2016 Presidential Horse Race

[pkt77242]

You could be right. But why should we put American boots on the ground to fight these bastards, and at the same time open our borders to so called refugees fleeing the region who are military age men? Let them fight for their own land.

Most (or even a large percentage) of the refugees aren't men of military age.

Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees

 

[NDgradstudent]

How is Trump's proposal different in kind from current immigration law concerning the admissibility of Communists? It may be imprudent, or unworkable, or whatever, but to claim that the main objection is moral -we shouldn't "discriminate" on the basis of religious or political affiliation when deciding who to admit- contradicts current practice.

 

[Grahambo]

You could be right. But why should we put American boots on the ground to fight these bastards, and at the same time open our borders to so called refugees fleeing the region who are military age men? Let them fight for their own land.

I know I'm right as I've seen the work up close.

I'm not saying ours, just real boots on the ground in general. Pointing out how terrible of a fight they would put up. Not just hyperbole; I know for a fact.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm using the exact same statistics and Pew research Syria is using. And it's NOT a poll of 1.6 billion people and it's NOT about Sharia Law, etc.

They're asking Muslims of the United States (approximately 2.6 million people I think) questions, and they're getting answers that show unequivocally that hundreds of thousands of them are willing to publicly admit in a poll to being in some fashion or another at least somewhat not against Islamic extremist terrorism.

Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism | Pew Research Center

What i'm saying is that statistical polling has varied depending on what you use. Furthermore, I find it odd that you are using the numbers of this particular poll to paint a broad brush of hatred on the religion as a whole, as that was not their finding in that article at all.

Direct quote from the Pew Poll you linked:

Opposition to violence is broadly shared by all segments of the Muslim American population, and there is no correlation between support for suicide bombing and measures of religiosity such as strong religious beliefs or mosque attendance. Yet opposition to extremism is more pronounced among some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others.

Overall, just 5% of Muslim Americans express even somewhat favorable opinions of al Qaeda. Yet hostility toward al Qaeda varies – 75% of foreign-born U.S. Muslims say they have a very unfavorable opinion of al Qaeda, compared with 62% of all native-born Muslims and 56% of native-born African American Muslims. However, the proportion of African American Muslims expressing very unfavorable opinions of al Qaeda has increased from 39% four years ago.

In the same token, I don't see how a poll showing that 5% of american muslims support Al Qaeda should lead to the findings many of you have. Hell... I can find polls that paint way worse brushes on other communities.

Worldwide it would be far, far worse. Most of the polling I've seen is of American or European Muslims. No, that's not a representative sample of the worldwide population, but the westerners are likely to be among the most moderate of the lot. If you start polling the Muslims who live in societies that stone women for adultery, the extremism statistics are going to skew even higher.

Regardless of whether we can calculate an accurate number of radicals with a 95% confidence interval, the answer is without a doubt non-zero and significant.

Would it? Do you know that the 23M Chinese muslims are more extremist than others? The reality is this... that you are making broad generalizations and painting the entire 1.6 Billion person demographic as holding this higher level of extremism. One that many are now calling for extreme actions to combat.

 

[pkt77242]

I wish I could unsee it.
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:ca125632-4fd0-4237-991d-82b761c490bc" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">Get More: <a href="http://www.cc.com">Comedy Central</a>,<a href="http://www.cc.com/funny-videos">Funny Videos</a>,<a href="http://www.cc.com/shows">Funny TV Shows</a></p></div></div>

 

[GoIrish41]

What evidence do you have this will actually happen?

We know that it has not happened in France, Sweden, or Belgium (notoriously right-wing countries).

We know that it didn't happen for the Boston Bomber Brothers, who grew up 'American' in that appalling right-wing city of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Again, Japan does not have this problem. Why not? Because it doesn't let in tons of immigrants. Terrorists are deliberately taking advantage of our stupid, relaxed immigration policies. We are now paying the price.

As to your first question .... We have tried support to brutal dictatorships that led to religious zealots taking American hostages and blowing up military bases. We've tried no fly zones, bombing campaigns, invasions, occupations, supplying weapons to freedom fighters, blind loyalty to their sworn enemies in Israel, and nation building. This is all evidence that aggression and meddling does not work. Indeed, all of these things led to a steady escalation of violence and hatred. The only thing we have never tried is leaving and not going back. So I ask you, what evidence do you have that what I am proposing would not work? Your vast understanding of Muslim culture is evident as is your capacity for human understanding. Avoiding confrontation instead of provoking it is a novel concept, I know.

As to the rest ... It's all nonsensical. The West has not done any of the things I suggested and you point to contemporary examples of the backlash that has occurred in the absence of no shifts in policy as proof that what I said is a failed concept. As usual I am dumbfounded by the absence of logical connections in your comments. It's all about hate for "them" with you and it is tiresome.

 

[Wild Bill]

Most (or even a large percentage) of the refugees aren't men of military age.

Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees

21% of 2.1 million registered are men ranging in age from 18-59. Am I reading that right? Holy fuck.

 

[IrishLax]

What i'm saying is that statistical polling has varied depending on what you use. Furthermore, I find it odd that you are using the numbers of this particular poll to paint a broad brush of hatred on the religion as a whole, as that was not their finding in that article at all.

Direct quote from the Pew Poll you linked:


In the same token, I don't see how a poll showing that 5% of american muslims support Al Qaeda should lead to the findings many of you have. Hell... I can find polls that paint way worse brushes on other communities.

Really? I'd love to see the poll where 1 in 20 American Christians admit to having a favorable view of terrorism, and where only 60% American born Christians have a "very unfavorable" view of the KKK or equivalent... though even the modern KKK is a stretch to Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that poll doesn't exist, I'm saying I haven't seen it.

 

[NDgradstudent]

As to your first question .... We have tried support to brutal dictatorships that led to religious zealots taking American hostages and blowing up military bases. We've tried no fly zones, bombing campaigns, invasions, occupations, supplying weapons to freedom fighters, blind loyalty to their sworn enemies in Israel, and nation building. This is all evidence that aggression and meddling does not work. Indeed, all of these things led to a steady escalation of violence and hatred. The only thing we have never tried is leaving and not going back. So I ask you, what evidence do you have that what I am proposing would not work? Your vast understanding of Muslim culture is evident as is your capacity for human understanding. Avoiding confrontation instead of provoking it is a novel concept, I know.

As to the rest ... It's all nonsensical. The West has not done any of the things I suggested and you point to contemporary examples of the backlash that has occurred in the absence of no shifts in policy as proof that what I said is a failed concept. As usual I am dumbfounded by the absence of logical connections in your comments. It's all about hate for "them" with you and it is tiresome.

There is no government of "The West." There are different governments with different policies. Other than the U.K., none of the countries I mentioned (France, Belgium, and Sweden) were involved in the Iraq War. The Muslims don't seem fazed by the fact that these countries were not involved in the Iraq War, so I'm not sure what difference it would make. Even so, I agree with you- we should stop invading the world. We should also stop inviting the world.

Jews are fleeing France because they cannot go to their synagogue, nor can Jewish children go to their school, nor can they even walk outside without military protection. This is the result of mass Muslim immigration to these countries.

 

[GoIrish41]

I work with a Coptic Christian whose family is originally from Egypt and she still has relatives who still lives there.They have no connection to the US or any European country and their culture predates the Muslim invasion of Egypt, yet they are still persecuted and in some instances killed. How does there situation fit into the above scenario?

We were discussing US security with regard to our dealings in the Middle East so I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. If you could be more specific I will try. Until then, there would likely be serious moral and ethical consequences if we pulled out of the Middle East and let them run their region as they see fit. There would probably be humanitarian disasters and untold cruelty. But from a US security standpoint we would have to avoid the temptation to inject ourselves in them. It is sad and disturbing, I know, but if they didn't have oil we most certainly would not care anyway. Remove our addiction to oil and our involvement in their affairs and we would be safer at home. Not saying that the world would suddenly hold hands and sing Cumbria, but the threat to our country would be diminished and that is what my post was addressing.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The short answer ... Yes.I believe that over time their aggression would fade. In addition, I believe that this action would remove one of their most effective recruiting tools -- destroying the great Satan that is the United States. This, in turn, would reduce the numbers of "radicalized" (I hate this term) individuals in our country and reduce the threat of violence.

This country seems unwilling or unable to understand the mindset and the built up frustrations that have led to the type of anger that leads them to these violent acts. We talk about their religion as if we understand it. We use terms like "fighting ... a defensive jihad" and "offensive jihad," but the word jihad does not mean "war". A jihad is not fought. It is an individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection -- to strive in the way of Allah. The Western world has hijacked the term to mean holy war. It even appears in most dictionaries that way, even though Muslim scholars regularly try to correct the flawed definition. While jihad holds a very important status in the doctrine of Islam, it has nothing to do with holy war. The term Sharia law as well is widely misused and corrupted and changed to fit the fear mongering narrative on the right to keep churning the cycle that I described in my previous post. These new definitions are used to scare people and to drum up support for the holy war that many on the right seem to want to happen.

The point is that we don't seek to understand anything about these people, what makes them tick, WHY they are so angry. Instead, we assign meaning to language in their sacred texts, paint them as evil, and impose ourselves on them in their own lands -- all because they have lots and lots of oil. Becauses let's face it ... if they didn't have oil we wouldn't give a shit about the Middle East. Hateful, brainless, misinformed rhetoric like Trump's and all of the people who repeat the same and other stupid things over and over again make the hatreds run deeper and more profound. We are taught from a young age that the best way to avoid being stung is to avoid the bee hive. We've ignored that sound advice of our youth and instead chose to whack it with a stick. Maybe its time to put the stick down and walk away.

The short answer: you are naive in regards to the enemy. All that information from my previous post...think I pulled that outta my ass? No. I've read countless books/ watched documentaries from former CIA/ FBI people who were tracking these shitheads for years before 9/11 happened. I educated myself and learned about the different factions of radical Islam and what motivates them.

The idea that the US pulling out of the Middle East will bring us all peace and harmony is beyond sad.

Robert Baer
Michael Scheuer
Louis Freeh

 

[woolybug25]

Really? I'd love to see the poll where 1 in 20 American Christians admit to having a favorable view of terrorism, and where only 60% American born Christians have a "very unfavorable" view of the KKK or equivalent... though even the modern KKK is a stretch to Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that poll doesn't exist, I'm saying I haven't seen it.

How about 56% of Americans being racist?
Poll: Majority of Americans are racist against blacks

Or this Galloup poll showing the percentage of people in each religion that believe killing civilians is sometimes necessary?

Or how about their feelings on the military killing civilians?

Or how about 8% of Americans believing that Elvis is still alive?
Poll: For a Few True Believers, Elvis Lives | Fox News

The fact remains that polls have always, and will always, be twisted to fit an agenda. Just like how the positive statistics in the article you linked are being used in the opposite manner they were presented in the article.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The fact remains that polls have always, and will always, be twisted to fit an agenda. Just like how the positive statistics in the article you linked are being used in the opposite manner they were presented in the article.

The message is clear: because all people are equally violent, you'd be just as a "safe" as a Christian or Jew living in America as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

The short answer: you are naive in regards to the enemy. All that information from my previous post...think I pulled that outta my ass? No. I've read countless books/ watched documentaries from former CIA/ FBI people who were tracking these shitheads for years before 9/11 happened. I educated myself and learned about the different factions of radical Islam and what motivates them.

The idea that the US pulling out of the Middle East will bring us all peace and harmony is beyond sad.

Did any of those books define the word "jihad?" Or "sharia law?" Because the way you toss those words around betrays your perceived understanding of Islam. Perhaps add some books to your reading list from the other side. We have never been anything but aggressive and manipulative in the Middle East since our lust for oil began. The more aggressive and manipulative we are, the worse our problem gets. Who is "the enemy" you are talking about, anyway? You seem to want to lump all Muslims into one giant evil hoard ready to kill every American. There are some crazy power hungry assholes recruiting troubled people to join their cause over Twitter. They have raised an Army that we could easily defeat militarily only to be replaced by crazier and more pissed off assholes. It's been like this my entire life always ratcheting up as we double down on the same destructive shit we always do. Get a grip, son. Try expanding your understanding instead of seeking sources to confirm what you already "know."

 

[Cackalacky]

The message is clear: because all people are equally violent, you'd be just as a "safe" as a Christian or Jew living in America as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Really? I'd love to see the poll where 1 in 20 American Christians admit to having a favorable view of terrorism, and where only 60% American born Christians have a "very unfavorable" view of the KKK or equivalent... though even the modern KKK is a stretch to Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that poll doesn't exist, I'm saying I haven't seen it.

According to a recent YouGov poll, 4% (1 in 25) of the population believes it is morally acceptable to use violence to stop an abortion. It's 6% of the Republicans polled. They don't break it down by religion.

52% of those polled believed that actions like the one in Colorado Springs should be considered terrorism.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...t/ebn4roofxg/tabs_HP_OP_Abortion_20151203.pdf

Not a direct answer to your question, but it gives some data on a related topic.

 

[woolybug25]

The message is clear: because all people are equally violent, you'd be just as a "safe" as a Christian or Jew living in America as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.

No comment on my last comment pointing out the bigotry you presented when you said that we should follow an immigration policy like Japan's model that credits "one nation, one civilization, one language, one culture and one race"

No?


Just wanted to add a quick one liner quip?


Cool...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Did any of those books define the word "jihad?" Or "sharia law?" Because the way you toss those words around betrays your perceived understanding of Islam. Perhaps add some books to your reading list from the other side. We have never been anything but aggressive and manipulative in the Middle East since our lust for oil began. The more aggressive and manipulative we are, the worse our problem gets. Who is "the enemy" you are talking about, anyway? You seem to want to lump all Muslims into one giant evil hoard ready to kill every American. There are some crazy power hungry assholes recruiting troubled people to join their cause over Twitter. They have raised an Army that we could easily defeat militarily only to be replaced by crazier and more pissed off assholes. It's been like this my entire life always ratcheting up as we double down on the same destructive shit we always do. Get a grip, son. Try expanding your understanding instead of seeking sources to confirm what you already "know."

So many assumptions from you with so little information. The books/ documentaries weren't written from the "left" or "right" spectrum. These people were anti-terrorism officials who have no political skin in the game. They followed, tracked, interpreted, and even interrogated some really bad people hell bent on destroying the West in the name of Allah. Hell, there are good books now about US agents infiltrating these jihadist groups.

Even if you were lazy and just Googled each of those names above, you'd find that 2 of the 3 (Baer and Scheuer) are VERY critical of George W Bush and that administration, so no I don't have a library full of authors telling me what I want to hear. And don't tell me to expand my understanding...I've taught you more about radical Islam in the past 24 hours than your head can handle.

 

[ND NYC]

is that clip from the new one? always knew 3PO fancied himself a dancer.
cant wait!

 

[GoIrish41]

There is no government of "The West." There are different governments with different policies. Other than the U.K., none of the countries I mentioned (France, Belgium, and Sweden) were involved in the Iraq War. The Muslims don't seem fazed by the fact that these countries were not involved in the Iraq War, so I'm not sure what difference it would make. Even so, I agree with you- we should stop invading the world. We should also stop inviting the world.

Jews are fleeing France because they cannot go to their synagogue, nor can Jewish children go to their school, nor can they even walk outside without military protection. This is the result of mass Muslim immigration to these countries.

I can think of no reasons why ISIS would have a beef with those three historic allies of Israel. smh!

 

[Cackalacky]

is that clip from the new one? always knew 3PO fancied himself a dancer.
cant wait!

Yes. His central processor has been replaced though. Now, instead of a protocol droid he is a racist Anglophilliac.

And if you look hard enough there are a couple of dirty Jawas hiding behind him waiting for the right moment to stun him.

 

[woolybug25]

I've taught you more about radical Islam in the past 24 hours than your head can handle.

The grandiose image you have of yourself is beyond comical.

Wait... Wait... Wait.... I got it... Let me guess... "You don't give a sh!t about what people think of you", right?

lolz

 

[GoIrish41]

So many assumptions from you with so little information. The books/ documentaries weren't written from the "left" or "right" spectrum. These people were anti-terrorism officials who have no political skin in the game. They followed, tracked, interpreted, and even interrogated some really bad people hell bent on destroying the West in the name of Allah. Hell, there are good books now about US agents infiltrating these jihadist groups.

Even if you were lazy and just Googled each of those names above, you'd find that 2 of the 3 (Baer and Scheuer) are VERY critical of George W Bush and that administration, so no I don't have a library full of authors telling me what I want to hear. And don't tell me to expand my understanding...I've taught you more about radical Islam in the past 24 hours than your head can handle.

Who said anything about left and right? Try reading some books from the other side ... meaning from the Muslim/Middle Eastern perspective. Guys who have spent their careers interrogating Muslim bad guys are going to have a certain world view. People from places that have been bombed, invaded and occupied may have another take on all this. The only thing you taught me is that you have a narrow perspective of the situation and what you think is gospel would just make things worse.

 

[NDgradstudent]

No comment on my last comment pointing out the bigotry you presented when you said that we should follow an immigration policy like Japan's model that credits "one nation, one civilization, one language, one culture and one race"

I actually didn't see your comment on this point, but I'm happy to reply. That is a accurate description of Japan's demography. So what? The case for a limit on immigration doesn't only apply to Japan for that reason. Nor does your comment respond to my main point, which is that Japan doesn't have a homegrown Muslim terrorism problem because of its immigration policy. Sweden is also racially homogenous, but has Muslim terrorism problems that Japan does not. Surely increased diversity is not worth skyrocketing rates of rape?

In any case, a racially diverse country would be no different. America has been racially diverse for all of its history, but homegrown Muslim terrorism has not been a problem here, until now.

Your view is that any and all Muslims (in fact, any and all anybody) should be allowed to immigrate to the US. Right?

 

[Cackalacky]

I actually didn't see your comment on this point, but I'm happy to reply. That is a accurate description of Japan's demography. So what? The case for a limit on immigration doesn't only apply to Japan for that reason. Nor does your comment respond to my main point, which is that Japan doesn't have a homegrown Muslim terrorism problem because of its immigration policy. Sweden is also racially homogenous, but has Muslim terrorism problems that Japan does not. Surely increased diversity is not worth skyrocketing rates of rape?

In any case, a racially diverse country would be no different. America has been racially diverse for all of its history, but homegrown Muslim terrorism has not been a problem here, until now.

Your view is that any and all Muslims (in fact, any and all anybody) should be allowed to immigrate to the US. Right?

Who is the author of that blog you authoritatively linked to. Just curious. A quick examination of it yielded no authorship. I also did a Google search and no results returned for the name of the blog.

 

[woolybug25]

I actually didn't see your comment on this point, but I'm happy to reply. That is a accurate description of Japan's demography. So what? The case for a limit on immigration doesn't only apply to Japan for that reason. Nor does your comment respond to my main point, which is that Japan doesn't have a homegrown Muslim terrorism because of its immigration policy. Sweden is also racially homogenous, but has Muslim terrorism problems that Japan does not. Surely increased diversity is not worth skyrocketing rates of rape?

In any case, a racially diverse country would be no different. America has been racially diverse for all of its history, but homegrown Muslim terrorism has not been a problem here, until now.

Your view is that any and all Muslims (in fact, any and all anybody) should be allowed to immigrate to the US. Right?

I feel that any and all PEOPLE that go through the proper channels should be allowed to immigrate to the US. I feel like a "religious test" for citizenship would be unconstitutional for one, completely untestable (what are you going to do, force them to eat some pork before getting a green card), and most of all... immoral.

I don't feel like race, religion or creed should come into play when it comes to our immigration policy. A person's history, intent and desire to be a valuable member of our country is what matters. And you don't find that by asking them what god they believe in.

You are the one that is claiming that by letting less races into our country (you know there are white muslims, right?) that we would somehow be safer. Now claiming that more diversity equals more rape (are you fuqing kidding me)? Please explain to us how that isn't some of the most bigoted stuff you have posted on here? Which is saying something, coming from you. How you are still allowed to post the racist, homophobic and downright hateful stuff you do is beyond me.

 

[GoIrish41]

Who is the author of that blog you authoritatively linked to. Just curious. A quick examination of it yielded no authorship. I also did a Google search and no results returned for the name of the blog.

He wrote it himself. Lol

 

[NDgradstudent]

I feel that any and all PEOPLE that go through the proper channels should be allowed to immigrate to the US. I feel like a "religious test" for citizenship would be unconstitutional for one, completely untestable (what are you going to do, force them to eat some pork before getting a green card), and most of all... immoral.

I don't feel like race, religion or creed should come into play when it comes to our immigration policy. A person's history, intent and desire to be a valuable member of our country is what matters. And you don't find that by asking them what god they believe in.

Current law forbids the admission of members of Communist parties. You reject this, I assume? Is it also unconstitutional?

You are the one that is claiming that by letting less races into our country (you know there are white muslims, right?) that we would somehow be safer. Now claiming that more diversity equals more rape (are you fuqing kidding me)?

Letting "less races" (?) into the country? The question is how many immigrants, and particularly how many from Muslim countries, of any race, should be let in.

In Sweden's case, more "diversity" has meant increased Muslim immigration, and this has meant more rape. Immigration has had the same effects in Norway and Finland; indeed, in most European countries. Data is not false just because you dislike it.

Please explain to us how that isn't some of the most bigoted stuff you have posted on here? Which is saying something, coming from you. How you are still allowed to post the racist, homophobic and downright hateful stuff you do is beyond me.

Yes, let's ban all opinions that you disagree with. That'll make IE so much more interesting to read.

 

[woolybug25]

Current law forbids the admission of members of Communist parties. You reject this, I assume? Is it also unconstitutional?

Honestly, I do reject it. While I do not ignore the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act exists, I don't agree with it (neither did Truman, who tried to veto it) and it's been continuously revised over time. Hell, it used to not let homosexuals in because of "mental deficiency" (something i'm sure you agree with). One of those amendments was the following:

In addition to these exceptions to ineligibility, there is also a waiver available in the case of the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a U.S. citizen; or the spouse, son, or daughter of a lawful permanent resident. The applicant must be seeking admission for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or for other reasons serving the public interest. The applicant must not be a threat to U.S. security and must merit a positive discretionary finding. INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iv).

Procedurally speaking, the government asks about communist party membership in the immigrant visa application form (DS-260) and the adjustment application form (I-485). The applicant and counsel should be prepared for related questions during the interview and should document eligibility for a waiver or the applicability of an exception to the ground of inadmissibility. A legal brief may be helpful.

Which renders it legal for a communist with no ill intention to come. Furthermore, there are currently 230M communists living in this country. So they certainly aren't banned, albeit a political belief I think we can all agree is ill conceived.

Letting "less races" (?) into the country? The question is how many immigrants, and particularly how many from Muslim countries, of any race, should be let in.

In Sweden's case, more "diversity" has meant increased Muslim immigration, and this has meant more rape. Immigration has had the same effects in Norway and Finland; indeed, in most European countries. Data is not false just because you dislike it.

The fact that you would use diversity as the reason for more rape in Sweden shows how you simply grab "facts" that only drive your preconceived notions. What you failed to mention (although I am sure you are well aware) is that Sweden also started reporting their rape statistics per occurrence, not victim. Which means a woman that was raped 10 times by her boyfriend is 10 rapes, while that is one "rape case" reported in say... Japan. Furthermore, in 2005 there was reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before. The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they'd been recorded as another category of crime. So an on-the-face-of-it international comparison of rape statistics can be misleading. Next you will tell me that the countries that report zero rapes in their statistics like Liechtenstein and Mongolia must simply have their "muslim problem" figured out. Give me a break with that level of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, let's ban all opinions that you disagree with. That'll make IE so much more interesting to read.

Save the passive aggressive bullsh!t for one of your golf buddies. There are tons of people on here that have different opinions than me on a variety of topics, and not only do we debate in a respectful way, we consider eachother friends. You on the other hand... simply pop in here, say something racist/sexist/homophobic/etc and then try to cherry pick information to somehow justify your preconceived bigotry. You're essentially the Trump of IE.

 

[pkt77242]

21% of 2.1 million registered are men ranging in age from 18-59. Am I reading that right? Holy fuck.

Yes but that is too broad of a range to draw any conclusions.