This parody is based on a great original song and contains many very good lines. Like Hillary, I do not understand much of Trump's appeal. His policies seem to be based more in "Trump knows best," than in any coherent set of goals or strategies. I particularly don't understand his appeal to people who, unlike Trump, embrace the Bible. But Hillary's clumsy criticism of his supporters is worthy of parody and this is a very good one.

Who you accusing of silencing debate you knuckle-dragging racist scum!!!!!!. Why don't you do us all a favor and take your guns and NRA membership and slither back into that festering hole that you share with Fred Phelps and go beat it to that poster of Donald Trump that you pray to five times a day, you hate filled bigot. And here's three K's (that's KKK, you simple minded fascist) for your pathetic excuse for a parody

PPR, I actually knew Fred Phelps. Unfortunately the Westboro Church has not, to my knowledge, revealed where the hole is that Fred is buried in. So, I will not be able to crawl in there with him. My membership in the NRA lapsed many years ago. Not that that stops them from calling me once a month to beg for donations. The only thing I can think is that they plan to stop Hillary's gun grab by buying her off. Given her record, that might not be all that far-fetched an idea. John, as a friend of mine remarked, Trump is a crap shoot. But we know what Hillary is, and I don't like what I see. I think Trump is basically indifferent to religion. Hillary is actively hostile to Christianity and many American values. Trump isn't being vetted as a new pastor for the congregation. We are looking to hire someone who will curtail the immigration of people actively seeking to destroy us. God can take of Himself. PPR, for more on Fred Phelps, you might want to check out some of my previous scribblings on the subject. http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/coven5.shtml. http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/thebeatles2646.shtml, http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/hannabarberacurtin2.shtml, http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/johnnycash76.shtml, http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/eltonjohnbernietaupin0.shtml

Trump is definitely a crap shoot. I believe that the upside of Trump is better than the upside of Hillary and, conversely, the downside of Trump is worse than the downside of Hillary.

I just love it when minorities complain about attacking their ultraliberal agenda with shouts of racism! Isn't Black Lives Matter, that Clinton approved voting block, nothing but racists who advocate violence at demonstrations and the hunting and killing of cops? And why is it when there's a so-called social injustice or human rights violation do black folks wait until dark and then loot and burn down their own neighborhoods which include black-owned businesses? Liberalism seems to have failed these people. No education, no jobs, no quality of life for their leftist votes to the Democratic Party. At least Trump can try, can't he? He knows how to make deals and build stuff. If he can put more money in your pocket, bring back jobs from overseas and offshore bank accounts, renegotiate NAFTA and refuse TPP, eliminate bad Obamacare, put the military back together, and secure our southern border from criminals, drug and gun smuggling, maybe bring back old factories and investment into inner city neighborhoods, well then, sure sounds better than Hillary's lies. She has Wall St. cronies and is in debt to her Foundation donors for God knows what. She took military action off the table for the Middle East, showing weakness, and panders to base fears of liberals who want more handouts than handups. She is disingenuous, inept, and immoral, not to mention being a pathological liar. No real agenda of her own except Third Term Obama. Black people eat that crap up. Obama was the first Black President, but not a black messiah. Think so? Go to any inner city. Look at the stats for black lives in America today. Don't be suckers. Vote Trump. You literally have nothing to lose. If confused, vote Libertarian or Green and take votes from Hillary.

^ looks like someone opened a can of worms!

I sort of figured that would happen. Just like "Paragon" above automatically linking me with Fred Phelps, without knowing anything about me, or about Phelps for that matter. Hillary Clinton's characterization of Trump supporters was one of the few times she ever told the truth, not about them, but about her view of white lower and middle class people of conservative leanings. By the way, I am one of these people, so are most of my family and a lot of my friends. There is not one true bigot, racist, or homophobe in the whole lot. I can only relate to people as individuals. Maybe I'm indulging in stereotyping, but leftists seem to rely on stereotypes and are some of the most hate-filled people around. Where I live Black people and Mexicans, legal and otherwise, are just part of the scenery. Ordinary people. Not a voting bloc to be exploited or a tool to pander to or divide other groups. Paragon's reaction to my parody is the exact same reaction as Hillary Clinton's to the thought that someone out there is not worshiping at her feet or believes there is a higher power on earth than a presidential executive order.

Excellent parody, Patrick- 555! Might want to rest now and write about the guns we love. Oh, but then the Lefties that hate guns will be all over you! Can't win unless you appeal to the "social progressives" as they call themselves these days. I'm a REP hawk, so you know who I'm voting for. But hey, I'll give Obama a shout out for dusting off the entire bomber fleet and hitting the ISIS chemical factory ;-)

er.. Patrick, when you say "Hillary Clinton's characterization of Trump supporters was one of the few times she ever told the truth" ..presumably you mean "spoke what she was actually thinking" rather than "told the truth", unless you think that what she was saying *is* the truth?

But I think that you'll find that the overwhelming majority of what she says is broadly factual, it's just that the media coverage (especially from certain parts of the media) has a tendency to distort some things to the point of being wrong (in much the same way as they do for some of Trump's utterances) and goes way over the top for the times (and there have been quite a few, I'm not denying that) she hasn't been honest or accurate. But.. and this is a "but" so big that Sir Mix-a-lot would love it.. but it isn't possible to be a Trump supporter and complain about Clinton not telling the truth, at least not without being a massive hypocrite. Nobody on the campaign trail in living memory (and mine goes back to Reagan) has *ever* told so many out-and-out lies (and continued repeating them long after they'd been shown to be lies). The guy is an order of magnitude worse than any other candidate ever seen.. so to support him must mean lying is OK, right?

Love the parody, some beautifully-chosen subs

^ needs to stick to his own nation's deplorables! At least whomever is elected President will be the most powerful person on earth, not like UK with its sh*te PMs. And, of course, there is the rotten tabloid fodder Royals. I love it that E! makes fun of them with the series "The Royals." Liz Hurley as the Queen is excellent and much hotter, more cunning.

Phil, you grasped my meaning even if I didn't express it with precision. She revealed what she really thinks of Trump supporters. No attempt at evasion there. If you look back a couple days you can catch some of my misgivings about Trump as well. 300 million people, and these are the best we can come up with!

:-)

It is hard to believe that those two are the ones in the race (plus another jawdropping ignoramus "What is Aleppo?"????, and another physician who has shown that qualifying as a medic doesn't mean you can't be blisteringly stupid in other areas... but they're not really "in the race", I guess). There's something very Douglas Adams in this contest... At least I'm kind of hoping that this will hold true: “The President of the Universe holds no real power. His sole purpose is to take attention away from where the power truly exists...”

Here's to hoping that Clinton's "deplorables" line turns into Romney's 47% blunder! Or her email scandal continues to bury her. God bless Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks!

Recent polling indicates that Hillary Clinton spoke the objective truth when she characterized half of Trump supporters as "deplorable":
A survey taken this May by PPP National Poll found that about two-thirds of Trump supporters believe Obama is a Muslim.
The same poll found 59 percent of Trump supporters believe Obama was not born in the United States.
These views are incorrect but are also racist and xenophobic. They are rooted in the idea that a black man with an atypical name could not be a U.S.-born Christian but must be a secret Muslim born in Africa. So when Hillary Clinton says half of Trump supporters hold bigoted views, she may be understating the issue.
Survey data show that significant chunks of Trump supporters hold even more extreme beliefs. A poll of 16,000 Americans conducted by Reuters in June found that 40% of Trump supporters believed that blacks were more “lazy” than whites and nearly 50% believed blacks were more “violent” than whites. (A smaller percentage of Clinton supporters held these views.)
A national poll of 2000 people taken in January by YouGov found that one-third of Trump supporters believe the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, one of the most shamefully racist programs in American history, was a good idea.
Clinton also mentioned homophobia. A PPP poll of South Carolina voters in February found that a substantial portion supported banning LGBT people from the United States.
In the same poll, 16 percent of Trump supporters admitted they believed that “whites are a superior race,” while an additional 14 percent said they were “not sure.”
The national YouGov poll from January found that 20 percent of Trump supporters disagreed with Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed southern slaves.
The polling data reveal that there is a substantial number of Trump supporters who are bigoted, intolerant, or worse. Is the percentage, as Clinton suggested, about 50 percent? That depends on how you define the various forms of bigotry within the Trump coalition. But, based on the polling, Clinton appears more likely to be downplaying the issue than overstating it.

To paraphrase a long-ago senator, "Don't bigots have the right to representation, too"? By the way, there are some who believe that giving the vote to women was the start of the downfall of the Republic. Work on that for a while and I'll get back here tomorrow.

Gee, simple math: 50% of just the 14 million he won in the primary would be 7 million deplorable REP and Independent voters! Polls like statistics can and are manipulated. Stop trying to state your own racist beliefs.

Patrick, in the best right-wingnut tradition, I said that mediocrities have a right to be represented on The Supreme Court. My choice for that position would be John Derbyshire, columnist for The National Review, who recently declared that women's suffrage is bad for conservatism and, therefore, bad for society. Also, White Nationalists (part of the hallowed 14 million who voted for Trump in the primaries), declare that God is dead-set against women voting.
As for @Truth Liar, he belongs in some dark and dank cellar, 14 million miles below Deplorable.

Enjoyed your political satire parody about stereotypes. In real life, I'm for just relating to people as individuals, as you so well put it.

Lots of white people like to think they are not racist on a person-to-person level but that's just justifying the lack of blatant, spoken racism. Racism has not been eliminated. It is just more subtle with white people. The real test is how many people of color you interact with, how many minority causes you fight for, and how you think. White people seem to think saying "I voted for Obama" validates them as non-racist. And yet any disagreement or perceived threat to those same people by black people usually ends up with the utterance of the N-word. It's easy to quote MLK on judging human character not skin color, but something entirely different to live by it. And that goes for all races. Donald Trump is only for the white race. He encourages racial hatred and violence. He is divisive. He wants to build walls between people. And he's no more Christian than David Duke is. Conscience alone should rule him out in the voting booth come election day. But sadly, he's going to get a lot of votes anyway.

If racism is incurable, why bother trying? Until Obama began stirring the pot again, overt, blatant racism was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Racism and tribalism are easy ways to distract people and divide them. The left requires a divided nation of whining "victims" for political support. When the native population turns against them or has been aborted into oblivion, they import more people from nations and faiths that are incompatible with the values that built this nation. Look at Europe. Who wants to "tolerate" thousands of bogus "refugees" robbing and raping at will? That is Hillary's dream for America. I know a lot of people who don't like President Obama. Not one mentions the color of his skin. It is irrelevant. Unfortunately for Mr Hope and Change, people are judging him on the content of his character. As for "minority" causes, Blacks and Gays don't need my help and wouldn't accept it if I offered it. They are perfectly capable of getting what they want on their own. We don't have to embrace, just respect each other's space.

I'm not racist in my opinion of Obama; I despise both sides of his family equally

Patrick, please define "the native population" of America. To me that has always meant Native Americans like the Sioux, Navajo, etc. Try not to sound like a 19th Century Nativist who told your immigrant forebears that they need not apply for work at factories.
CML, I don't understand why you "despise" Obama's relatives.

Patrick: From which countries do we import people whose faiths "are incompatible with the values that built this nation"? Mexico? China? India? Those are the top three countries that send immigrants to the U.S. What are the values that built this nation? Hard work? Devotion to family? Inventiveness? Entrepreneurial talent? In what manner are immigrants from those countries deficient? Is the value in question Christianity? In that case, we should deport most of the Chinese and Indians, and clasp all the Mexicans to our breast.
According to a 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center, the data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”
Regarding racism, how did Obama begin "stirring the pot again"? By getting elected and forcing Mitch McConnell to dedicate the former Republican Party solely to deny him a second term and to block him from exercising his executive powers?
Take a timeout from shuttling between gun shows and your TV, which is fix-tuned to Fox News. Take your first airplane trip. Please make the ticket one-way.

^ our values and laws are undisputedly of Judeo-Christian origin and the immigrants were White Europeans that built the infrastructure of this nation and wrote the Constitution. The Native Americans were borderless heathens that accomplished nothing for thousands of years having originated in Asia 40,000 years ago and crossing the Bering land bridge. At one time there was no one here but dinosaurs. What made the U.S.A. great were WASPs. Our big mistake was the chattle slave trade and this evolving melting pot idea that has failed. We have a White majority, a Black subculture of 12% and a third Hispanic subculture of 13%. The builders and visionaries, hard workers and devoted worshippers of Christianity were British, French, German, Italian, Polish, and Irish. Later came the immigrant service waves of Chinese, Mexicans, Indians, and others. So please do not lecture us, you fraudulent pseudo-intellectual POS. And inventiveness? Ford, Edison, Einstein, Oppenheimer, etc... were White men! Even all our best Presidents were White men. Obama is not one of them. He doubled our national debt, threatened to default on the debt, lowered our credit rating, made the worst trade deals imaginable, gave lousy ACA, flaked on the Syria redline threat, and has failed to defeat ISIS while welcoming poorly vetted Sharia-loving terrorists into our nation to kill U.S. citizens. He has also gutted our military and has forgotten our Vets. He wants to rob Medicate to subsidize Obamacare to the tune of $1 Trillion. And he lacked good judgement with Hillary Clinton as SoS. Everything she has done has been a disaster. Counter that, liberal scum.

I don't know where to start, Get Real. I know who you are. Let your pal speak for himself. You have no credibility. Your "subcultures" invented our culture and they are the brains of our modern technology. White Europeans built our infrastructure? They sure looked like coolies who dug through mountains to lay track on the western end of the Intercontinental RR. They sure looked like Black slaves who built the White House. Whites will be in the minority by 2030. Eat your Aryan heart out! Einstein, Oppenheimer? Sorry, not WASP, not Christian, and in the eyes of you racists, not even white. Inbred WASPs ceased to be a force in America ever since the huddled masses brought their genius from Europe and then Asia. Subcultures? Don't you mean untermenschen? The rest of your diatribe is AltRight boilerplate. You are the least of Americans, too trivial to be deplorable, and not good enough to smell Obama's s**t.

^ forgets that Obama IS sh*t and that the American people have been smelling his foul stench for eight years. Hillary Clinton is merely the toilet paper clinging to him!!!

Bwahahahaha!!!

Confused by Questioner comment about Einstein and Oppenheimer. Are you saying they were Negroes or Hispanics? They were German immigrants AFAIK. Please explain in context of your reply to black and Hispanic subcultures which only account for what? Twenty to thirty percent of American citizens.

Patrick, you have a real winner here!

In the 19th century and well into the 20th, Jews, Irish, Italians, and other peoples from southern and eastern Europe were widely considered "colored," and were heavily discriminated against in employment and housing.
When you take into account East Asians, people from the Indian subcontinent, formerly colonized Africans, North Africans, etc., etc., the non-white population becomes dramatically high.

Chuckles, you're either a corpse on The Mary Tyler Moore Show or a sugary, gummy candy. Either way, you're an idiot.

Q: Why is Hillary Clinton running for President?
A: Because it's easier than running from Law Enforcement

I did not write "Send me your tired, your poor, your white, your Christian..." I also did not write, "Send me your white supremacists, your knuckle draggers, your bores, your war lovers, your ignoramuses, your pitiful parodists, your welfare kings, your foul-mouthed haters..."

I did not write "Send me your tired, your poor, your mixed-breed mongrels, your Muslim fanatics..." I also did not write, "Send me your bleeding-heart liberals, your disgusting sexual deviants, your no common sense morons, your filthy free love, doped-up hippies, your commie socialists, your self-righteous hypocritical parodists, your endless Government program freeloader beggars, your loud-mouthed atheist haters... of Judeo-Christianity, family values, strong defense, border security, and strong economic growth (read 4%+)"

^ It's a good thing you didn't write that nonsense, Robuff. What's a mixed-breed mongrel -- someone who is not 100% Nordic white? Only a Nazi would use that term. What's "filthy free love"? Only a sexually repressed 50-year-old virgin would write that. What's a commie socialist? Something different from a capitalist socialist? Good thing you didn't write all that crap, or you'd be a world-class loser!

World-class loser? Hillary Clinton posts here?

Patrick, this is your best political parody thus far!

Emma, I think you missed the connection. Rebuff said your filthy free love, doped-up hippies before the next your. At least that's how I read it. I guess Rebuff grew up in the '60s! Today, we're just pot-smoking, e-vaping slackers! Puff-puff-pass as Smokey said 8))>

You're right, Mikel. Still, Robuff (my preferred spelling) associates free love (an archaic expression) with a filthy, drug-fueled lifestyle. In doing so, he betrays his sexual immaturity and insecurity. The grammatical problem is that the comma between "love" and "doped-up" is subordinate to all the other commas separating the phrases beginning with "your." To avoid confusion, those other commas should have been semicolons. But all this pales before the fact that Robuff aka Get Real unleashes a snarling, racist Fascism, particularly when using his many pseudonyms. Under his real name he's merely a war mongering cesspool of useless MIL specs and teenage trivia, and a production machine for atrocious "parodies." I hope you've read my entire prize-winning sonnet "The New Colossus," which adorns the pedestal of The Statue of Liberty.

I don't know if this is my best political parody, but if the purpose of writing such is to get a reaction, it is by far the most successful. I remember when the Vietnamese and Laotians came to Kansas City in the aftermath of the war. They worked hard, lived in a frugal manner, learned English and strove to attain the American dream. I never heard of any serious criminal activity among them. The Muslims now pouring into Europe are violent and subversive of traditional Western values. It is their religion. Hindus don't wish to conquer the world. Neither do Buddhists. Forcing the world to submit to Allah is the goal of practicing Muslims. If Islam were simply a different manner of prayer or even a different God, it could be accommodated like Jainism or Zoroastrianism and many other faiths of lack thereof. But Muslims cannot accommodate differences in dress, diet, sexual orientation, and a thousand other manifestations of liberal, free, tolerant Western society. And, as we have seen at Fort Hood, Orlando, and elsewhere that some are prepared to do violence to express their displeasure. Bringing in more people of this persuasion undermines our society. In the early days of the 20th Century the US tried to weed out Communists and Anarchists. The reason being that these ideologies are defined as undermining the host society. Letting such people in would be a form of national suicide and our ancestors were not interested in doing that. Things seem to have changed in recent years.

Contrary to Patrick's uninformed analysis of 1.6 billion Muslims and the Qur'an, violence and subversion of traditional Western values is NOT the religion of Islam. Islam supports a democratic form of governance and also requires Muslims to “obey those in authority among them” (4:60); any Muslim speaking against the West while living with its freedoms is acting deliberately against the recommendations of their religion. Those who really feel Islam isn’t compatible with Western values ought to educate themselves on Islam’s true teachings, even if some so-called Muslims won’t.
If we take justice to be one of the Western values to be proud of, those unaware of Islamic teachings would be surprised to hear how the Qur’an strongly exhorts to absolute justice on more than one occasion (5:9, 6:153, 7:30), saying, “Allah loves the just” (49:10). The Qur'an is so clear on the importance of fair-mindedness that Harvard University declared this verse as one of the greatest expressions of justice in literature.
But what about freedom? Here we find similar values. Those asserting that Islam restricts freedom are grossly mistaken, or simply deceived by the oppressive political regimes in the Middle East. It’s important not to confuse the religion of Islam with oppressive political and dictatorial rule.
How, when the Prophet of Islam said it was forbidden to compel anyone in matters of faith, can his followers then have the authority to impose their beliefs on others? Time and again Islam’s teachings uphold religious and personal freedoms. If dictators in the Middle East or radical Muslim preachers oppose the Prophet Mohammed in their words and actions, then they’re solely to blame. It doesn’t mean Islam is incompatible with freedom or human rights. It means that these hate preachers and unjust rulers who claim to be Muslims are at odds with not only Western values, but the true requirements of their faith.
The Prophet Mohammed declared all men were free – no one being superior to another except by way of righteous conduct. He further took great steps to abolish slavery and liberate women across the Arab world whose status as chattel was widespread. This was long before similar battles were won in the West against unjust slavery and for the liberation of women.
In other words, Islam isn’t just compatible with Western values; it started to espouse and establish them long before western democracies. Islamic and Western values are one and the same, and they have been for longer than you could possibly imagine.

Qur’an 3:32 – Hate (Allah only loves believers in Allah. That’s only Muslims!) “Say: Obey Allah and His Messenger; But if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.”
Qur’an 48:29 – Terrorize (Muslims are to be severe to unbelievers!) “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.”
Qur’an 4:24 – Rape (Approved for your women captives, even if married as to avoid adultery!) “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.”
Qur’an 5:33 – Murder (Punished, crucified for objecting to Sharia!) “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Qur’an 9:5 – Idolators – (Convert, die or pay jizyah tax!) “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”
Qur’an 9:29 – Dominate The World (Dhimmi / death / subdued!) “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Qur’an 9:73 – Apostates & Hypocrites (Non-Muslims are to be hunted like animals!) “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”
Qur’an 9:111 – Jihad = Holy War (Believers are those who slay and are slain!) “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Qur’an 47:35 – Power & Victory (Peace is the cry of those being slaughtered!) “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Qur’an 2:106 – Abrogation (The later verse erases the former!) “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better that it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

You have adulterated the verses with your own insertions. Consider 48:29. The words "terrorize" and "ruthless" do not appear in any English translation.
Muhammad Asad translation: 48:29 MUHAMMAD is God’s Apostle; and those who are [truly] with him are firm and unyielding towards all deniers of the truth, [yet] full of mercy towards one another. Thou canst see them bowing down, pros­trating themselves [in prayer], seeking favor with God and [His] goodly acceptance: their marks are on their faces, traced by prostration. This is their parable in the Torah as well as their parable in the Gospel: {they are] like a seed that brings forth its shoot, and then He strengthens it, so that it grows stout, and [in the end] stands firm upon its stem, delighting the sowers. [Thus will God cause the believers to grow in strength,] so that through them He might confound the deniers of the truth. [But] unto such of them as may [yet] attain to faith and do righteous deeds, God has promised forgiveness and a reward supreme.
This is indistinguishable from a typical verse in the Hebrew Bible and The Gospels, and infinitely less violent than many verses in those predecessor Scriptures. God will be firm and unyielding with you, "By the Book," for your hateful distortions.

Given today’s headlines, it may come as a surprise to learn that in the 1970s there were no major conflicts involving Islamist radicals being waged around the world. This raises an obvious question. If Islam is in fact an inherently violent religion, how do we account for these—and many other—long periods of peacefulness within Muslim societies?
The reality is that Islam—like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and other major world religions—is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Like every other great religion, the history of Islam is darkened by periods of violent bloodletting. And the holy texts of all religions can be mined for quotes to legitimize terrorism—or indeed principled nonviolence.
Thus ISIS and other extreme Islamist radicals have no difficulty finding justification in medieval Islamic texts for their ultra-violent ideology and barbaric practices. But these extreme interpretations have minimal support among Muslims around the world and tell us nothing about the propensity for violence in mainstream Islam.
Discussions about the violence of contemporary Islam focus overwhelmingly on armed conflict and terrorism. But a more appropriate metric for determining the propensity for violence of a particular society, culture, or religion is the incidence of intentional homicide.
In almost all societies it is murder, not war, that accounts for the large majority of intentional killings. And perpetrating homicide, unlike embarking on wars or terror campaigns, does not require long preparation, intensive organization, a huge range of weaponry, complex logistics, political mobilization, intensive training, or a great deal of money—which is one reason why war and terrorism death tolls around the world are far smaller than the number of homicides. It is far more difficult to mount an armed campaign against a state than to kill an individual. [All you need to kill an individual is an easily obtainable firearm, the justification of a misinterpreted Second Amendment, and the backing of a powerful lobby like the NRA — and you have the real home-grown terrorism. Where would you rather walk the street at night — Chicago or Dearborn?]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html

Thanks for the link. It made me commiserate with Phil. Your link leads to a summary of "Muslim" terrorism and its organizations, which we kind of knew about. The central questions, though, are these: Is the terrorism an inevitable result of the Islamic religion and does Islam stand apart from all other religions in this respect. Basher and I have answered "No" and "No." Praise Allah we don't have to defend Monsanto.

http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/proof-islam-evil-violent-intolerant-straight-koran/

Those links have cleared the engrams from my reactive mind better than Mucinex could. So I'm dumping Islam and going with Scientology, where the real money is.

Scientology is not quite as tough on apostates as Islam, but they are not to be crossed if you can avoid it. Maybe we can start another thread on that hokus pokus religion..I've never seen one of my parodies draw this many comments.

If you really want to draw silly numbers of (inane) comments, try writing something about GMOs :-)

There goes that corporate Phil shill again; who cant even catch a "Dr Strangelove" reference yet he is so Phull of himself he spews his ignorant Monsanto talking points on someone else's thread, all in the face of overwhelming name-calling opposition. The science is settled, Phool. Get a clue from the vote tallies on your so called parody and stop with this tired "weight of scientific evidence" routine, Sphincter Boy. Think about it, would Neil Young be singing about this subject in his soaring anti-GMO protest anthems, if there was any doubt that GMOs are poison

Phil referenced GMOs on this thread because I referenced him and his parody here. The tonnage of billingsgate heaped on Phil is disgusting. He sincerely holds a reasonable opinion which he defends indefatigably. Meanwhile, this site is filled with hateful, absurd, lunatic fringe comments which go unopposed. Phil even finds himself damned for not seeing a movie. This has become a "Hate Phil" festival. Phil, see Dr. Strangelove for its entertainment value, which is unparalleled.

Yes, I too find it appalling that Phil seeks to divert all the negative GMO replies over to Patrick's thread with his comment. I mean, look, common sense dictates that if almost half the world has bans or partial bans on GMO foods, then the safety concerns are validated even if not one person has yet been identified as having died from the stuff. GMO foods DO have the ability to genetically mutate. Not a good thing for the human body and mothers carrying babies. Not even for animals fed GMO corn. Safety is always number one in my book. It took decades to discover AIDS. People died misdiagnosed. And following some of the independent study reports and testimonies presented on the other thread, that itself is something. The fact that Monsanto has teams of lawyers that try to stop independent studies from being published and has been caught bribing various nations to accept their GMO food and Roundup coated seeds would be a red flag indicator that something is wrong. And citizens also have the right to be alarmed, wanting mandatory GMO labeling on products. I want to know what's in my food Phil. So you want to call me a fanatic or a crazy person? You have no right buddy. Maybe you don't care about your health, but I care about mine and my family's. And reading about NASA's rejection of any GMO on their spacecraft and future missions to the moon and Mars begs the question of WHY? If this is the food of the future, why do so many agencies and people of the world NOT want it? Everything here that I have posted is valid. It is Phil who is in deep denial and whom is unconcerned about the fate of humanity. That's probably the main reasons why the others think Phil is a Monsanto puppet on crooked strings.

Easy now, AM. I was actually trying to parody Phil and Patrick's critics. But most of them are so detached from rationality, it's almost impossible to parody them, no matter how patently ridiculous you try to be. You really cant tell the difference

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/celebrities-against-gmos

My parody of Hillary Clinton's comments on Donald Trump's supporters has mutated into a treatise on Genetically Modified Food Organisms. Wow. Can anyone think of something to add, perhaps Global Warming, Gay Marriage, or the fact that all pre-packaged foods now contain government subsidised cheese. I don't like cheese and I have to throw the stuff away before I microwave it. By the way, as long as I'm stirring things up, why can't someone do something about all these stray dogs that make it too dangerous to walk for exercise anymore?

Sorry, Patrick, I didn't think anybody would be quite so brainlessly knee-jerk as to take this as an invitation to post the same idiocy here as he has kept doing with innumerable pseudonymous sockpuppets over on my Neil Young parody. Evidently I was wrong.