Why are Muslims so angry?

[AntiFritz]

Why am I in offtopic again...?

[Drum]

I don't like the way the discussion is being framed, but it's basically the medieval culture, which is partly informed by the medieval religion + general human idiocy. Islam is generally a lot less 'flexible' than a bunch of other religions due to the hard emphasis on tying the religion fundamentally into the political/legal structure, so it doesn't mix well with secular mediation laws or indeed other cultures at all (though it is otherwise friendly enough in a passive-aggressive sort of way). Of course, you can go back to actual medieval times and Islam was a beacon of enlightenment by comparison. Obviously western military aggression has a lot to do with it as well.

[moh]

for the record, I haven't read any of this thread.

though i AM muslim.

and im not angry..

i'm a bit hungry, but not angry.

time to make me some burgers.

[Ed Oscuro]

and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

If you can refactor what I wrote in 100 words, and not leave anything out, then I'll be impressed. But it takes time to condense an argument, and I've already taken enough of my time just writing it the first time. A comprehensive history of Islam in 100 words...sure thing bro. In any case, it's not a problem if you learned to skim read. Have to wonder how you made it through a grad school with that attitude, seriously. Also congrats on another self-serving thread hijack!

I don't see how citing CMoon makes your post immune to a comment for getting Islam wrong.

It doesn't, Ed. But it does mean that I was just looking for an answer from CMoon on what he meant by the word leaders as it could mean political leaders,

My point is that you shouldn't have to spread misinformation to do that.

...and 4) Ed probably knows more than us, at least I'm led to believe so based on word count.

I don't know how much Ed actually knows about subjects he chimes in on,

I'm pretty sure everything I wrote can be easily verified (and if not I can at least point you in the direction of articles to help out). If you have something in particular, please ask - but I can't work with passive-aggressive, petulant bullshit.

for the record, I haven't read any of this thread.

though i AM muslim.

and im not angry..

i'm a bit hungry, but not angry.

time to make me some burgers.

I'm a Hindu and that offends me.

[CMoon]

Actually, at this late point in the game, its really damn hard to offend me. Shmups with lifebars? Ninja Gaiden 3? Beer with ice cream? Remake of Total Recall? C'mon, whaddya got?

Edit: Even Nijska wanting to kill/eat every endangered species doesn't offend me, it just makes me disappointed. That's about where we're at as a species. One big collective sigh coz we can't be arsed to actually be offended. I'd be offended if I didn't have to get off my ass and like wave my fist in the air or something. That sounds like a lot of work.

[Ed Oscuro]

Actually, at this late point in the game, its really damn hard to offend me. Shmups with lifebars? Ninja Gaiden 3? Beer with ice cream? Remake of Total Recall? C'mon, whaddya got?

Edit: Even Nijska wanting to kill/eat every endangered species doesn't offend me, it just makes me disappointed. That's about where we're at as a species. One big collective sigh coz we can't be arsed to actually be offended. I'd be offended if I didn't have to get off my ass and like wave my fist in the air or something. That sounds like a lot of work.

Belly laugh here, thanks for that! Much needed at this late stage in the game. Every thing you listed there...oh man

[Ex-Cyber]

I'm not sure it actually has a lot to do with Islam/Muslims specifically. Perhaps I'm suffering from confirmation bias, but it seems to me that most of the violent rhetoric and action comes from those whose people have experienced violent struggle against some sort of foreign power within their nations and within living memory (to put it another way, a personal experience of a tribal existential crisis). I think there's a strong possibility that the violence we're seeing is not merely part of the perpetrators' culture or religion, but part of their individual lives and memories, and one that is not easily dismissed, rationalized away, or otherwise overcome (do some reading on PTSD sometime if you think I'm being fatalistic or something; humans are not ideal beings, and it's some tough shit to deal with, even when it comes in the form of chronic stress rather than identifiable events). If Islam is the problem (as opposed to a problem, a status that I personally think it shares with all Abrahamic faiths*), where are all the seething, murderous Indonesian and Turkish people?

*: To briefly elaborate on this, the shared fundamental problem is the idea of an ultimate father figure for all humanity with the ability to set rules and issue rewards and punishments. This idea provides a deeply embedded cultural hook for power-hungry fuckers to co-opt. I tend to think that we just have a modicum of skepticism regarding power-hungry fuckers in the West due to the historical accident of WW2 having one as the Ultimate Bad Guy of All Time (and even he has his "Christian" sympathizers, e.g. the World Church of the Creator).

(Fuck; I still overuse appositions and parentheticals. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome malady?)

If you can refactor what I wrote in 100 words, and not leave anything out, then I'll be impressed. But it takes time to condense an argument, and as you see I've already taken enough of my time just writing it the first time. Have to wonder how you made it through a grad school with that attitude, seriously.

This reminds me of the famous quotation (which I don't seem to recall with sufficient precision to google) that goes something like "I apologize for the length of this letter; I didn't have time to write a shorter one."

Actually, at this late point in the game, its really damn hard to offend me. Shmups with lifebars? Ninja Gaiden 3? Beer with ice cream? Remake of Total Recall? C'mon, whaddya got?

I dunno; whaddya buyin'? Heh. Heard that in a game once.

[Ed Oscuro]

(Fuck; I still overuse appositions and parentheticals. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome malady?)

I know what a good STGT name would be for next year!

If you can refactor what I wrote in 100 words, and not leave anything out, then I'll be impressed. But it takes time to condense an argument, and as you see I've already taken enough of my time just writing it the first time. Have to wonder how you made it through a grad school with that attitude, seriously.

This reminds me of the famous quotation (which I don't seem to recall with sufficient precision to google) that goes something like "I apologize for the length of this letter; I didn't have time to write a shorter one."

My first impression was that it had to be Twain (it just sounds like him), but it's actually Blaise Pascal's. Here you go:
http://lettersrepublic.wordpress.com/20 ... ernet-lie/

Actually, at this late point in the game, its really damn hard to offend me. Shmups with lifebars? Ninja Gaiden 3? Beer with ice cream? Remake of Total Recall? C'mon, whaddya got?

I dunno; whaddya buyin'? Heh. Heard that in a game once.

RE4 shopkeeper, right? +100 to you! (Although I hesitate to mention it and rile njiska some more since that is what our last little tussle was about...)

[xbl0x180]

This situation seriously needs some major political figures in the Muslim community to denounce this violence, but maybe they're afraid of a general public willing to kill other people over slander???

See the problem is that most Muslims probably agree with everything that goes on. You almost never hear about Muslims denouncing violence ever. Either that, or they are too pussy to say what they believe to be right or wrong.

The whole religion gets way too much lea-way for no apparent reason.

I always found it funny that many Atheist always hate on Christians, but almost never say anything about any other religion. Maybe those people are afraid of Muslims also.

Hey, hey, hey there. I have absolute disdain for all religions alike

[Ed Oscuro]

Nothing sounds as classy as an atheist appropriating a famous racist hick trope!

This thread isn't about atheism; let's let the actual arguments run their course, please.

[Friendly]

This thread isn't about atheism

Exactly. Atheism is about sanity, religion insanity. I think that explains everything.

[Randorama]

Rando: Well aware about all the dumb shit Christians (and really all organized groups of people) have done it the past. I'm talking about where we are now. Fundies don't run rampant in the US because mainstream Christianity here is chilled out. I don't know why, but they seem a pretty relaxed bunch these days. Most aren't Jerry Falwell cockmonsters as you say.

I disagree, as you had 8 years of fundamentalists of "Christianity" doing all kind of undremocratic nonsense. I also think that, if one lists the zealot representatives in places of power, then one can get a list of damaging figures. No shi'as or whatnot, but e.g. Sarah Palin is clearly insane, unable to govern, and holds power by just invoking beliefs, even if they are inconsistent with any matter of fact.


Of course, when your government invades countries, slaughters people and imposes dictatorship, they don't use faith as an excuse, so I take it that we can't blame everything to fundamentalist christians. Well, maybe to "fanatics of Democracy", Democracy being "what the US tells you to do" (Chomsky, 2008). The key bit is that "we're not that weird here, we're rational" part is really not the point worth discussing, since it is not so true in the first place.

EDIT: and you're going to damn the world with Mitt Romney, so STFU on sanity, please.

Oh, and ban Ruldra for not endorsing Eugenics!

[Drum]

Romney is going to lose pretty hard, you needn't worry about that.

[ancestral-knowledge]

I just wanted to throw in a thing.
There are no "muslims". They come in different "flavours". As far as i know there are (only know the German terms): Sunniten, Aleviten, Schiiten, Ahmadiyya and maybe many more i don't know of. Muslims are not a homogenous mass and even these flavours fight each other to death. It's ridicilous. Mostly when you hear of "muslims" you only hear about the radical parts.

[dex]

1.) History: Muslims give us great astronomy, keep the spirit of philosophy alive in the Dark Ages, soap, and a convenient target for the Crusades. Somewhere along the line some real oppressive regimes (i.e. the terrible Ottoman Empire) and other accidents of history (the Middle East has been a crossroads for conquerors for a long while) I couldn't name about staunch much of the progress of the Muslim world.

While this is for the most part accurate, a lot of the Muslim progress was thwarted by the Imam Hamid al-Ghazali. He was a codifier of the faith and a respected theologian, similar to St. Augustine in Christianity. Around 12th century, he said that manupilating numbers was the work of the devil and Muslim science (which, as you rightly say, was a beacon of light against the European darkness) hasn't recovered since.

Also, it has to be said when comparing Christianity (reasonable people keeping nutjobs in check, even if it's a difficult struggle) with Islam that Islam is a much younger faith, and in many ways parallels Christianity. The timeline of Christianity was generally: conception, after a hundred years most of the faithful were accepting of other faiths and just wanted their own faith to grow and weren't THAT keen on violence (in Islam this is the period of philosophy and astronomy Ed mentions); then the faith begins to overtake others in the region. At this point, it becomes the most important faith and the ages of fundamentalism and violence begin (Inquisition, Crusades, etc.) because the fundamentalists are in power. Only after that stage passes do the reasonable people start keeping the fundamentalists in check. Sadly, Islam being younger, it still is in the 'take by the sword' phase more than any other religion. It didn't yet have enough apologists and reasonable, intelligent theologians who are willing to compromise with other faiths and with the criticisms from the modern world that Christianity had.

And by the way, nijska, I have to ask: what is wrong with an argument being a little Hitchens style? Yeah, he often made a point for 5 minutes when you could condense it to 10 seconds, but that's the point of rhetoric - to make the argument airtight and exhaustive. Hitchens was insanely good at that, and I don't see trying to ape his style as bad if it manages to get the points across (though I do wish he was a little less of a dick sometimes).

[Khan]

for the record, I haven't read any of this thread.

though i AM muslim.

and im not angry..

i'm a bit hungry, but not angry.

time to make me some burgers.

I'm Muslim too and all I'll say is wouldnt mind some burgers as well

I havent had much time to read through the thread but I believe alot of this comes down to the role the media has played who can forget when 9-11 happened the video where some palestinians celebrated and now according to the internet warriors america needs to bomb palestine now as retaliation for the handful of people who celebrated and who supposedly represent the entire Muslim population on planet earth . Its just a circle played infront of our eyes I think if you sit back and take a moment to think it through you realise that the people in these countries have have nothing to fall back on except their religion as it provides them with the psychological stability that is needed to survive in the conditions they live in. I also agree that the corrupt politicians in those less well off Muslim countries use religion as a powerful tool to stay in the political elite and it further doesnt help matters when our foreign policies and decisions to go to war with some of these countries over alledged weapons of mass destruction fail to provide the justification needed for those actions of course people in those countries will feel hostility towards the West they kinda have every right to.

I think it also boils down to 15 minutes of fame....there was a story where some christian priest was going to burn a 1000 copies of the Quran I cant remember what for but judging from the interview I saw at the time he seemed like he was just looking for publicity and it probably worked. I have that mindset if you say something that will offend somone wouldnt it be better not to say it? afterall if I was a murderer and I knocked onto my victims family door and said to his mother "Your son was a good kill his blood tasted like the most expensive champagne in the most expensive restaurant" it wouldnt be too wise now would it?

[CMoon]

I disagree, as you had 8 years of fundamentalists of "Christianity" doing all kind of undremocratic nonsense.

Bush administration used fundamentalism as a cover screen. At the end of his term Bush more or less admitted to manipulating that demographic. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can blame religion for all the bullshit our government does. I think what you're calling fundamentalism is actually just plain old greed and corruption.

I also think that, if one lists the zealot representatives in places of power, then one can get a list of damaging figures. No shi'as or whatnot, but e.g. Sarah Palin is clearly insane, unable to govern, and holds power by just invoking beliefs, even if they are inconsistent with any matter of fact.

Note that Sarah Palin probably lost the republicans the election in 2008. She scared the shit out of Americans, and this new republican VP candidate Paul Ryan seems to once again be doing the same trick.

Of course, when your government invades countries, slaughters people and imposes dictatorship, they don't use faith as an excuse, so I take it that we can't blame everything to fundamentalist christians. Well, maybe to "fanatics of Democracy", Democracy being "what the US tells you to do" (Chomsky, 2008). The key bit is that "we're not that weird here, we're rational" part is really not the point worth discussing, since it is not so true in the first place.

Yeah, I don't think it is religion pushing the US to invade nations. I think its more an excuse to justify the huge military budget the US maintains while moving huge amounts of money from the taxpayers wallets directly to the corporations that more or less run the country. The division between the US government and the US culture is a massive split--most Americans aren't too excited about being at war or invading other nations. This might seem like schizophrenia to you, except the government isn't another part of the American psyche, it's a separate, parasitic entity.

So what I was referring to as 'rational' (did I ever really use that word?) was that in US culture, we don't call for someone's head when they say something we don't like. And if a religious group did so, they'd be shunned by other religious groups and publicly humiliated by the media. Note how different this is than the actions of the US government.

[Ed Oscuro]

Rando: Well aware about all the dumb shit Christians (and really all organized groups of people) have done it the past. I'm talking about where we are now. Fundies don't run rampant in the US because mainstream Christianity here is chilled out. I don't know why, but they seem a pretty relaxed bunch these days. Most aren't Jerry Falwell cockmonsters as you say.

I disagree, as you had 8 years of fundamentalists of "Christianity" doing all kind of undremocratic nonsense. I also think that, if one lists the zealot representatives in places of power, then one can get a list of damaging figures. No shi'as or whatnot, but e.g. Sarah Palin is clearly insane, unable to govern, and holds power by just invoking beliefs, even if they are inconsistent with any matter of fact.

Arguably one of the greatest problems facing the U.S. in politics right now is the Supreme Court (drawing off this interview for a source). Part of the story is that the conservative Justices are Christian, and Catholic at that, but so are many of the liberal Justices. What is very different is that there is a feeling among Chief Justice Roberts, certainly Scalia, and many of the others, that the precedent set up possibly all the way back to the 1960s and the "right of privacy" precedents, or even further back to the New Deal-era Commerce Clause rulings, are illegitimate. Scalia has essentially argued that many modern ways of interpreting the Constitution have problems, so he is going to throw them all out and go with a "strict reading."

About Bush and his faith, well, he did have a widely-reported comment to the effect that he listens to God. Maybe he does but most of the rest of us aren't privy to that conversation, so it was scary.

I don't think Romney will become President, but as he continues to campaign I am getting more worried about the prospect. I have vacillated from thinking it would be terrible, although not likely as bad as the Bush Presidency, to thinking it would be possibly tolerable, but the latest flap over Romney's embassy attack statement make me realize that he is a loose cannon. I guess that might impress that all-important McCain maverick follower constituency, but it simply scares the hell out of a lot of people.

At least to some degree CMoon writes the truth too, the Bush Administration definitely used Christian fundamentalists as ready source of political power. I think that Administration was rather more secular than people realize. The main split between Republicans and Democrats these days is still over the aims and scope of government.

[BulletMagnet]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can blame religion for all the bullshit our government does. I think what you're calling fundamentalism is actually just plain old greed and corruption.

QFT: If you think that the inmost motivations of the politicians working to further consolidate power and wealth into the hands of a privileged few, either here or halfway around the world, are genuinely religious in nature, it's obvious that you're not experiencing them firsthand. On that note...

I have vacillated from thinking it would be terrible, although not likely as bad as the Bush Presidency, to thinking it would be possibly tolerable, but the latest flap over Romney's embassy attack statement make me realize that he is a loose cannon.

I, frankly, find these comments (not to mention the whole "corporations are people" thing) much more telling: as Jon Stewart once put it, being a modern conservative leader is about repeatedly affirming both your undying love for your country and your undying hatred of 90 percent of the people who live there.

[Krimzon Kitzune]

I think the whole entire world needs to calm the hell down already (especially Syria). I would just love it if we can just agree to disagree on things and move on with our lives. Violence never will solve anything. Fat chance in hell that the entire world finally achieves peace, but hey, it's fun to dream, isn't it?

[Ed Oscuro]

Good news everyone! On my way in today, Salman Rushdie was being asked (again - he was on some NPR show yesterday too) the exact question we've been discussing.

The full show should be available later here. I really really recommend listening to it, especially the later half.

They discuss some other issues of importance too, such as the fact that corporations (Google etc.) have a great deal of control over media coverage, and that's butting heads with local sovereignties. They discussed the recent Newsweek cover showing a stock image of "enraged Muslims," and one of the guests noted that the title was exactly the same as a famous essay that ran many years ago in The Atlantic. Same ol', same ol'. Muslim reaction on the 'net to that cover hasn't been too bad, with many humorous takes - something like a Photoshop Friday with humorous (fictional) examples of "enraged Muslims."

To hopefully boil down the various factors they discussed, they mention:
US involvement in wars and the erosion of good will towards America for being seen as the one non-colonial power of the 19th century (although that assertion can be challenged, especially since the speaker stretched it into the 20th when e.g. the Phillipines, Hawaii, and other adventures were colonial in nature, although I wouldn't put the Boxer Rebellion response in that way - in any case the point was that America was seen as one nation that challenged colonialism). U.S. complicity with terrible regimes as well - one of the guests pointed out that it was actually G.W. Bush who made the case for being more critical of strongmen tenuously allied with the U.S., and demanding more performance on democracy. Finally, the feeling that the U.S. has not been called to account for civilian deaths in the wars, and other consequences of some U.S. actions.

The erosion of Islam's and Muslim peoples' influence in the world

The fragmentary nature of media in the region - Google banned the video from Egyptian and Libyan YouTubes without a court order, and within Indonesia and somewhere else after court orders - and the use of the U.S. by local leaders as a convenient scapegoat. Among all the explanations, this is the most currently important: America has made its share of missteps but that only disposes people toward anti-Americanism; it doesn't provide the spark for riots. Anti-Americanism in the service of politics, of course, isn't an Islamic invention.

Related to that, the apparent plausibility of this being a American plot against Islamic people is reinforced in part by how many local governments work, and also by the obvious size of many Western organizations - Google is bigger in reach and influence than many nations, for example.

There was some additional comment calling into question (as I did before) the supposed uniformity and massive scale of these protests - one of the panelists stated that in Libya there were counter-protests of the protests, which I find interesting.

Finally, there was some discussion of - what do people in the West not know? Mainly the free speech culture of America causing it to stand somewhat out of step with much of the rest of the world. The host tried to ask the flip question - what do people in the Muslim world not know - but humorously enough the panelist he asked shut that down and responded to something else. It was pretty clear that the answer had already been answered at least in part - the unique beliefs in America about how free speech operates and what is necessary for a democracy to function well are obviously foreign concepts in many places (they mentioned Europe here, too, just like I did, so I guess that just confirms I don't know what I'm talking about).

Also let it be known in the peanut gallery that is not an argument that can be boiled down to 100 words; that's a bunch of little arguments. Hopefully it's concise enough this time!

I would just love it if we can just agree to disagree on things and move on with our lives.

Sometimes that isn't practical or possible - some issues simply should not be left to chance or how a person feels, and arguably the question of "can you blaspheme God and his prophet" is one of those questions, for many people. Another example: Did God let the devil put fake dinosaur bones in the earth? Is there climate change? Will you be healed if you pray really hard? Are psychiatrists evil, and should we give people the Clear treatment instead? We can argue about the severity of those beliefs but surely some of them are ones where you will feel safer knowing that the right way won out.

RIP Rodney King!

[Randorama]

So what I was referring to as 'rational' (did I ever really use that word?) was that in US culture, we don't call for someone's head when they say something we don't like.

I think that you need to meet your fellow US citizens who go behind, say, Rush Limbaugh. If we=the whole US, then you're so off the mark that you may deserve a Rando seal of approval for Eugenics. Let me stress, as I recently stressed somewhere else, that if you think this because deep inside you think that US=N.1, then you need a shrinker. Among other things, the book "The right Nation" gives you a good explanation on why your whole society is based on resolving conflicts and disagreements by:

1. Moving somewhere else and keeping a homogeneous culture/way of thinking intact;
2. Starting an endless war of words when this is not possible;

So, no, I think that your opinion is unfounded.




But I'd hit Anne Coulter and the Palin. Who wouldn't?

[Acid King]

I don't think trolling Islam harder will fix anything.

I disagree. I propose we repurpose the NEA for the production of Muslim baiting artwork. Where's Serrano with a jar full of piss when you need him?

[Friendly]

Yeah, they need to learn to suck it up. And the rest of the world needs to stop trying not to hurt the feelings of poor, little, insecure Islam. It's sending the wrong signal.

[MX7]

Please lock, ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.

Eugenics: you know it's right!

Ban Rando for invoking eugenics at every opportunity.

Banning might be going too far, but the whole eugenics thing is growing tiresome. Kind of like a kid calling his parents 'Nazis' because they ground him.

[Super Laydock]

Contrary to what you may think after seeing the furious protests on tv and all, most muslims (though rejecting the film) aren't that angry.
It's basically the local nut-jobs doing what they do all the time.... fighting, denouncing the west and burning flags.

Almost all people you see on tv haven't seen the film and can't even read or write.

The film is hilariously badly made and acted. The sole purpose is insulting muslims and at that it has been made way more than it deserves. Islam can be criticized for a lot of things (as can all religions) but this isn't a particularly good effort and format to do so.

[Skykid]

The film is hilariously badly made and acted. The sole purpose is insulting muslims and at that it has been made way more than it deserves. Islam can be criticized for a lot of things (as can all religions) but this isn't a particularly good effort and format to do so.

That's not the film, it's a fake parody that's adopted the name to fool youtubers. The film is actually a proper documentary with huge production values.

[Mischief Maker]

Thanks to this thread, I'm getting "single muslim" popup ads on Youtube.

[Randorama]

Banning might be going too far, but the whole eugenics thing is growing tiresome. Kind of like a kid calling his parents 'Nazis' because they ground him.

Eugenics: for a better tomorrow of direct interpersonal relations!

and in other news:

I don't think Romney will become President, but as he continues to campaign I am getting more worried about the prospect. I have vacillated from thinking it would be terrible, although not likely as bad as the Bush Presidency, to thinking it would be possibly tolerable, but the latest flap over Romney's embassy attack statement make me realize that he is a loose cannon. I guess that might impress that all-important McCain maverick follower constituency, but it simply scares the hell out of a lot of people.

The Obama presidency proved to be rather lethal, on international matters. At the moment, whoever gets elected will have a cohort of loose cannons who think that they can solve any problem by bombing the fuck out of their geopolitical opposition. John Kerry, currently a fidelissimo of Obama, made a terrifying speech in 2009, on how him and the new mandarins plan to reshape the Middle East. Useful references are in Chomsky's hope and prospect, among other works.

The usual extremist rabble can go bananas over a shitty movie, for what is worth. It is possibly a way to vent their frustration that they are reduced to poverty and emargination, but cannot even aim their frustration onto those who made them poor and emarginated (US, ayatollahs, etc.). Nothing new, movie at 11, move on and eat your burgers, for an Eugenic tomorrow!

[CMoon]

First off, why are shmuppers so angry?

I think that you need to meet your fellow US citizens who go behind, say, Rush Limbaugh.

I'd really prefer not to meet them, thank you...

Rush Limbaugh is a cartoon character who is largely lampooned by the rest of the media. He says extreme shit and gets away with it because he is an entertainer. People may follow him but they don't go out and kill people because of his antics.

Like I said when I opened this thread up, there's stupid people saying dumb things everywhere all the time. Rush Limbaugh being able to do what he does is part of free speech, but he isn't a world leader, and neither he nor his followers are killing people, nor are people out trying to kill Rush Limbaugh. It is exactly this sort of tolerance that I'm praising most of modern civilization for. That we've learned how to put up with dumb fucks like Limbaugh without declaring a Jihad against him.

If we=the whole US, then you're so off the mark that you may deserve a Rando seal of approval for Eugenics.

Can I haz Eugenics please?

Let me stress, as I recently stressed somewhere else, that if you think this because deep inside you think that US=N.1, then you need a shrinker.

I'm trying to take you (half) seriously here Rando. C'mon now, I'm the closet socialist who only tentatively accepts some of the ideas of capitalism. Starting with Reagan, this nation keeps trying to cling to an ideology that we are somehow #1 and we need to help other nations become more like us or go fight against tyrant nations. Now do the actual politicians believe such an ideology? Here's where someone needs to see a shrinker: the only thing these people believe in is money and power. Ideologies are just tools to that end.

But I'd hit Anne Coulter and the Palin. Who wouldn't?

I'd hit it with a stick.