Salonista = A follower of Salon who agrees with the editorial slant and bias of Salon. Logic does not come easy to salonistas. Examples of their behavior can be found in their letters. A typical salonista will respond to criticism of their position with foul language, name calling, and irrational arguments. In other words, an emotional response.

Salon columnists play into the hands of salonistas by triggering these emotional responses. Unfortunately, base emotions are the ones that are targeted.

Mommy!!! Please save us from the mean Saloneesters and their bad words and also please tuck me in Mommy because I know there's a Moozlim under my bed and I want to feel big and strong and tough like I do when you hold me close Mommy and maybe in my dreams I can again be the big man guy like in 300 with the naked tan chest and leather thong kickin' the mean Moozlim's butts and I can run around with the cape and be, like, defending Western values except at home where I get to lie for a war or get mad at people who want real evidenz and I call the Democrats and libs traitors and stuff cause they don't see the Moozlims under the bed like I do!!

You will notice that no one here will be able to refute the truth of Islam's doctrine or origins...

That is precisely accurate. No one here will be able to refute to truth of Islam's doctrine or origins, because no one here will be able to affirm it, either.

But the FrontPageMag stinkoes are welcome to come here and try to convince people that their deep yearnings to bomb Moozlims the world over and turn more nations into the warlord chaos hell into which Afghanistan (the first time when Reagan built up the mujahedeen whose offspring actually carried out 9/11 thanks to the Republicans' distaste for actual national security issues) and Iraq have been made.

And they can really, really try to be taken seriously when they claim that their lunatic warlord policies are really all about saving teh gays.

But they'd have far more success arguing that 'no one here will be able to refute the truth of [Christianity, Paganism, Buddhism, etc.]'s doctrine or origin,' because this blog generally deals with real world issues and topics, rather than religious dogmas.

Plus, few here besides the visiting stinkoes are quite as sexually stimulated by the perfidy of Islam as they are.

So no, we will not be invaded by force. Like the Swedes and the Dutch have amply demonstrated it will be by the familiar intimidation of Political Correctness... When they get around to closing gay bars and banning bacon and ham sandwiches, I'm sure conservatives will be right behind you. What was that poem "When they came for..."?

Gosh. It almost makes one think that we should be standing up for a fierce commitment to maximal freedom and democracy in this country now, so that there is the strongest institutional and cultural defense against repression in the future.

After all, who is more likely to strangle American freedom and democracy?

Those ruling right wing turds who continually argue that it must be repressed here in order to fight the giant Muslim hydra which is about to crush us all sort of except not really just maybe they'll take our ham sandwiches, or that mass of us liberals and lefties who fight every attempt to throttle and demean the Bill of Rights?

By the way, the #1 greatest weapon against high birth rates among whatever population you do or don't like is to make sure that their women are economically strong, highly educated, and have full legal access to contraceptives and abortifacients. So if you've got a problem with birth rates among, say, American Muslims, why not make sure that their women experience the heights of Western development which ensures a dropping birth rate?

I've certainly enjoyed watching the Glenn Faithful get twisted into knots by that most capable poster, Mona.

Nothing Mona has said on this topic has twisted me up at all. Pointing out that Muslim individuals, Muslim groups, and Muslim states have occasionally threatened, harmed, and killed people is no more controversial than saying the same thing about the mafia in Siciliy.

Of course, I was one of the crazy moonbat lefties in the 1980s who thought it was a bad idea for dumbass Reagan to attack and destroy the secular government of Afghanistan by hiring armies of criminal warlord fundamentalist Islamic terrorist drug running thugs, who would go on from their victory over Russia to destroy Afghanistan with a warlord chaos hell, promote the early terrorist career of Osama bin Ladin, screw the country over so badly that the population glumly welcomed the Pakistan / CIA supported Taliban forces, who then went on to work with the Taliban and planned 9/11/2001...

...and I also thought it was a really bad idea for the U.S. to encourage and support Saddam Hussein consistently precisely because of his tyrannical and murderous government, making him a favored trading partner, extending loans, approving the sale from the U.S. and France of chemical weaponry equipment...

And since I wasn't 5 years old and I have encountered colonial history it was pretty easy to predict that blowing apart the few things holding secular Iraq together would lead straight to a warlord chaos hell favoring fundamentalist mini-tyrants...

But, then, unlike the stinko right wing pigeon heads who happily mouthe state propaganda when they are told -- hey, strangely enough on this crazy comment rant about Mooozlims and Feedom I haven't heard one word about Bush Jr's buddies in the Central Asian muslim tyrannies who boil their dissidents -- I'm consistently against tyranny and fundamentalist terrorism, even when that includes Freedom Fighters getting Uncle Ronnie's weapons, cash, logistics, protection and a bright, shiny 1980s explosion of opiate production.

And so I don't feel much like listening to lectures from history's historic enablers of right wing fundamentalist Muslim tyrannies and crazed fundamentalist Catholic Guatemalan genocidalists.