Poll Finds 23 Percent of Texans Think Obama is Muslim 562
A University of Texas poll has found that 23 percent of Texans are convinced that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim. Only 45 percent of the people polled correctly identified Obama as a Protestant Christian. Nationwide, the number of people who believe in the "Secret Muslim Conspiracy" is about the same as those who believe that the moon landing was faked (5-10 percent), which makes the high numbers in Texas unusual.
No he is not... (Score:2, Interesting)
it's the Texans (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the number of people in Texas who believe the moon landing was fake? Some states might have a higher ratio of crazy conspiracy theorists than other states, so I'm just gonna say Texas is one of those states.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
False dichotomy (and missing the intent of the grandparent poster). The grandparent poster was referring to the people that did not believe Obama believe in the religion he claims to believe in.
While most of the people certainly can be wrong, it doesn't mean the majority is always wrong.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
That answer does not address the question. The question asked for a specific "serious economist or capitalist", not a generic "school."
Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?
That means, quoted recently, specificly addressing this crisis; not quotes showing they said years ago "well, in the future when the mortgage default crisis is going to cause a liquidity crisis in the world, our theoretical analysis is going to recommend that no action should be taken."
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first part of what the say makes sense, but they use that as a springboard to jump to a lot of apparent nonsense. But then, a lot of mainstream economics is also apparently nonsense. Do you have links that would help show why their nonsense is worse that everyone else's nonsense?
Re:I guess I'm not suprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, illegal immigarants sdo not take jobs away from Americans, in fact they do jobs Americans wont.
The old ways were the best. The came into the country, they did seasonal work no one else would, and take cash back toMexico where it improved there live and allowed communities to grow to a point where they culd start making things better, which means less immigrants.
Then Reagan fucked that up pandering to ignorant fears. So now it's a one way trip.
Two years ago there were whole fields rotting becasue there where no immigrants, and no locals would pick cabbage.
The farmer was offering 10 - 12 and hour PLUS benefits. Acres just rotted.
Now you could argue that they shuodl pay for, except farming respond to other fixed factors.
I wonder what people would do when all there produce started costing 5 times + in price?
Have you ever picked? I have, for 3 hours and walked away. It's a damn tough job, and anyone who could would find other work for the price.
Immigrants I have lived near have all been hard working people, doing crap jobs and instilling strong work ethic into their kids so their kids don't have to pick.
Really, there needs to be a quick to get seasonal Visa for farm workers.
"Our federal government hands out money hand over fist for welfare, health benefit and education to people that have no legal right to be here."
No, not really to that degree. Also, people who work here pay taxes on their income. They will never get SS, but they pay into it.
Besides, since they can't reasonably go back after season anymore, they stay. This wouldn't be an issue if they could go back.
Add to that the fact that the cost of securing the border would be more then the money immigrants might be getting in services.
It's not like they come here and take bankers job, or tech jobs.
Don't even get me started on what it would take to send them all back.
Re:I guess I'm not suprised (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Forget black or female president... (Score:4, Interesting)
As well, I'd argue that there have already been atheist/agnostic people as president of the USA. While seperate, many of the founding fathers were at the least deists, believing that God has no influence on the universe, having set it in motion.
However I agree that someone who went around openly proclaiming they don't believe in God would stand very very little chance of getting elected as president currently.
After all, atheists are usually really elitist, right? -_- While the movie had some issues, I've long been fond of a quote from senator Gracchus in the film Gladiator.
"I do not pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people."
Why should it be a bad thing for someone to be from the "elite"(whatever that means) as long as they're trying their best to be FOR the people?
Yes he is muslim (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Last I checked the United States of America was a country with a clear separation of church and state. Why do you CARE if he is a muslim, a christian, a jew , a hindu or an athiest? All you should care about is if he is a good president. Don't give me the hogwash about his religion influencing his actions. Do not vote for a president because he is swayed by his religious beliefs, NOT because he belongs to a particular religion. Don't vote for him even if he is a christian.
Don't vote for barak obama because he is black either, just as you wouldn't want someone to not vote for him because he is black. Either way its racism. Race, religion and sexual orientation are all irrelevant to his ability to run this country. But no. thats too much work for you isn't it? Its much easier to be ignorant and prejudiced than to be informed and fair.
Will he be a better president and have better policies than John McCain? That's what you should be thinking about. That's it. NOTHING else. So what if Barak Obama is a Gay, Muslim, Black man? If you think any of those three inherently affects his ability to run this country, then you are ignorant and frankly shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?
That means, quoted recently, specificly addressing this crisis; not quotes showing they said years ago "well, in the future when the mortgage default crisis is going to cause a liquidity crisis in the world, our theoretical analysis is going to recommend that no action should be taken."
I'm not going to do your homework for you because it sounds like you've already decided what to believe. Anyone who wants to find members of the Austrian school who predicted this disaster can look at Wikipedia's List of Austrian School Economists [wikipedia.org], select the younger individuals and find numerous articles. This is no surprise, since the current crisis is a textbook example of the business cycle recession/depression which Mises and Hayek (two Austrian economists) characterized.
American politicians used to talk a lot about the free market, while actually guiding the country in the opposite direction. Reagan used to quote Hayek, but his administration had a huge deficit spending binge. I also love how people now quote Greenspan for saying how he was mistaken about the free market, as if he could have a credible opinion on the subject.
Having the chairman of a central bank talk about the free market is like akin to asking a concentration camp director's opinion regarding liberty.
Re:I guess I'm not suprised (Score:5, Interesting)
In a market economy, that's a clear example of not paying sufficiently.
So how much are you prepared to pay for your cabbage? Farmers aren't going to let themselves make a loss on it...
Re:Not Muslim, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Catholics gave up crusading a few centuries ago. Islam seems to be getting into that "phase" now, which makes sense to me, as Islam started several centuries later.
Re:And even if he was (Score:2, Interesting)
Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.
That's the really poisonous part of it. It's no longer necessary to get anything substantive on a politician. All you have to do is come up with some niggling, but embarrassing, fact. Then lay on the full-court press so that the pissant allegation will be denied ever more fervently to save face. Then you slipstream it into an unrelated investigation. (Questions about Monica during an investigation into acts with a different woman.) Once it''s denied in court, no one gives a shit about the original subject of the investigation -- you got him where you really want him.
IOW, pusillanimous bullshit -- all of it.
And then, having shit away incredible time and resources, you blame him for the disruption to the country's business. The true mark of the coward.
Also please note -- Of all the craps who were involved in the business about Clinton, only two came out with intact first marriages -- Bill Clinton and Orrin Hatch. The rest had ignominiously tossed away at least one previous wife. Especially that nefarious, duplicitous, hypocritical fuckface, Newt Gingrich. And he was barely even chastised by those other holy hypocrites, the fundamentalist sons of bitches who helped the whole gang get into office.
And how about Gingrich's first putative Republican replacement as speaker of the house? He pleaded that an extramarital affair was "just the mistake of a young man". Jesus Holy Christ -- the motherfucker was a full forty years old. Young man, my ass -- he was nothing but a burned-out lecher well beyond his prime. Goddamned whore-spawn.
Holy shit captcha = prejudge
Re:And even if he was (Score:3, Interesting)
What does it matter you bigoted, hateful bastards?
Hell, his muslim connections are one of the two reasons I like the man for the job. Having muslims in the family (his middle name is Hussein after all) and having lived in a moderate muslim society (indonesia) as a kid, he is one of the few politicians who has significant direct personal experience with muslims and thus I believe he will not participate in the continuing, counter-productive demonization that we've seen since 9/11. While I doubt he can single-handedly stop the fear-mongering towards muslims (and I don't have high hopes he's got the cojones to stand up and say that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself with respect to terrorists) I do expect him to lead a radical shift for the better in the discourse on the topic.
And, in case anyone cares, the other reason I like him for the job is because he is black. Yeah, but not just "jesse jackson" black - HAWAIIAN black. There aren't too many popolos (blacks) in Hawaii but if there is one state the embodies the ideals of the "great american mixing pot" it is Hawaii. The state is FULL of prejudice and bigotry. But it is an entirely different sort than exists here on the mainland. A gentler and more understanding sort. I think Hawaii's interracial culture is probably the best compromise that we can expect to see in a country as mixed as the USA where there are pulls to both homogenize the culture and to remain distinct.
Based on him spending many of his formative years right in the middle of Hawaiian-style ethnic integration, I think it is no surprise that he is the first black man to have a serious shot the US presidency - he is not mentally chained to the same antagonistic racial perceptions that people on the mainland have way too much of. When the whole thing with his church blew up in the press and he made a speech about racial issues in the USA I could hear very strong echoes of Hawaii in the way he addressed the issue. I think any kaamaina listening to that speech heard it too.
So, if I like him for these reasons, well then its only fair that it is OK for some people to dislike him for the very same reasons. I think they are ignoramuses for it, but I can't call them any more bigoted than I am. But then I believe in the Hawaiian way and think that being color blind is probably the worst way to deal with ethnic differences. The knife does cut both ways.
Re:I wouldn't be so sure if I were you (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Osama Bin Laden can call President George W. Bush a Muslim for efficiently doing something that he couldn't do - increase membership to al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't make Geroge W. Bush a Muslim. When I visit my relatives in Iran, the government of Iran considers me a Muslim, but I don't consider myself one, and I'm not. They don't ask me to pray five times a day and don't quiz me on the Koran upon entering the country. And so what if Senator Obama WAS a Muslim? There is no way Obama would be able to suddenly install Sharia Law all over America (which is what most people fear) without approval from Congress and the American people. He would be impeached for treason immediately.
There are many American Muslims that would be certainly qualified for Presidency. There are also many Muslims that serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, but I don't see you bitching about them. So it's okay for them to die for this country, but not okay to lead it?
I couldn't care less about a candidate's religion unless they wore it on their sleeve and wanted to pass laws and executive orders that changed the way I lived. This is precisely why the current crop of Republicans concern me, because they abandoned their "small Government" platform and went after the evangelical vote. They started pandering to the very people who want ME to follow their laws, their version of history, and their Bible. I am willing to vote for a Muslim, a Christian, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, an Atheist, and a Satanist (etc.) as long as they lead the country with rational thinking, intelligence, and submit to the will of the American people, not the other way around.
Besides, Obama would not last a MINUTE in office if he became President, then suddenly said "GOTCHA, I'm an evil Muslim, and I'm going to enslave you infidels." :P
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
He posted anonymously because what he said was inflammatory crap and he knows it.
He, like a lot of people who don't seem to like free market ideals incorectly assume we have a free market right now in which we don't. It's like looking at a tree and saying I don't like dogs because the leaves make a mess.
Or to put the free market view he is exposing more in line with this current crisis, it is like saying someone moved into your neighborhood and all the sudden all the leaves turned brown and died, then fell off the trees, and you blamed that person instead of the season change. The problem we saw was a direct result of the government interfering with the markets who required things to happen that wouldn't normally happen. The market was anything but free otherwise the amount of bad debt being held would have been completely different. Companies and banks don't want to tie up money because someone cannot repay it. They were forced to by government regulation and in one case, an entire government sponsored enterprise was designed to specifically buy up that bad debt and spread it over more sound investments. The government ended up requiring them to pull to much risk in with little to no oversight which caused a landslide that helped start the problems we see today. And no, you can't blame it on one party either, both democrats and republicans were shunning regulation away. Bush attempted to get more oversight in 2003 which failed because of democrats just as much as republicans (got killed in comity by people taking campaign donations from the GSEs) and McCain attempted to do so in 2005 which suffered the same fate.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:1, Interesting)
like communists and astrologists, you libertardians cannot point to any actual examples of your retarded ideology actually working on a large scale in the real world.
Unlike communists and astrologists, you cannot point to any actual examples of libertarianism actually failing on a large scale in the real world.
Kennedy had this problem too (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a great deal of concern that, being Catholic, JFK might take his orders from the Pope, instead of enforcing the Constitution. Until he was elected, it was widely believed that only a Protestant could be elected President.
It all turned out to be bunk. Kennedy's religion did not dictate his policies, and neither will Barack Obama's.
The rumor of 'secret Muslim' is untrue, but more importantly, it's already been proven that his religion is irrelevant. Only his ability to "uphold the Constitution" and do what is best for America is important.
Those who religion is the relevant criterion seek to undermine the Constitution of this country.
Just read what Mike Hucakbee has to say about it:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx [msn.com]
Seriously, our Constitution avoids the mention of God for a freaking reason. The founders had a big problem with the head of the Church of England.
--
Toro
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
I say there still is a complete halt.
I can't get a consolidation on my private student loans. (well there's one provider with predatory variable rates)
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not Obama at all !
He just wants to kill any God (or anything else) that's nice to people with the wrong skin color [freewebs.com].
Obama's church believes that "AIDS was created by the US for black genocide".
Oh sorry I keep forgetting it's not racism when you're attacking the "right" skin color. Sorry I just seem to repeatedly get behind the times on what racism is allowed. Today's "positive" racism (excuse me discrimination) strikes me as equally hollow as hitler's "positive" discrimination (he actually used the same term you know), but I guess I better get with the program.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some quotes [wikipedia.org] on the efficacy of the austrian school:
This rings a bell [intelligentdesign.org]
So does every religion, extremist political ideology, and dingbat fringe cult.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean like "we'll tax 5% of the people and give it to the other 95%" class warfare thing?
Re:woah woah woah (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to use the "wives submit to your husbands" line, I'll ask that you continue reading from there. The statement is given in the reverse as well. I don't see how anyone can make much of an issue that wives and husbands should submit to and serve one another in marriage.
That's simply wrong. There's no bible verse that says "husbands, submit to your wives", or that describes the husband and wife as equals.
Here's the quote you were talking about, for reference:
So, yeah -- wives must obey their husbands, and husbands should "nourish and cherish" their wives as they lead & command them. Sorry, but that's a far cry from the modern concept of equal partners in a marriage.
Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't you pay attention to what it says?
It's a recommendation on how you should behave, not a requirement. Just like in an RFC, the difference between "must", and "should" is important.