Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Poll Finds 23 Percent of Texans Think Obama is Muslim

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the the-world-is-flat dept.

Politics 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.

cancel ×

562 comments

How could 63% of people be wrong? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590067)

That doesn't make sense.

-- Proud Texan

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590091)

yur bein eliteist with that arthmitic.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (5, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590557)

It's the same percentage in the state that view the Flintstones as a documentary - and know that the world is flat, 'cos things don't fall off of it.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (5, Funny)

onix (990980) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590203)

Texas doesn't make sense.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (5, Insightful)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590205)

Boy, that's easy. Let me count the ways:

Most people agreed with Greenspan that derivatives shouldn't be regulated. Greenspan himself no longer has that view (and he's a staunch libertarian).

Most people (in America) thought there were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

Most people opposed the $700 billion bailout. I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative--we were a hair away from a complete financial halt in the credit/security market which would have quickly halted our entire economy. But, of course, most people haven't taken basic economic courses (much less advanced ones).

And so on. This is why we don't live in a pure Democracy but elect our peers to lead the rest of us for a number of years--the majority isn't always right.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (3, Funny)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590293)

I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative--we were a hair away from a complete financial halt in the credit/security market which would have quickly halted our entire economy. But, of course, most people haven't taken basic economic courses (much less advanced ones).

What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (2, Insightful)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590367)

That is not a mainstream branch of economics (for a darn good reason). It's for similar reasons that they support that derivatives weren't regulated in the first place.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (3, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590381)

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (2, Interesting)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590569)

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

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:How could 63% of people be wrong? (4, Informative)

Flavio (12072) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590777)

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

Liar. Hayek is one of the best known economists in world history, who won the Nobel Prize for showing how government intervention is responsible for the business cycle. He was a member of the austrian school, and his advisor was Ludwig von Mises, a highly influential austrian school economist. A quick Wikipedia search will reveal many other noteworthy economists aligned with the austrian school.

You're probably just another dumbass who thinks the free market got us into this mess, when in fact all we've seen in the last 100 years is an interventionist economic policy based on central banking.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590779)

Given that most of us have no idea about Schools of Economics, how are we to judge? What other schools are there, and how do their viewpoints differ?

Howe are ANY schools of economics vetted vs reality/history? Does the scientific method even apply?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (4, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590421)

What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse?

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? (4, Funny)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590295)

So... you're saying that Obama is a muslim?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong? (2, Interesting)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590393)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590745)

So... you're saying that Obama is a muslim?

I, Igbari Huissaniara Delri
believe Obama is muslim....btw they didn't poll me

lol

Please. (0, Redundant)

mbstone (457308) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590415)

If the "bailout bill" hadn't passed, there still would have been a stock market correction, and we taxpayers would still have our $700B instead of it being used for executive retreats, shareholder dividends, and mergers.

Re:Please. (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590471)

I'll stand corrected when you find a link to a respectable economist that shares your sentiment.

That's OK (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590107)

A second poll found that one if four people are complete fucking idiots.

Re:That's OK (1, Funny)

Bardez (915334) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590143)

Oddly, the study results were skewed in Texas, where one in every four were not complete retards.

Re:That's OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590173)

The other three out of four, however...

Well, as they say... (5, Insightful)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590115)

Texas is a whole 'nother country.

They have great ice cream (Blue Bell), great water parks (Schlitterbahn), nice lakes and neat caverns. But they also have a lot of insular communities in the country (I grew up in one...not fun if you disagree with the pack/herd).

Re:Well, as they say... (2, Informative)

dorque_wrench (1394209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590307)

Texas is a whole 'nother country.

They have great ice cream (Blue Bell), great water parks (Schlitterbahn), nice lakes and neat caverns. But they also have a lot of insular communities in the country (I grew up in one...not fun if you disagree with the pack/herd).

SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)

And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!

And Roller Derby.

Re:Well, as they say... (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590449)

I didn't know about Shiner Bock (I moved away from Texas back in '96 and it wasn't big back then).

And y'all don't have a monopoly on Roller Derby. They play Roller Derby right down the road in Denver every year (fun to watch folks if you haven't seen it before).

Re:Well, as they say... (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590497)

SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)

Is it just me, or has this always sounded like a German euphemism for cunnilingus to anyone else?

And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!

Meh. It's okay beer, I guess. The best thing about Shiner is that it's virtually guaranteed to be present at any event in Texas, so I'm never stuck drinking craptacular macro-brewed "American-style lagers".

And Roller Derby.

Mmm, Texas Roller Girls.

Oh, and btw, I'm originally from Michigan. Texas doesn't have any lakes (well I guess it has one). Man-made puddles don't count, even if it is still fun to go out on a buddy's sail boat in one. :P

Re:Well, as they say... (2, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590697)

A Schlitterbahn is just an iced puddle, where you run, jump on and schlitter (slide) along...

Isn't he? I thought he was..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590125)

I m

And even if he was (3, Insightful)

typidemon (729497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590157)

What does it matter you bigoted, hateful bastards?

woah woah woah (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590241)

Stop the judgment bus there buddy!

I don't like Muslim *ideology*.

I don't like the idea that I must submit to Allah. Does this make me hateful? A bigot?

The President has the ability to veto and make decisions, and these in turn affect me, you and the world. What is his or her ideology? Are they pro women's rights? A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.

I can't support such an ideology.

Re:woah woah woah (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590395)

And I'm not big on Christian ideology either. Why should women be quiet in church? Why do I have to marry before having sex? Why should I give 10% of my earnings to the church? Why should I condemn homosexuals and treat them as inferior? etc etc.

An extremist christian is just as bad as an extremist muslim.

Fuck them both, I say. I'd rather have someone with intellectual integrity in charge. Someone who refuses to believe in imaginary friends and unprovable teachings. How else am I supposed to trust his judgement?

Besides, it's obvious that american politicians these days only profess certain beliefs in order to garner more popular support from idiots who have forgotten what the constitution says about separation of church and state.

Re:woah woah woah (3, Insightful)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590403)

A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.

I can't support such an ideology.

A Christian, holding to the values espoused in the New Testament, sees women similarly.

    Luckily, the FSM has a place for all in his noodly sauce.

Re:woah woah woah (4, Insightful)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590661)

I think you're reading a different New Testament than I am.

Re:woah woah woah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590433)

Stop the judgment bus there buddy!

I don't like Muslim *ideology*.

I don't like the idea that I must submit to Allah. Does this make me hateful? A bigot?

The President has the ability to veto and make decisions, and these in turn affect me, you and the world. What is his or her ideology? Are they pro women's rights? A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.

I can't support such an ideology.

That'd be arguably a reasonable defense if Osama was a Muslim. However, there are no muslims on the tickets this election so cool your jets, white boi.

Re:woah woah woah (5, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590495)

"I don't like the idea that I must submit to Allah. Does this make me hateful? A bigot?"

Which is why the Constitution prohibits a state religion. And at any rate, the President does not legitimately have the power to declare law, only enforce it.

"The President has the ability to veto and make decisions, and these in turn affect me, you and the world. What is his or her ideology? Are they pro women's rights? A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human."

Is this much different from the fundamentalist Christain view that women belong in the home (a view that itself is far more moderate compared to what the Bible says about women's rights)? Just like everyone doesn't agree with the Christain fundamentalists yet still claims to believe in the religion, not everyone who labels themselves as Muslim necessarily has the same strict interpretation. Not to mention that if this kind of thing does happen, the President risks losing his or her re-election because of the small amount of Muslims in the country, many of which might not even agree with his or her specific ideology.

Re:And even if he was (2, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590287)

To play devils advocate (or rather, idiot's advocate, don't want to slander the devil) that WOULD mean he did lie to the american public, he's said many times he's not. It would be a shocking coverup that would really shake my opinion of him, not to mention make people wonder what other ridiculous right-wing lies about him are true.

So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.

Note that this is all hypothetical, the man is NOT muslim

Re:And even if he was (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590679)

That's a good devil's/idiot's argument. The only thing I can think of to compare to is people that switch religions. Tony Blair recently switch to Catholicism I believe, but it was after he left office and he implied on a recent interview (I think on the Daily Show) that it would have been a risky thing to politically while in office.

So hypothetically it should be OK to switch religions I suppose. I know it's weak, but it's all I have for this hypothetical argument.

Re:And even if he was (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590717)

So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.

Bah, nonsense. All the people who think Obama is or might be a Secret Muslim care first and foremost about him being an evil, scary Muslim. The Secret part is secondary; obviously he'd have to lie about being an evil, scary Muslim in order to trick the American people into voting for an evil, scary Muslim.

To them, this isn't like lying about a BJ between consenting adults. This is like a guy lying about being a child molester -- the lie ain't the big crime!

I mean sure, if it turned out somehow Obama was lying about his religion, that would me what mattered to some of us. But none of us for whom that would be the case actually think he's lying!

And to people like us, or at least to me, it seems pretty silly on its face. I mean, I'm no expert on Islam, but I'm pretty sure not even the most extreme Muslims go around hiding their faith, and it doesn't matter what you tell some infidel if you aren't following God's law then you aren't going to paradise. So with all the thousands of people who see him every day on the campaign trail, and nobody's seen him bust out a prayer mat, then guess what? He's as Muslim as David Cross is (religiously) Jewish.

Re:And even if he was (0, Redundant)

PhasmatisApparatus (1086395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590379)

Because if he's lying about something simple like religion, it makes you wonder what else he is lying about.
What, you expected a bigoted response? Sometimes explaining away the other side as racist/foolish/bigots doesn't work.

ROOTINEST TOOTINEST STATE IN THE USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590171)

Wow, go Texas! Represent yourselves!

Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590195)

It has been well known among those close to Obama, although a tremendous effort has been made to obscure the fact. And who better than Obama's good friend Louis Farrakhan to know the truth. Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam says B. Hussein Obama is a Muslim, and that is sufficient enough evidince of the fact that Obama truly IS a Muslim.

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim (1, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590259)

Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam says B. Hussein Obama is a Muslim, and that is sufficient enough evidince of the fact that Obama truly IS a Muslim.

He also said anonymous cowards are all muslim, by your logic YOU are now muslim, moron.

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590335)

So if Osama Bin Laden said McCain was a terrorist then he's a terrorist? Or if the Pope were to say McCain is a Catholic he's a Catholic?

You seem to have the detective skills of the fictional Scotland Yard detectives in the Sherlock Holmes stories (and that's being generous).

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim (2, Insightful)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590371)

shouldn't it be "was"?
Barack Hussein Obama [wikipedia.org] (aka Barack Obama, Sr) passed away when Barack Obama II [wikipedia.org] was 21.

He might up there with the 72 Virginians [google.com] having a beer and discussing his son's political career.

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim (2, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590479)

The only problem with that statement is that it isn't true. [beliefnet.com]

Re: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590215)

23 percent of the ones they asked, not 23 percent of all Texans.

I thought it was "God damn America" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590245)

Yeah, let's talk religion.

From TFA (0)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590249)

Poll of only 550 voters? That's a pretty small sample to draw such a cruel conclusion about a large group of people. I used to live in the Bible Belt and I dislike it as much as the next guy, but the article is guilty of the same sort of bigotry of which it accuses Texans.

Re:From TFA (3, Informative)

spyder913 (448266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590317)

A sample size of 550 gives an error rate of less than 5%, assuming they have randomized it.

See this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size [wikipedia.org]

Re:From TFA (1)

misaltas (1293498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590687)

More accurately...

A sample size of 550 from a Texas population of 24 million, effectively randomized, with an unknown response distribution, provides a +/-5% margin of error with a confidence level of 98%.

And I won't be citing Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a source.

Re:From TFA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590797)

A sample size of 550 gives an error rate of less than 5%, assuming they have randomized it.

See this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size [wikipedia.org]

You also assume a normal distribution among the population in terms of behavior patterns. Funny this is brought up - just the other day, I was in a meeting with a professor and some colleagues and he mentioned how democrats tend to stop and talk to pollsters more than republicans, hence skewing the polls in favor of the democrats (it had been originally assumed that they tended to respond just as often). Whether or not this is true is another story, but it does make you wonder how flawed and biased (even unintentionally) some reports can be. As such, I do wonder how accurate this is. Are conservatives more likely to respond than liberals? Are the less educated more verbose about this than those more educated?

23% seems like an awfully high number of people who are painfully ignorant about even the most basic characteristics of Obama that I wonder if 1) the study has even been done properly to begin with (you'd be surprised how many studies are done poorly), or 2) so many people are that ignorant to begin with that they will vote for nominee X just because. Either way, scary.

OK, I'll stop rambling now that I finally downloaded Ubuntu :-)

Re:From TFA (1)

chinakow (83588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590327)

Well if those 550 where a representative sample of the population of Texas then this could be a reasonable conclusion.

No, the sample size is fine (2, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590329)

As long as the sample is representative, the margin of error there is only about +/- 3.5%. (Sample Size Calculator [surveysystem.com] )

Most national polls use sample sizes of 1000 or less, chosen from a population of 300 million. The whole point of polling is that you don't need to talk to a huge percentage of the population in order to be confident in your results.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590355)

Actually, If I remember from my Sociology class, once you get into the 1000 interviewee amount, you don't get much more accuracy. I think more of the issue is how they picked their sample set.

Re:From TFA (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590411)

Poll of only 550 voters? That's a pretty small sample to draw such a cruel conclusion about a large group of people.

The size of the total population isn't relevant statistically. 550 people isn't a great sample size but it isn't a bad one either. The margin of error would be roughly 4%

Assuming the survey questions were phrased reasonably neither the article nor the polling display bigotry. The stats are the stats.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590437)

Sample sizes of 500-1000 are usually used to predict the election.

I guess I'm not suprised (5, Insightful)

iamthelinuxguy (656531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590269)

The tide is turning. I've been a Texan all my life. Conservative talk radio dominates the AM dial and like they say...garbage in...garbage out. I'm constantly amazed how blindly my neighbors follow the party line. Lies and innuendo are accepted as fact. I hate to admit it, but the Christian Conservative movement has turned the whole fight into an us-against-them battle and it's impossible to make rational arguments when it's gotten to that level. There are those of us here that see the absurdity and will be voting for Obama. I don't agree with everything he stands for. Illegal immigration is a huge issue here. We don't really understand why politicians don't stand up for the American worker. Our jobs are being de-valued by workers who come here and will accept a non-living wage for most Americans. 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. Other than that, I agree with Obama's plans completely. The myth that the market will take care of itself has finally been debunked and hopefully we will get some sane regulation put back in place. I hope we can bring our troops back home and balance the budget. I hope we can do something about health care. I hope we can do something about our reliance on foreign oil. I hope we can help the unfortunate here at home that have slipped through the cracks due to our own selfishness. I believe that Obama is our best hope for a better future...and as a native Texan...he has my vote.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (5, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590575)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590737)

In a market economy, that's a clear example of not paying sufficiently.

If I can make more money sitting on my ass in a 7-11, why would I pick cabbage?

You could argue that it requires illegal workers... or you could argue that the economics of picking cabbage simply don't line up in that region.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (1, Interesting)

iamthelinuxguy (656531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590761)

Ok..that is a lie. You are just spreading what you've been told. What did we do before a blind eye was turned on illegal immigration? As prices went up, wages went up because employers were forced to pay a living wage to get the job done. Jobs done by AMERICANS and shame on you for disparaging Americans like we are some bunch of wont-get-off-our-asses slobs. I happen to think more of us than that. We just can't afford to do jobs that pay only $5 an hour when illegals will do the job for that and live 20 of them in one apartment. That is the truth and if you say it isn't you are a lier spreading propaganda. I grew up on a farm. I've had family and friends work construction jobs that they can no longer afford to do. As far as deporting them all....that's not an issue. All you have to do is make the punishment so bad for employers caught hiring illegals that no one would dare hire one and PROBLEM SOLVED. No work and they will all return to Mexico on their own. Your propaganda is no less offensive than the far right.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590769)

I'd do farm work if I were paid enough. Crops rotting on fields isn't a sign that we need more immigration: it just means we're not paying farm workers enough.

That illegal immigrants generally do this work anyway is evidence that illegal immigration distorts the employment market. It would be far, far better to expand legal immigration and allow the market to find the correct price for legal farm work.

Other nations have managed to farm using legal labor. Why can't we?

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590789)

This is exactly like software piracy: As long as people pirate software, there's no need to change existing laws and reform the copyright system.

In the same way, as long as there's tons of illegal immigrants, there's no need(or its too hard to manage) to reform the immigration system to allow for people to come and pick cabbages legally.

If there were ZERO illegal immigration, you could easily put in place a bunch of special, easy-to-access Visas for situations like these... but instead, you have to spend all your efforts and energy making sure visas aren't abused, like how the work visa system is so corrupt.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590591)

"We don't really understand why politicians don't stand up for the American worker. Our jobs are being de-valued by workers who come here and will accept a non-living wage for most Americans."

Here's a deeper question: why in the @!#%@#%^ do employers also not stand up for the American worker? Why do employers -- presumably American citizens -- break the law by paying these people? The answer is simple:

Greed.

You're being sold down the river by your politicians AND their collusion with a bunch of greedy employers. They lobby to make it easier for immigration laws to be broken without anyone noticing, in order support a huge underground economy. Their business depends on it. Yes, you should be angry, but not only at the politicians. Law enforcement is failing to enforce the law and a bunch of your fellow American citizens are breaking the law to make a quick buck off cheap labour.

One word comes to mind here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590595)

Paragraphs.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590635)

The myth that the market will take care of itself has finally been debunked...

Keep in mind, the "myth" is that a FREE market would take care of itself. Unfortunately, we haven't had one in recent history, so it hasn't gotten a chance to prove itself.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (5, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590683)

I feel for you. Man, those Christian fundamentalists have really screwed up conservative values. I'm a Christian myself, and I think we can all agree that some spiritual grounding and much of the stuff in the Bible are good things.

The problem I have with the Christian Conservatives is they display little in the way of Christian understanding and compassion, and the way they literally interpret the Bible and think they are good Christians scares the shit out of me. Dare I say it, they sound just as bad, if not worse, than the Islamic fundamentalists they rail against.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590727)

"Lies and innuendo are accepted as fact"

You're one to talk. Your whole post presents nothing but lies and innuendo glibbly stated as fact along with a dollop of democrap cheerleading and blatant antichristianism.

Misleading Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590271)

The question was what religion they believed him to follow, not "what church does he attend". Many people know what church he has attended in the past and still believe him to tend towards Islam.

Re:Misleading Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590385)

The question was what religion they believed him to follow, not "what church does he attend". Many people know what church he has attended in the past and still believe him to tend towards Islam.

Precisely. Many feel that BHO switched to attending a Protestant church simply as an expediency to seem more 'palatable' to potential voters/supporters when he made the decision to seek station in public service. It's not bigotry or racism, it's simple skepticism.

Forget black or female president... (5, Insightful)

thenewguy001 (1290738) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590297)

I dream of the day when an atheist/agnostic person can be elected to the presidency; when a candidate's religious orientation does not matter; when we can truly have separation of church and state.

Re:Forget black or female president... (5, Funny)

PhasmatisApparatus (1086395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590429)

Let's see...
Republican Christians will claim the Athiest is the antichrist.
Democrat Christians will claim the Athiest is too Fundamentalist(TM).
Republican Athiests will never get any airtime.
Conspiracy theorists will still claim he's Muslim. In chain emails.

Re:Forget black or female president... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590559)

The day that happens is the day that religion doesn't exist anymore.. so basically, it will never happen.

Re:Forget black or female president... (3, Funny)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590609)

I dream of the day when an atheist/agnostic person can be elected to the presidency; when a candidate's religious orientation does not matter; when we can truly have separation of church and state.

AMEN!..........Oh....wait....shit...

Re:Forget black or female president... (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590629)

Most of them have been atheists AFAIK. Oh wait you mean OPENLY atheist? Yeah the United States won't be around long enough to ever see that happen.

Re:Forget black or female president... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590767)

Most of them have been atheists AFAIK.

[citation needed]

Re:Forget black or female president... (3, Interesting)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590785)

I'm a weak atheist [wikipedia.org] , but I think that the goal of 'a candidate's religious orientation does not matter' isn't really a desirable one. If someone's religion explicitly commands abhorrant things(eg: kill anyone who wears the colour blue) then we should be rather wary of electing them to office. The religious views of people do influence their thoughts and actions, and those actions can affect me rather directly. Religion itself isn't the issue, rather the type of religion someone belongs to(and the beliefs it advocates) is.

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?

Should this really be all that surprising? (-1)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590315)

Well he was raised as a Muslim and studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. On the other hand, he had no problem with going to a church with an hateful racist pastor. He doesn't seem like he's really committed to anything. If you ask the question: 'Christian or Muslim?', don't expect to get a good answer.

No he is not... (2, Interesting)

Xerolooper (1247258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590341)

A Muslim no but I will pick the other corporate favorite because of their respective political views not because of any of the mudslinging either way.

Aww.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590343)

He looks so sweet in that dress.

Vote for him!

In other news, Texas secesseds (5, Funny)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590347)

Forms Republic of Dumbfuckistan

Re:In other news, Texas secesseds (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590605)

what's wrong with you, boy? that sound like one of them unamerican mid east locations.

We ain't gunna do that.

Signed A .Whole, Proud citizen of Republic of Dumbfuxas

Re:In other news, Texas secesseds (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590607)

governor of dumbfuckistan can't spell secedes.

Re:In other news, Texas secesseds (2, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590751)

Don't worry. Those of us in Austin will lead the insurgency against the Republicans...
just as soon as we do a couple of more bong hits.

Depends what you mean by "be a muslim" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590349)

Obama doesn't call himself a muslim, and identifies himself as a protestant.

But, Obama's own brother is on the record referring to "Obama's muslim background". You would think his brother would be a reliable source.

Also, do muslims regard Obama as a muslim? Muslims claim that anyone who says the shahada [wikipedia.org] is a muslim, and if you leave the muslim faith, sharia law demands your execution.

Did Obama say the shahada while attending a muslim school growing up in Indonesia? Many muslim schools are notorious for forcing people to do so.

it's the Texans (2, Interesting)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590363)

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.

Yes...but on the other side of the coin... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590431)

23 percent of younger voters think Obama is actually Jesus.

It's not any better on the other side... :(

Not Muslim, but... (-1, Troll)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590435)

No, he isn't Muslim. He did not go to a Mosque for the last 20 years.

However, he DID go to a rather interesting "Christian" church the last 20 years, one that Oprah left before Obama even got there because of the "incendiary" sermons (according to wikipedia, which is not known for conservatism). No, he's not Muslim, but his attending a rather radical black theology church with a rather strange pastor combined with other "interesting" seeming Muslim-sympathetic beliefs or actions do seem to point to a non-full disclosure of his beliefs, etc. Even the simple idea that he's just a normal, very faithful Christian is misleading. His careful choice of church for 20 years (and the pastor began this way long before Obama arrived at the church, it wasn't something that happened in the last 6 months, the pastor did not just recently go off his rocker or something like that) is not one that is exactly a mainstream Christian church. I myself am quite a conservative Christian (theologically, but politically as well) and I would consider myself less radical than the Trinity United Church of Christ (wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Not Muslim, but... (5, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590647)

No, he's not Muslim, but his attending a rather radical black theology church with a rather strange pastor combined with other "interesting" seeming Muslim-sympathetic beliefs or actions do seem to point to a non-full disclosure of his beliefs, etc.

Um, you haven't read his book, have you? The first one, titled "Dreams from my Father", describes in detail how he was referred to Rev. Wright's church and what it meant to him, and described his transition from being Christian only in name to acquiring a belief system. The second one, "The Audacity of Hope", was named after the name of the first sermon he heard at Rev Wright's church and discusses the progression of his thinking and approach to government and belief. He may be accused of a lot of things, but lack of full disclosure CAN NOT be one of them. His entire life is, quite literally, an open book available for all to read.

Obama is the type of person who can freely discuss ideas with a great variety of people without adopting them. He especially values differing opinions, which I like as something that will help prevent any "failures of imagination" in his administration. Rev. Wright to him was a focal point for many disparate beliefs and influences, and despite some incendiary language helped him see many issues more clearly. In other words, Rev Wright was more of a lens than the source of light for Obama (at least that's my impression from his books).

I think this is why McCain has rightly shied away from challenging Obama's beliefs. Because they actually are one of Obama's strengths, especially compared to McCain's own.

Re:Not Muslim, but... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590669)

Jeez, even when trying to clarify you get it wrong.

I'm sure if he was Catholic you people would be saying or implying he was a child molester.

It's fine for someone to go to a church, practice ritual cannibalism, look at some guy nailed to a cross, but not fine for this other church to spout off crazy talk.

I mean really, you are all crazy.

HMMMMMMM....... (1)

El Bigote (639828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590461)

I don't remember anyone asking me what I thought.

I know why (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590469)

That's because he IS a Muslim.

Corollary (-1, Flamebait)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590487)

Thus simuntaniously proving that 23% of Texans are inbred degenerates.

Here in El Paso... (2, Funny)

mattytee (1395955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590537)

23% were unable to find their asses with the aid of a flashlight. On the upside, many holes in the ground were discovered.

And what is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590549)

What is wrong with being a Muslim? Why do people from blue states enjoy red wine? Just a few questions this Halloween Eve.

Texans are Gullible (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590603)

And this proves it, in the worst, saddest way. :(

He's much worse than Muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590621)

He's a believer in Black Liberation Theology, which is far worse.

Some of the tenants of BLT:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Truth Revealed (5, Insightful)

Jekler (626699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590631)

If nothing else, this year's campaigns have shown me how easily manipulated the general public is. It's not just people in Texas, but close friends of mine. I can't even vocalize how shocked I was to have someone I always believed to be an intelligent person confide in me his belief that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim".

I can't believe how often and with how much confidence I see pundits, news anchors, editors, and journalists make claims about one candidate and simultaneously brush off exactly the same claim about their favored candidate. I mean to watch Bill Kristol essentially say, with a smile on his face, "It's only socialist if a Democrat does it." or "They're only radical associates if we're talking about Barack Obama." and then brush off the entire conversation the moment Palin's associations are mentioned.

It makes me think of one of Dr. Phil's favorite phrases "Right Fighters". They don't want to do what works, they want to be right. 95% of the people in this country wouldn't care if the candidate they've chosen blew up the whole fucking world, they'd never admit to being wrong. They'd just smile as their skin boiled off and say "Yeah, well your guy would have been worse."

I'm ashamed to even participate in this process. I'm ashamed to be saddled with the burden of even having to share a species with Sean Hannity. I don't want the other species of the world to make the mistake of thinking we've got anything in common. More than anything else, I think this election has just made me feel hugely ashamed. It doesn't matter who wins, humanity already lost.

The political interests now directly control the media. Journalists aren't even reporting or investigating anymore, they work for lobbyists and politicians while pretending to be informing the people. It's sad that comedians like Jon Stewart are so much closer to reporting reality than Fox News or CNN. As I'm sure everyone has now watched, they discussed Marsha Brady on CNN like she's a real person. That's what this whole thing is about. People who can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. Of course so many people believe Obama is a secret Muslim, anyone who thinks the Brady Bunch is a documentary is prone to believe anything.

Mooh Hoax believers? (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590691)

Maybe there IS some kind of crazy connection between the moon hoax idiots and the twits who claim Obama is a "secret muslim". People have been making the same claims about Neil Armstrong for years...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2006/09/16/was-neil-armstrong-the-first-muslim-on-the-moon.htm [about.com]

You mean the moon landings *weren't* faked? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590699)

I always wondered why the camera work was so bad...

makes sense to me (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590713)

I lived in Texas and in those days wrestling (pronounced wras-lin) was almost a religion and any suggestion that it was anything but real was considered complete heresy.

So, no, this comes as no surprise.

Real question (4, Insightful)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25590733)

How many of the 23% think that him being a Muslim would be a problem? There is difference between being uninformed and being a bigot.

He may not be Muslim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25590753)

but he's certainly NOT Christian. My guess would be godless socialist who has used his "Christian church" as cover for his run for President. And I'm not too sure about his church, either.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...