The ironic thing is that countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, which are a good representative of the bogeyman he's trying to bring up, are oppressive to women. Conservatives, however much they may bash Islam, are also eroding women rights. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm no republican, but to make that kind of comparison is very silly on your part. I refrained myself from saying "bigoted", since this word has been abused here.
I don't see how. Yes, Middle Eastern oppression of women is unquestionably worse, but we're talking about a party that has, out and out, attempted to ban abortions and redefine rape to exclude drug rapes, etc.
Again, to compare the issue of abortion, that quite frankly is completely debatable indepedently of whether you and I and many people "sit" on it, to the misogynistic practices in Afghanistan is outright insulting. Not. Even. Wrong.
****, americans are completely ignorant of what's going on rofl. France has banned the burka. Do you know what a burka is? Switzerland is the country that has banned minarets. GB approved of sharia law to be applicated between muslisms.
Why? Why are you American baiting? I knew this stuff, and I'm a yank, I bet there are a fair number of Europeans who don't know everything there is to know about racism in the United States, and you know what? It's not worth trolling them over.
I was joking there. And yeah, many europeans do not know the backstory of racism in america.
The claim that he can't be bigoted because he's black is inherently racist in and of itself. 
It's more of a reference, not a logical necessity, and I thought it was a good reference of actual experience on the subject. And on top of that, you call them racists for pointing that out!
I mean, wow.
It was a joke, I'm pretty sure.
Mkay.
EDIT: Just realized there were 3
"I was asked, 'What is the role of Islam in America?' I thought it was an odd question. I said, 'The role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country - some of them – try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.'"
Seems pretty good to me. I don't think he really meant to be against muslims, but against muslimhood in politics and justice. Some people have difficulty making the distinction but this paragraph is as good as it gets.
Please read my initial post
Did he now? I did read the quotes, but I do know how reporters often go for the soundbytes, etc. The
whole gist of his message didn't seem to be "fking muslisms no WAY they gonna get over ma arse". It was more like "religion doesn't step in justice while I have a word about it". The reference of christianity as an example was also very clear. I seriously doubt he would not "appoint" a christian dude per se. But he would if said dude would see the bible as his own "justice" reference point.
No, totally not prejudiced at all?
Webster
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
It depends on the actual quote. I am quite skeptical of the reporter's accuracy there, and even if he expressed what he meant the right rigorous way. Again, his fears were
not about people, but about specific beliefs that run counter to his notions of what justice in America means. He
should be discriminatory against all of those from which he
disagrees on those terms. Obviously. To call that "prejudice" or "bigotry" is profoundly idiotic.
Now you seem to be sticking with this only small quotation from him to reach the whole conclusion that he's bigoted, prejudiced, etc. Sorry, I don't think people are defined by soundbytes, specially typos.
See definition 2. I generally think religion, by in large, is dangerous to believe. At the same time, their specific beleif may vary, to not hire a more qualified person, who might even hold less destructive beliefs, because their particular god is named Allah, is silly. Especially considering that there are plenty of Republicans right now with dangerous beliefs, and only some of those are religious.
It has nothing to do with "Religion" per se, but with its inherent contradiction with the first Amendment and justice policies overall. Again, in this kind of situation it is pretty difficult to separate the man from his "beliefs", but if you see a religion affiliation as a political affiliation (which is what it is, really), then why on earth should he be criticized for discriminating against muslims?
Try to substitute "muslim" for "democratic" to get the point. Would he get such a bad reporting against him were he to say that he would never appoint a "dem judge"? Of COURSE not. And yet, dems are way more similar to reps than muslims are. So all this fuss is just political correctedness gone berserk.
