some new technology that will "match" the "characteristics" of a "terrorist," do you realize what they are saying is that they've compiled the generic features of a middle easterner/arab and that that is who is going to clearly get hit up the most in airport security checks? Probably not.

Take it from someone who did alot of research (sort of) about the Red Scare. Its not that they hated Eastern Europeans per se, they just happened to freak out near them often because they "looked" an awful lot like commies. Here's the one I did research on, can make you very sensitive to the finer points of surveillance language. Anyone ever heard of the Lazarus Averbuch case? There's an entire book that just came out about it recently. I'm not reading the book because I already know so much about it, but if anyone is interested they should definately check it out.






Right there is exactly why without vigilance Muslim-American rights are going to get widdled away under everyone's noses. Even the people that aren't racist, etc.

That's because your point was incoherently communicated. If by "perfectly well spread" you mean that Republicans are more likely to be homophobes and anti-Muslim, then we're in agreement.

That's an utterly preposterous statement. Is there any way to POSSIBLY back that up?



Fox News Channel. The number one cable news media channel on the air.

Whatever. I think its fair to say that Republicans are much more religious. You can interpret that however you want.

That's an interesting challenge, since right-wingers tend to define anyone other than Fox News Channel as a "crackjob anti-republican source."

But in this case, the report at the top of this thread is from the AP. And it states that Republicans are more likely to support curtailing of Muslim-American rights than Democrats.

As for the anti-gay thing, you can't possibly deny the reality that Republicans are more likely to be homophobic than Democrats, can you? Is a homophobe more likely to be a Republican or Democrat? I can post some numbers, but do I really have to?

The nineteen people who hijacked 4 planes and killed over 3000 people on 911 were very religious also.

Being very religious rarely equates to being good, sane or even intelligent.

I definitely think that Republicans are more likely to define themselves with a particular brand of Christianity that considers itself more religious.

But this report didn't define exactly what kind of religion. I suppose we could assume that it's Christianity because that's the majority religion. But the report doesn't say.

But are you going to bring down a whole ship over some people. I can believe that there are more republicans who are anti-muslim but you are trying to deny the fact that there are democrats out there too that are anti-muslim. Republicans tend to believe more in religion. Is that a bad thing? Are you hating religious people? Would that not equate to the same thing as people hating muslims?

The study (or should say the poll, since you know, it wasn't really a study) is not from AP, it's from a group of Cornell students. AP simply reported it.

Wasn't cornell rated the biggest party school?

Not at all. I've said repeatedly that there are Democrats who are anti-Muslim. They are there in that report. I'm just saying that Republicans are more likely to be anti-Muslim. I don't think that's news or should really be surprising, giving the current political and social climate.



That depends. When Republicans try and impose their religious beliefs on everyone else through legislation and establish a defacto theocracy, then yes it is certainly a bad thing.



Nope.

Doubt it.

I know Penn State is one of the top party schools, and my sister wants to go there. I wonder why...