most hated family in america

[Jackie Joyner Kersee]

[ian lowe]

loling too hard right now. thank you

[HairyCunt]

 All republicans are dumb? All democrats are smart?

[SockCucker]

smirked quite jewishly haha. stupid liberals

[brycickle]

All republicans are dumb? All democrats are smart?

No. All are dumb. None are smart. That works for both sides.

[Sleazy]

it's the extremist on both sides. people that think for themselves usually end up in the middle somewhere.

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

hahaah shut the fuck up sleazy. more often than not 'centrists' are pussies who are too afraid to take a stand on anything worthwhile.

[Michelle Obama]

Anybody seen this film yet? Wetstboro at 1:40

God Bless America - Official Trailer [HD]

I can't believe it ever got made

[William Jefferson Clinton]

These people are tame compared to Muslim extremists

That's ignorant at best. These people are extremists and are social terrorists that execute the same form of discrimination that violent terrorists do through attacks. 2 different things, as well, extremists of any creed are dangerous.

Considering the fact that these people attempt to indoctrinate through legal free speech and not through terror, beheadings, female genital mutilation and oppression, I would say that there is a big difference.

Agreed, these people use "free speech" to get there radical points across, while Muslim extremist resort to violence and treat women like animals.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

These people are tame compared to Muslim extremists

That's ignorant at best. These people are extremists and are social terrorists that execute the same form of discrimination that violent terrorists do through attacks. 2 different things, as well, extremists of any creed are dangerous.

Considering the fact that these people attempt to indoctrinate through legal free speech and not through terror, beheadings, female genital mutilation and oppression, I would say that there is a big difference.

Agreed, these people use "free speech" to get there radical points across, while Muslim extremist resort to violence and treat women like animals.

Yeah, they use "free speech" and child soldiers. Nothing unchristian about that.

[William Jefferson Clinton]

These people are tame compared to Muslim extremists

That's ignorant at best. These people are extremists and are social terrorists that execute the same form of discrimination that violent terrorists do through attacks. 2 different things, as well, extremists of any creed are dangerous.

Considering the fact that these people attempt to indoctrinate through legal free speech and not through terror, beheadings, female genital mutilation and oppression, I would say that there is a big difference.

Agreed, these people use "free speech" to get there radical points across, while Muslim extremist resort to violence and treat women like animals.

Yeah, they use "free speech" and child soldiers. Nothing unchristian about that.

Westboro baptist church doesnt use child soldiers.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Christian zealots do. So, as mentioned earlier, if you want to compare religious zealots in politically and economically fucked social climates, Christian zealots are just as bad. In America, there is no Muslim group that even compares in terms of what Westboro does. They are the most hateful America-based hate group. If you want to compare religious extremism on an international level, Christians are just as bad.

[William Jefferson Clinton]

In America, there is no Muslim group that even compares in terms of what Westboro does.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/special-investigative-reports/muslim-terrorist-training-camps-in-north-america

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

In America, there is no Muslim group that even compares in terms of what Westboro does.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/special-investigative-reports/muslim-terrorist-training-camps-in-north-america

You realize that's just unfounded islamophobia right? There's no actual evidence, nor have any actual violent acts taken place that have been the result of them.

This group of fine christian American men have been guilty of a couple of violent acts though:

[HairyCunt]

These people are tame compared to Muslim extremists

That's ignorant at best. These people are extremists and are social terrorists that execute the same form of discrimination that violent terrorists do through attacks. 2 different things, as well, extremists of any creed are dangerous.

Considering the fact that these people attempt to indoctrinate through legal free speech and not through terror, beheadings, female genital mutilation and oppression, I would say that there is a big difference.

Agreed, these people use "free speech" to get there radical points across, while Muslim extremist resort to violence and treat women like animals.

Yeah, they use "free speech" and child soldiers. Nothing unchristian about that.

Westboro baptist church doesnt use child soldiers.

This is true.  The facts are overwhelming. Child suicide bombers and human shields are used by muslim extremists  across the world. From Chechnya to Palestine to Iraq to Pakistan to Indonesia. Anywhere there is Muslim extremism there are these things.  You keep bringing up Kony but the example is out of date and nowhere near as big in numbers as militant Islamic violence.  Most child soldiers in Africa are used in tribal and ethnic conflicts not religious based ones.  Nice try though.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

You missed my point. Look back at your examples of islamic militancy, what do they all have in common? Impoverished nations in conflict tend to have vicious and violent wars, and usually use whatever the common religion is as their moral backing. You'll never see people who live in the U.S. from those religions kill children to further their cause, anymore, aside from groups like the KKK and the national front (both of which are christian)

[HairyCunt]

You missed my point. Look back at your examples of islamic militancy, what do they all have in common? Impoverished nations in conflict tend to have vicious and violent wars, and usually use whatever the common religion is as their moral backing. You'll never see people who live in the U.S. from those religions kill children to further their cause, anymore, aside from groups like the KKK and the national front (both of which are christian)

I didn't miss your point. You suggested that Islamic extremists commit no more acts of violence than any other religion. Which just not true. The thing those countries have in common is that they're predominantly muslim.  Maybe not in the US but they have in the UK and Spain and France and India.  The Bloodiest war in Africa had nothing to with religion.

[jay]

I'm think gipper at this point is just arguing for arguments' sake.  Another one I can think of right now is that South Park fiasco that happened a few years back, which was related to the killing of the Dutch cartoonist.  It's prevalent in Western society too, not just the Middle East.

[weedpop]

So, what is your point exactly, Harry Crews? If you arbitrarily sample from the time period 1979-present, Islamic extremism appears to be the most violent kind, confirming Islam as an "inherently" violent proselytizing religion? All socioeconomic and historical factors be damned? You seem to be ignoring how most of these groups/Islamist movements formed in countries that had been subjected to warfare and deprivation beforehand. But wait, "the thing they have in common is that they're all muslim" right?



Is this you?

[HairyCunt]

So, what is your point exactly, Harry Crews? If you arbitrarily sample from the time period 1979-present, Islamic extremism appears to be the most violent kind, confirming Islam as an "inherently" violent proselytizing religion? All socioeconomic and historical factors be damned? You seem to be ignoring how most of these groups/Islamist movements formed in countries that had been subjected to warfare and deprivation beforehand. But wait, "the thing they have in common is that they're all muslim" right?



Is this you?

Islamic extremism doesn't "appear" to be the most violent kind, it IS the most violent. I think it's fair to sample the period 1979- to present, I mean every religion has a history of violence, but we're talking about the modern era, we could go back thousands of years, it's not really relevant.  As for your point about countries being subjected to warfare and deprivation, I don't know what you are trying to say.  I mean I can guess, but be more clear.

LOL at that guys sign, he's right.

[weedpop]

You stated that Islamic Radicals kill people because they believe that "Islam is the one true religion", even though this is a belief which is held by pretty much every major faith or religious sect. You attribute their violence to the dogmas propagated by Islam, even though history has shown that these dogmas don't always produce similar types of militant behaviour. Also, you completely ignore the social and political circumstances that are equally, if not more important than ideology in the radicalization of populations (warfare, poverty, ethnic discrimination, totalitarian governments) in order to focus on your idea that Islam is an inherently evil and destructive force.

Do you think that the 1979 revolution or the doctrines of Pan-arabism would have happened without the influence of the USA, USSR etc. in the region? This "modern era" of islamic militancy was brought about by political factors, not by the violence supposedly inherent in islamic teachings. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that radical islam is currently the most violent form of religious extremism worldwide, I just object to your spurious explanation of the matter as purely ideological.

[HairyCunt]

You stated that Islamic Radicals kill people because they believe that "Islam is the one true religion", even though this is a belief which is held by pretty much every major faith or religious sect. You attribute their violence to the dogmas propagated by Islam, even though history has shown that these dogmas don't always produce similar types of militant behaviour. Also, you completely ignore the social and political circumstances that are equally, if not more important than ideology in the radicalization of populations (warfare, poverty, ethnic discrimination, totalitarian governments) in order to focus on your idea that Islam is an inherently evil and destructive force.

Do you think that the 1979 revolution or the doctrines of Pan-arabism would have happened without the influence of the USA, USSR etc. in the region? This "modern era" of islamic militancy was brought about by political factors, not by the violence supposedly inherent in islamic teachings. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that radical islam is currently the most violent form of religious extremism worldwide, I just object to your spurious explanation of the matter as purely ideological.

1. While it's true every religion believes that their faith is right, the militant islamists are willing to go to violent lengths to prove this, among non violent things such as trying to establish Sharia in countries that don't want it, I'm not talking just about the UK, look at what's going on in Mali right now. Do you think Mormons could do such a thing in Saudi Arabia? They could I suppose if they wanted their heads cut off. (Not hyperbole, that is the chosen method of execution, in which is arguably on the moderate side of Islamic countries.)  

2. Yes populations where there is large amounts of poverty,warfare, etc. are ripe for radicalization, but who is promoting it? The OIC for one. The Muslim Brotherhood. Neither of which are fringe elements. The idea that Islamic militancy has been precipitated largely by western influences is lukewarm. It is the rationalization of senseless violence and that there must be more than religion behind such acts.  

3. One more example, when the Danish cartoon controversy erupted resulting in over 100 related deaths, the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, fires set in embassy's in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. The OIC did not speak out against such acts, rather they condemned the cartoons and tried to pressure the government of Denmark to curb the free press.  How is that anything more than ideological?

[chockfullofthat]

You stated that Islamic Radicals kill people because they believe that "Islam is the one true religion", even though this is a belief which is held by pretty much every major faith or religious sect. You attribute their violence to the dogmas propagated by Islam, even though history has shown that these dogmas don't always produce similar types of militant behaviour. Also, you completely ignore the social and political circumstances that are equally, if not more important than ideology in the radicalization of populations (warfare, poverty, ethnic discrimination, totalitarian governments) in order to focus on your idea that Islam is an inherently evil and destructive force.

Do you think that the 1979 revolution or the doctrines of Pan-arabism would have happened without the influence of the USA, USSR etc. in the region? This "modern era" of islamic militancy was brought about by political factors, not by the violence supposedly inherent in islamic teachings. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that radical islam is currently the most violent form of religious extremism worldwide, I just object to your spurious explanation of the matter as purely ideological.

1. While it's true every religion believes that their faith is right, the militant islamists are willing to go to violent lengths to prove this, among non violent things such as trying to establish Sharia in countries that don't want it, I'm not talking just about the UK, look at what's going on in Mali right now. Do you think Mormons could do such a thing in Saudi Arabia? They could I suppose if they wanted their heads cut off. (Not hyperbole, that is the chosen method of execution, in which is arguably on the moderate side of Islamic countries.) ? 

2. Yes populations where there is large amounts of poverty,warfare, etc. are ripe for radicalization, but who is promoting it? The OIC for one. The Muslim Brotherhood. Neither of which are fringe elements. The idea that Islamic militancy has been precipitated largely by western influences is lukewarm. It is the rationalization of senseless violence and that there must be more than religion behind such acts. ? 

3. One more example, when the Danish cartoon controversy erupted resulting in over 100 related deaths, the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, fires set in embassy's in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. The OIC did not speak out against such acts, rather they condemned the cartoons and tried to pressure the government of Denmark to curb the free press. ? How is that anything more than ideological?

[vegan*shawn]

The fascists where motivated by their Christian religion during WW2, I am pretty sure that they killed more people then any Muslim extremists. 

[HairyCunt]

The fascists where motivated by their Christian religion during WW2, I am pretty sure that they killed more people then any Muslim extremists.  

 

[iKobrakai]

Louis Theroux made a good one as well. Everything you need to know is here:

Louis Theroux - America's Most Hated Family IN CRISIS (2/4)

Ahhh, the irony!

[Wall of Nausea]

I think you're all a bunch of faggots who aren't going to do anything, but argue with your faggoty selves. Take that interweb!

Right or wrong, every turd that falls from either side's mouth is just a fossil of ignorance from arm chair "smart guys" ...so kindly stop giving these people publicity on this board and let this thread die. Regardless if it transformed into a debate with harrycrews and the gape-er, weedpop, jay, other personas blah blah.. I don't want westboro with my skateboarding and fun prick waving contests in the whatever section.

Gipper, write a report and send it to someone who gives a fuck. Like a rock on mars. Rocks are great listeners. Harry, I understand your parents pay for your internet, but just go to community college already. PLEASE. The rest of you, stop jumping at the chance to think you're smart and prove it factually. Eventually, no one gives a shit. This debate is tired, you turn every simple thing into a fucking 8 armed octopus in every thread regarding beliefs/political affiliations/ what have you.

You fuck's become counter active to any discussion on this board on some juvenile tit for tat shit, "I'm better and SMARTER than you!" diatribe that just clogs up good reading.

So knock it off, pretty please... with ego's on top.

[brycickle]

^^^Someone had to say it.

[HairyCunt]

I think you're all a bunch of faggots who aren't going to do anything, but argue with your faggoty selves. Take that interweb!

Right or wrong, every turd that falls from either side's mouth is just a fossil of ignorance from arm chair "smart guys" ...so kindly stop giving these people publicity on this board and let this thread die. Regardless if it transformed into a debate with harrycrews and the gape-er, weedpop, jay, other personas blah blah.. I don't want westboro with my skateboarding and fun prick waving contests in the whatever section.

Gipper, write a report and send it to someone who gives a fuck. Like a rock on mars. Rocks are great listeners. Harry, I understand your parents pay for your internet, but just go to community college already. PLEASE. The rest of you, stop jumping at the chance to think you're smart and prove it factually. Eventually, no one gives a shit. This debate is tired, you turn every simple thing into a fucking 8 armed octopus in every thread regarding beliefs/political affiliations/ what have you.

You fuck's become counter active to any discussion on this board on some juvenile tit for tat shit, "I'm better and SMARTER than you!" diatribe that just clogs up good reading.

So knock it off, pretty please... with ego's on top.

I won the debate. It's over.

[TheFifthColumn]

I think you're all a bunch of faggots who aren't going to do anything, but argue with your faggoty selves. Take that interweb!

Right or wrong, every turd that falls from either side's mouth is just a fossil of ignorance from arm chair "smart guys" ...so kindly stop giving these people publicity on this board and let this thread die. Regardless if it transformed into a debate with harrycrews and the gape-er, weedpop, jay, other personas blah blah.. I don't want westboro with my skateboarding and fun prick waving contests in the whatever section.

Gipper, write a report and send it to someone who gives a fuck. Like a rock on mars. Rocks are great listeners. Harry, I understand your parents pay for your internet, but just go to community college already. PLEASE. The rest of you, stop jumping at the chance to think you're smart and prove it factually. Eventually, no one gives a shit. This debate is tired, you turn every simple thing into a fucking 8 armed octopus in every thread regarding beliefs/political affiliations/ what have you.

You fuck's become counter active to any discussion on this board on some juvenile tit for tat shit, "I'm better and SMARTER than you!" diatribe that just clogs up good reading.

So knock it off, pretty please... with ego's on top.

This is a public forum dude.  You're just going to have to accept the fact that discussion on it will be beyond the realm of your control.  Asking people to stop talking about things they want to talk about isn't going to work.  It's one thing to have an opinion and voice it; its another thing to try and stifle debate.

Also, this thread is in the Whatever section and is about a church that pickets funerals of soldiers who died in war.  Did you click on it expecting a discussion about wallrides or sponsorship changes?  Did you want to see funny GIFs and clever comebacks?  If you don't want to read this type of discourse, than don't enter these threads.

Also, you have been on this forum for like six months.  Who are you to tell posters who have been on here for years and have thousands of posts to not discuss certain things or post in certain ways?  If you don't like it here go somewhere else.