Incredibly racist DrinkingwithBob - 'Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden'

Dinkingwithbob is a youtube commentator with 53,201 subscribers. He gives this opinions on various issues by angrily yelling for about a minute. He appears furious about everything, though not always well-informed or rational.
A month ago, he released a video called 'Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden' where he questions why the black civil rights leaders are not weighing in on the Chis Lane murder. Since I can deconstruct it's content so easily, I thought I would.

What's next? I'll tell you what's next! A white kid came over from Melbourne Australia to play baseball in Oklahoma on a scholarship. He decided to go out for a jog one day. Two African American kids got in a car.

Actually it was two African American kids and one white kid. Funny how you forget to mention that even though it mentions it in the link beneath your video.

One of the African American kids had a gun. They pulled up behind this kid from Melbourne Australia, shot him in the back of the head and killed him, and nobody thinks this is a racial incident!

Because they confessed. They said they did it because they were bored. That's an odd lie to tell to cover up an anti-white agenda, since it makes them look like even bigger scumbags than they are.

Nobody thinks that the civil rights of this kid from Melbourne Australia have been violated!

What are you talking about? He's dead! Everyone thinks his civil rights been violated! He had the civil right to life and they took it away. I don't think that concept is lost on anybody. It certainly wasn't lost on the police when they charged the kids with murder.

They're not even investigating this as a possible hate crime!

That's just a lie. The police tried to establish a motive here as they do with all murders. They considered that it was racial but felt it wasn't.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chris-lane-murder-not-race-related-or-a-gang-initiation-police/story-e6frg6so-1226703344602

Even though before the crime was committed, one of the African American kids wrote on his twitter account that 90% OF WHITE PEOPLE ARE NASTY# HATE THEM in all caps. I mean George Zimmerman was considered a racist just because when the 911 operator asked him if Trayvon Martin was black or white he said 'I think he's black'.

That does sound worthy of consideration when questioning whether Zimmerman is racist... but the fact that you focus on whether Zimmerman and Chris Lane's killers are racist, instead of whether they're murderers indicates an odd set of priorities.
You are really hurt that they slagged off your whiteness, aren't you? It's because being white is probably the biggest thing you will ever accomplish.

But '90% OF WHITE PEOPLE ARE NASTY#HATE THEM' in all caps? That's not racist?

Who the fuck are you talking to? Who saying that's not racist? It's just that doesn't automatically mean it was a hate crime. They could be racist, but still have a different motivation for the murder.
You're just determined to believe it is an anti-white hate crime because you need your victim-complex nourished so you have an excuse to be an entitled, racist turd!

I mean, Barack Obama hasn't even weighed in on this incident.

That's not his job, fuck-face! He weighed in on the Trayvon Martin shooting because it attracted huge media attention due to the fact that a black kid was killed by a guy with a criminal record (Zimmerman) and the police weren't even investigating. Obama, who has experienced minority discrimination himself, thought it would be helpful to weigh in, but obviously the President doesn't have to weigh in on every murder that happens in America, you cock-head!

He's silent. Why? Because Barack Obama relates to the criminals!

Barack Obama relates to criminals who shoot people because they're bored? Bob has great evidence to back this claim up.
Bob likes pretending to be a victim so he has an excuse to be a hateful bigot. This explanation gives Bob an excuse to pretend be a victim so can be a hateful bigot, therefore it must be true! The only evidence Bob needs to claim something's true is Bob liking the idea that it's true.
That's Bob's logic.

I mean Barack Obama staying silent about this, he may as well be screaming from the rooftops that he approves of this killing!

Why the fuck would he approve of this killing you inbred, Klan-supporting, mouth-breathing, sister-banging, bottom-feeding turd-nugget? You probably think pro-wrestling is real!

We heard you loud and clear Barack! Loud and clear!

Oh no! You're hearing voices? Take your pills Bob!

And where's Al Sharpton? Where's the NAACP?

This case doesn't need Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP! The killers confessed and are going to trial! There's nothing for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People to do about this.

I mean these people, these groups don't exist to help black people. They exist to hurt white people.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you do either.

The NAACP should be classified as a terrorist organisation!

Actually Bob, terrorist organisations have to actually engage in actual terrorism. I know that's a difficult concept.

Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden!

Now you're trivialising the damage Bin Laden did. You can't just compare Osama Bin Laden to everything you don't like! Oh my god! There dirt on Bob's shoe! This is just like Osama Bin Laden!

Why don't we have a white Al Sharpton?

But you JUST SAID that Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden! Therefore by saying you want a white Al Sharpton, you're saying you want a white Osama Bin Laden! If there was someone murdering innocent people for YOU and not for the OTHER PEOPLE it would be fantastic!
I don't THINK you mean what you're saying literally, but you do mean the essence of it, which is 'Bob wants the bad, selfish people to be bad and selfish on his behalf, not THEIR behalf! Bob just wants as much as he can possibly get for white people and leave as little as possible for black people! Bob just wants his team to win, and Bob's team is his race! Go team!'
Also we don't need a white Al Sharpton because black people GO TO JAIL when they commit crimes. Just like the people you refer to in this video. In fact, they're going to be tried as adults when they're not even 18 yet. It says so in the link beneath your video. Why the fuck would we need a white Al Sharpton here?
If I had to guess how many brain cells are in your head, I'd say... Minus one zillion.

Why don't we have Brad Sharpton, or Spencer Sharpton? We should!

You wouldn't recognise a white Al Sharpton if you saw one! A white Al Sharpton would be talking out of his arse to pretend that white people need extra support because they're so oppressed. The black Al Sharpton actually has some legitimate points.
Do you know what a false equivalency is Bob?

Why aren't there senators on top of Capital Hill today, wearing east-central Oklahoma baseball caps in support of this kid from Melbourne Australia?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED TO! IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF BY THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, YOU DICKHEAD!
When you visit the zoo, do zoo officials chase you around thinking you've escaped from one of the cages? I bet they do.

They should! Do you know that the media is trying to turn this into a gun issue?! We have get rid of guns! We have to get rid of guns!

I BET that NOBODY said ban all guns! I'm almost certain! And America does have a gun issue. It's got a lot of gun issues, like the 'stand your ground' laws that allow people to commit murder and get away with it. That's a serious issue related to guns, right there.

We don't have to get rid of guns! We have to get rid of thugs! I mean, there are a million guns in this country!

There are much more guns than that in America actually.

And 90% of the time, when one of those guns is used in a crime, when one of those guns is used to kill someone, they're being held by someone who acts like Jay-Z, or acts like little Wayne!

I'm not sure how literally I'm supposed to take this, but most sources I've seen say the percentage of murders by black people is significantly lower than that, though still disproportionately high.
The solutions to that issue begin by putting yourself in the black people's shoes, which is why you're video sucks, because you're not doing that.

That's the problem! That's the freakin problem! And it's not racist! It's reality! A sad reality! But reality nonetheless! Are you kidding me! I mean you're freakin kidding me! What's next? What's next? What's next?

No are you kidding me? You really think YOU'RE qualified to tell people the difference between racism and reality... You're not.
I know black people murder in disproportionate numbers Bob. The answer is to put yourself in their shoes and understand what drives them there, then take steps to make sure they're properly incentivised to live an honest life within society's laws. This can be done with better schools (with more black teachers), larger welfare benefits to help the poor, affirmative action, ending the war on drugs and training more social workers to deal with troubled kids, thus giving the black communities opportunities to become stronger.
You don't solve it by lying and pretending that black people are getting away with racism and murder, then you suggesting that white people go on protest marches pretending they're so persecuted, even though the teens who did the killing are being tried as adults. There are already groups that do things like that Bob. They're called the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis.
Then you wrap it up by yelling 'BLACK PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES! I'M NOT RACIST! I JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMITTING CRIMES!'
Thanks. That was real helpful Mr Retard.

Michael Savage - The human race will die out if we don't shun homosexuality!

On May 7, 2009 Michael Savage went on CNN to discuss why he thought it was wrong that he had been banned from the United Kingdom for use of dangerous hate speech, alongside Russian skinheads and Muslim extremists. As one of the groups that Savage hate-mongers against the hardest is homosexuals, the CNN anchor asked him if he could clear up the 'misconception' about his positions on gay rights.
(Bit of a late response here, I know.)

CNN anchor: Why don't you clear up some of the misconceptions. I wanna ask you about your views on some of the following things. What are your views on homosexuality for example?

Savage: My religious training teaches me that it's something to shun. And when a society begins to embrace homosexuality and other behaviours, where does the society end up?

CNN anchor: And what do you say to people who say, you know, I was born this way, I didn't ask to be attracted to one sex or the other, and I shouldn't be treated differently?

Savage: You could be born a lot of different ways. It doesn't mean that a person has to follow their urges. I mean, there are many urges that people have. And if a society starts to engage homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality you end up with no society. Where is the reproduction supposed to come from? Have we lost all sense of father, mother and family?'

?????????? The reproduction comes from all the people who WANT to have heterosexual sex! Just because you legalise gay rights it doesn't mean EVERYONE will start having gay sex! Not everyone is as closeted as you!... Idiot.

Fox News' Worst Interview Ever!

Fox News has a recurring theme of being pig-headed, small-minded, self-centred and bigoted to the point of being comical.
For example, if they have a liberal guest on, they will ask them something like 'why do you hate white people, hate god, hate America, love terrorists and want to put violent criminals back on the street?' (That may an exaggeration, but only a slight one) The guest will try and fail to explain what their positions actually are to someone who is simply too stupid and narrow-minded to absorb it.
It's actually hard for me to understand how Fox News can be successful propaganda for the Republican party. All I see are a bunch of blithering idiots who get owned every single time they bring on a guest who doesn't agree with them, but who are too stupid to realise it. To me Fox New makes conservatives look stupid, not smart. But their viewers eat it up.
Recently though Fox News' Lauren Green in an interview with Muslim scholar Reza Aslan, took her wilful ignorance so far that even some of the Fox News audience were put off. I was actually surprised to hear that. I thought the viewers would eat this up too.

Reza has written an academic work called 'Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.'
Lauren's first question was 'Reza you're a Muslim so why'd you write a book about the founder of Christianity?'
Reza's reply: 'Well to be clear I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament and fluency in Biblical Greek who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades who also just happens to be a Muslim.'
When Lauren asks 'Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?' Reza responds 'Because it's my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion including the New Testament. That's what I do for a living actually.'
He also stated - 'Just to be clear this is not some attack on Christianity. My mother is a Christian, my wife is a Christian, my brother-in-law is an Evangelical Pastor. Anyone who thinks this book is an attack on Christianity has not read it yet.'
This of course did not convince Lauren that Reza was not biased against Christianity and continued to accuse him of having an agenda against Christianity throughout the interview. Reza spoke as slowly and carefully as he could so that what he was saying would sink in, but it didn't.
Reza also points out that by Lauren's logic Fox News is unqualified to talk about Muslims because they're not Muslim. So apparently people should disregard everything Fox News says about Muslims.

I'd like to make a different point because this is something I've noticed on Fox News a few times. Lauren's line of questioning makes no sense whatsoever if we assume she wants an objective and impartial academic assessment of Jesus. Her questions imply that only Christians are qualified to talk about Jesus.
On what basis would she assume that Christians are objective and impartial in their assessment of Jesus? Christians WORSHIP Jesus as a God. That would create HUGE potential to not be impartial. Pro Christian bias is just as bad if you care about accuracy.
Is Lauren Green saying that if you think Jesus was a man like the rest of us and you have four Phds and 20 year of research to go on you are biased, but if you literally worship Jesus as a God and you're a dirt-ignorant Fox News host then you are objective and impartial? Of course she's not. That would be ridiculous. She knows that a Christian would be just as (or more) likely to be biased on the subject of Jesus than a Muslim and she DOESN'T GIVE A CRAP!
When I have something to say, my concern is getting it accurate.  Lauren Green's concern is 'how much pro-Christian bullshit can I get away with speaking without being detected? How can I shamelessly make myself look way better than I am, by giving my religion way more credit than it deserves?'
That message came blaring through the screen as it often does when Fox News talks about religion.

Christian fundie Paul Broun likes being a boy

Republican Politician Paul Broun is a member of the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology and a United States congressman from Georgia.
And for good reason. Paul Broun may be the smartest man in the entire universe. Just marvel at his remarkably intelligent comments about sex-change operations.

'I don't want to pay for a sex-change operation. I'm not interested. I like being a boy.'

Paul Broun apparently can't stand other people wanting to do something that he doesn't want to do. Not only do I understand where Paul Broun is coming from, but I those that would choose to operate in any other manner deserve execution. In fact, I routinely apply this line of reasoning myself in a wide variety of circumstances.
I hate the taste of tomatoes. The other day I was in a pub and a family was eating lunch. The 10-year-old son had ordered fish and chips with salad on the side and that salad had TOMATO in it! Well, I wasn't going to stand for that! That kid had a lot of nerve ordering food that I don't enjoy.
So I marched right up to that table where the mum dad and son sat and said 'HEY! WHY ARE YOU EATING TOMATO? TOMATO IS DISGUSTING!'
When his parents responded by telling me it was none of my business and to get lost I told them that if their son wanted to eat tomatoes in the privacy of his own home I could grudgingly tolerate that, but don't go parading your love of tomatoes around in public for everyone to see because I don't need to see that! I think it's appalling! I made sure to register my disgust with what dreadful parents they were and threatened to call the police and have them locked up in prison until their bones turned to dust!
They began to get rather agitated, but in my quick thinking I remembered my crucifix and was able to successfully ward them out of the bar with it while warning the other customers that this family may change form into bloodthirsty demons at any moment!
I will most likely be getting the key to the city for saving the entire city's residents any day now.
But that's not the end of my heroic escapades in which I cleanse the existence of anything even slightly different from me. My friend Tom likes horror movies but I don't so naturally I started a petition demanding that he be stoned to death. However, I decided that forgiveness was the more Christian way to go, so I broke into his house and burned it down, incinerating his entire horror movie collection. He can consider himself lucky that I decided to let him live and save him from hell. Sometimes I think I deserve a medal for being so unbelievably fantastic. Paul Broun and I are going to heaven when we die.
UNLIKE YOU WHO IS READING THIS! YOU'RE GOING TO BURN AND I'M GOING TO LAUGH! HA! HA! HA! SUFFER BITCHES!

Conservapedia - Michael Moore is a Greedy Rich Communist!

Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schafly and was aimed at creating a Conservative, American Christian point of view to fight back against the liberal bias that only existed in Schafly's delusion perception of Wikipedia.
For example, Schafly thought that Einstein's theory of relativity had a liberal bias. Sick of the liberally biased view that the theory of relativity ISN'T part of the pro-abortion agenda, Conservapedia felt the need to straighten the facts out by declaring that Obama is using the theory of relativity to create moral relativism (that will lead to abortion.)
Also when you type the word 'liberal' into the Conservapedia search engine it lists Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, Mao Zedong and John Wayne Gacy under a list of 'notable liberal intellects.'
Apparently when Schafly says that Wikipedia has a liberal bias he's saying Wikipedia has a pro-murder bias. If there's an innocent person that hasn't been murdered yet, Wikipedia writers will get together in their smoke-filled rooms cackling gleefully and plotting how to snuff out another innocent, Christian life from the world. That's what liberals do because liberals are wicked demons with glowing red eyes, forked tongues and waxed black moustaches!
In summary, Conservapedia is Wikipedia for right-wing nutjobs. Here are some of the dumbest comments they made on their page about Michael Moore.

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is a left-wing Communist ^[1] filmmaker and conspiracy theorist.

The link provided that supposedly proves that Moore is a Communist puts us through to an article which heavily implies Moore is a Communist again and again without showing any real proof.
But in all seriousness, OF COURSE Moore is a dirty Commie! In fact I think EVERYONE who isn't a far-right, Bible-thumping, cross-burning, sister-banging, queer-stomping, gun-toting, foreigner-shooting, flag-waving, alcoholic, football-watching, redneck who believes pro-wrestling is real, constantly spits on the ground of his barbed-wire-strewn trailer-park and bathes in Communist blood to keep clean, is a dirty Commie!

Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become the most high profile international proponent of the theories of Michael Moore.

What the hell's your point? Ahmadinejad agrees with some theories of Michael Moore's for some reason. Plus it's not even sourced so I don't know it's even true.
Do I need to explain that this statement is completely useless without details? What does Ahmadinejad agree with and why?
Then there's the fact that you put these two sentences together as though they're related in some way. This comment attempts to say that Moore makes liberal propaganda which is why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loves him. Because Ahmadinejad is a liberal.
Whoever posted this was obviously hoping that some knuckle-dragging moron will read it and think - 'Aha! Everyone knows that the left-wing love brown terrorists! They're against bombing loads of brown people so that must mean they want brown terrorists to kill me. That logically follows right?  Herp! Derp! Derp!'

He is a hero in liberal Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based on themes of alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Conservapedia is implying that Moore is just too rich to identify with the struggles of working-class people, but then call his movies which feature the closing down of General Motors and banks scamming people out of their homes ''alleged' capitalist greed?' But it's MOORE who's lacking the empathy to identify with the workers. Conservapedia that can't quite tell if laying off thousands of workers to increase the shareholder profits counts as capitalist greed or not isn't out of touch. No sir. MOORE is one out of touch and struggling to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President George W. Bush as part of a massive conspiracy, named Fahrenheit 9/11. The contents of the film were systematically shown to be untrue, maliciously edited, and bordering on treasonous by an independent study.

Damn I wish I could see that 'independent study!' Conservapedia gave a link but it's not sending me through.
For the record though, sometimes conspiracies are true, and they're particularly likely to be true when there's a really blatant conflict of interest involved. When some powerful people are becoming filthy rich because a war is being fought, it's not a far-fetched conspiracy to think 'wait a minute... maybe these people WANT war and are trying to prolong it.'
If an oil company sold Schafly a coffee mug that said 'I love fossil fuels' he'd probably call you a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that maybe the oil company's lying and fossil fuels are bad! Oh my god, what a crazy conspiracy that is!

Christopher Hitchens said of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's work:

 'To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery'

I really don't see why Hitchens gets any credit on foreign policy issues at all. He emphatically stated in several pieces of writing that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq tauntingly writing 'just you wait and see'. Once they weren't found he stated that WMDs were never a real concern and that he'd always said so, even while his earlier articles were still available on his website. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/
AND he did all this brazen lying while claiming to be an admirer of George Orwell. Gee... I didn't realize the message of nineteen eighty-four was that you're supposed to make up lies that justify your government's bloodshed.
Then there's his debate with Chomsky from 2001 where the entire article totally missed the point of why war with Iraq was a dumb idea and framed the entire thing as 'liberals are too weak to do what's necessary,' totally missing the important questions of 'is Saddam really linked to 9/11? What government will we replace Saddam with? Will it have public support and be sustainable?' He even goes so far as to claim that Chomsky cares about the perpetrator of 9/11, but not the victims. It's just hysterical, nonsense, hate-mongering drivel.
I don't see any other options other than he's a fraud or an idiot, so I guess that means he's a fraud.

Co creator of South Park, Matt Stone, was very critical of Moore's Bowling for Columbine because of animated segment which was played shortly after Moore's interview with Stone, which featured a similar animation style to South Park. Stone alleged that Moore was trying to make it seem as if he and fellow South Park creator Trey Parker had created the cartoon, which they did not. Matt Stone criticized the short as being "anti- American".

Conservapedia is of course too stupid to realize that Anti-American just another conservatard buzz word that tells me nothing!
All they understand is 'Michael Moore is an Anti-American, Communist, socialist, elitist, conspiracy theorist, liberal, terrorist, vampire from the future, when he should be a pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-Reagan, pro-capitalist, pro-Jesus, pro-gun, anti-terrorist anti-abortion, pro-war American like me! Now let's all yell these random slogans at a tea party rally while we show pictures of Obama wearing a Hitler moustache! Yeah! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!' UR-MERICA!

Moore has some tactics in his filmmaking that I consider immoral, but his politics are mostly right. Conservapedia authors are idiots.

Michael Savage - Homosexuals are Responsible for Islamic Terrorism!

A while ago I was feeling unformed so I thought I'd listen to the most breathtakingly intelligent thing that anybody can listen to - Right wing talk radio. In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. I was listening to Michael Savage for amusement because he's such a complete idiot.
I am fascinated by Savage because I'm flabbergasted by just how insane he is. He constantly makes totally unabashedly bigoted comments against Muslims, homosexuals, women, blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, poor people and (once) even children with autism. If anyone other than a white, heterosexual, Christian, middle or upper class, non-autistic male starts demanding their rights, Michael Savage is left spitting, shaking and sweating with rage, then vomiting up bizarre, twisted, hateful, conspiracy-paranoia ravings!

However, on this particular occasion he went even more insane than usual by explaining that homosexuals are to blame for Muslim terrorism. I have not seen this video posted on any anti-Michael Savage websites because he makes so many utterly crazy comments that even THIS apparently does not register. It was actually posted by someone who thought Michael Savage was making good points and obviously wanted to show how sane, well-adjusted and clear thinking Michael Savage is. (This is reflected in the video description and the top comments below.)
This person is obviously confused because not one syllable of his blithering, spitting, bat-shit-insane hate-filled, fuck-tarded pile of shit made the slightest bit of sense, and he clearly needs to be put in a  in a strait-jacket within a padded cell and kept away from sharp objects.
I will now demonstrate that by responding to the first two minutes of his mad ravings...

So you think that right-wingers are the problem in this world huh?

Yes, I do.

Well let me read you a little story. Headline, Daily Mail out of the UK. In the United Kingdom that used to be known as England, teachers have been forbidden from referring to pupil's parents as mom and dad, because it's sexist and assumes they're not being raised by homosexuals. Now you see a story like this and it makes your blood boil...

Makes your BLOOD BOIL? No it doesn't. You didn't even explain why they were doing this or what words will be used instead of 'mother and father.' If I didn't have any understanding of how political correctness works, I wouldn't understand what the issue is at all based on what you've said, so how can it be making you angry unless you're a hot-headed dumb-arse who reacts in self-righteous indignation before understanding the issue.

...to see just how far the gay mafia have gone in the soft nation known as England. They rule it. They rule the roost over there.

They rule the roost? Does that mean that you think the teachers will be assuming everyone's parents are gay until proven otherwise? Because I think it's more likely that they're using a neutral term instead of mother and father, such as 'parent or guardian,' because that is inclusive to all types of parental relationships, and we don't want to send the message that straight relationships are better than gay relationships. That's not ruling the roost, that's just wanting what everybody else has.
I know that you would like to send the message that straight relationships are superior because you think that people for gay rights are part of a propaganda machine trying to pervert children and rape their minds, but you're wrong and crazy so... Moving on.

Now as you well know, and this is very important to say not all Muslims are terrorists. I've said that a thousand times.

You also said once that America needed to nuke 100 million Muslims or die as a nation. It sounds like you send mixed messages.

But most Muslims are very traditional when it comes to family values. And that's a good thing for the west.

Unless it's a stupid tradition, like hating gay people.

Do you understand why the homosexual mafia is actually responsible for some of the Islamist behavior and reactions? Do you understand it?

Oh my god! That suggestion is so scary that it's shutting down my cognitive reasoning abilities!

Now you haven't heard this anywhere because the media is controlled as you know by the left wing.

We haven't heard it anywhere else because it's a crock of shit! Because you're the only one bat-shit-crazy enough to believe that homosexuals are causing terrorism. And America's media's is controlled 40% by Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News you whiney right-wing, victim-complex douchebag!

But a lot of the Muslim rage across the landscape is being driven precisely by stories like this.

Are you sure it's not that we keep bombing their countries, or propping up dictatorships, or selling weapons to Israel to kill the Palestinians Michael? Nah, you're right. They probably just hate political correctness in British schools. That's probably their number one concern!

Where you send the child to a school, let's say in England. And the teacher's forbidden from referring to the pupil's parent as mom and dad because it's said to be sexist and it assumes they're not being raised by homosexuals. Now what would that do to you if you were a traditional Muslim family - not terrorist, but you didn't want your child exposed to that kind of filthy twisted mentality? What would it do to you? Tell me what it would do to your mind? Where would it drive you? Would it make you a more compassionate person towards the west? Or would it turn you perhaps into a jihadist?

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT ME TO AGREE WITH  THAT?
No I wouldn't blow myself up just because teachers are using some word other than mother and father you fucking lunatic! What's wrong with you? You don't even know what words they're gonna use INSTEAD of mother and father and you're already ready to start strapping bombs to yourself? And even if you were right about this particular political correctness being bullshit, don't you have any sense of proportion? This is a small issue. Don't... blow... yourself... up!

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AT STAKE DAMN IT?! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I'M RIGHT AND THEY'RE WRONG? DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE SICK PERVERTS ARE KILLING ALL OF US?

Don't you understand that you need your racquet re-strung?
By the way, calling homosexuals 'sick perverts' makes it pretty obvious that you're gay. When you go that far, it reminds me of a five year old boy telling people that the girl he likes is 'yucky.' Because in both cases, the someone thinks that they can cover up what they really think by saying the exact opposite. But what the little boy doesn't realise is that it's actually very suspect that he would say that little girl is yucky, as that's not a normal thing to say. Just like it's suspect you say what you say about gay people.
If you don't want to come out of the closet, just shut up about gay people. If you call homosexuals 'sick perverts' who are in the gay mafia and accuse them of forcing terrorists blow us up, it's going to raise some eyebrows.

Bill Maher hates Christianity being compared to Islam

I found a YouTube clip from America of Bill Maher speaking to Brian Levin, the Director For the Centre of Hate and Extremism at California State University. Full clip here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjwMWfWnd1k

In this clip Brian Levin responds to a query about the Boston bombers by saying 'People who are Muslim who do wacky things don't have a monopoly on it.' Bill Maher responds 'that's liberal bullshit right there.'
Maher then however qualifies that he thinks there are hypocrites in all faiths but they're not as dangerous, then goes on to cite death threats associated with the drawing the prophet and Muslims who want to kill people for leaving their faith.
Maher also states during the clip 'I'm not an Islamophobe. I am a truth lover. All religions are not alike.' and said to Levin 'ask most Muslim people in the world 'if you insult the prophet, do you have what's coming to you? It's more than just a fringe element.' Maher was also apparently not very open to hearing Levin try to put his comments into any sociological context. When Levin points out that Christianity was more violent historically, Maher dismissively responds by saying 'We're not in history, we're in 2013'.

Since Levin was clearly unprepared to have that conversation he didn't do a good job of explaining what was wrong, so I'll do it now. Here's the problem:
When Maher says 'I am a truth lover', he's wrong. What he's saying isn't the truth. It's a half-truth at best. A full truth would have mentioned the sociological context, or at least not tried to avoid mentioning it when someone else brings it up. When you mention that Muslims, (or any group of people) are more violent you have an obligation to say why this is the case, otherwise you are telling a half-truth which seriously skewed from the full truth. This is especially important when there's already significant hatred and prejudice against the group of people you are skewing the truth about.
For example: imagine hypothetically that Levin casually remarks that no one particular demographic has a monopoly on violent crime. Is Bill Maher going to say 'That's liberal bullshit! Blacks are by far the worst! How dare you compare any other race to THEM! What? I'm just telling the truth! Blacks commit more crime! Is it racist to tell the truth to you libtards?'
No idiot! It's racist to tell HALF truths. There are significant sociological reasons why blacks commit more crimes and Muslims are generally more radical.
For one thing in relation to blacks, there's the history. America had slaves and when you inherit poverty you've got a greater chance of being poor yourself. More poverty = less opportunity = more incentives towards crime. There's also the war on drugs in America that locks up lots of lower class people just for using marijuana (which can't even kill you and is good for you in a lot of ways). Lots of blacks are lower class = less opportunity to get your life together if you've been locked up = more incentive to crime again. There's also the fact the our education systems have subtle cultural bias because white people are the majority in America and it's naturally easier for teachers to teach students who are more similar to them culturally. Bottom line - 'There's more crime among blacks because blacks had less opportunity to reach their full potentials.' That is telling the WHOLE truth.
Given that America and Israel have been bombing Muslim countries to shit for the last 70 years basically and America propped up and supported dictators across the middle east, I'd say it's a sociological problem among Muslims too. Of course they're going to be more radical if they're country's been destroyed by war and oppression.
In summary, you can't just put all of the emphasis on the individual. You HAVE to mention circumstances. If you don't you're not a truth-lover you are a truth-perverter. Here's another example - If I beat someone in a 100m sprint but I only win because my opponent had a 30kg ball and chain tied around his right ankle, don't I have an obligation to mention the 30kg ball and chain when I go around bragging that I beat him? I can't just say 'Ha! Ha! Ha! My opponent was a bleeding-heart liberal Communist who can't stand the fact that I beat him because he sucks and I rule! Why doesn't he just pull himself up by the bootstraps, instead of whining all the time?'
That's all Bill Maher's doing when he talks about Muslims. 'Muslim's are bad. Uur-merica good. We're better than them. I'm just telling the truth'. -Fuck you.