That goes for Biden and America too, right? Don't like Biden, get out, easy as that, right? The difference being a majority DID vote for Biden.

That's the first way you're incorrect. A majority voted for representatives who voted for it, but the majority of voters, 54%-42%, don't want to go this far. It was not a referendum. The people didn't ask for and don't want this.

It's an obvious legal overreach, and will be overturned in time, but in the meantime, millions of women will have their autonomy, their authority over their own bodies, stripped from them, many will pay with their lives, and many huge companies are reconsidering moving or even existing in Texas because of this Baptist sharia law attack on women's rights over even their own bodies.

I suggest a sex strike in Texas until it's repealed. If they don't want a baby right now, women would be insane to have even protected intercourse.

I suggested my brother in Austin turn in the highway department for maintaining roads that facilitate transporting women to have abortions and claim his $10k bounty before the state goes bankrupt.

Texas still has "blue laws" restricting the sale of not just alcohol but other non necessities on Sundays. Enacted in 1961 and largely repealed in the 80's, you still cannot buy liquor at a store on Sundays, and car dealerships must close one weekend day. This was their way of forcing the Southern Baptist religious beliefs of the ruling class on everyone.

Edit: I grew up there in the 70’s when you could only buy food or medicine on Sundays, and some groceries and pharmacies closed.

Texas has a LONG history of legislating religious "morality", from it's inception through today. They love to talk about their freedoms, but you really only have the freedom to follow their narrow definition of morality. These morality laws always effect the poor far more than the wealthy, often completely exempting the well off....for example, you can buy an expensive mixed drink to go from a bar, restaurant, or hotel...they even have drive through bars...on Sunday morning in Texas, but you cannot buy a cheap bottle in a liquor store to pour your own. This is typical.

Your video, Foo Fighters Troll Westboro Baptist Church Protest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 276 Badge!

On her debut album for Philips, Nina Simone in Concert (1964), for the first time she addressed racial inequality in the United States in the song "Mississippi Goddam". This was her response to the June 12, 1963, murder of Medgar Evers and the September 15, 1963, bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, that killed four young black girls and partly blinded a fifth. She said that the song was "like throwing ten bullets back at them", becoming one of many other protest songs written by Simone. The song was released as a single, and it was boycotted in some[vague] southern states.[31][32] Promotional copies were smashed by a Carolina radio station and returned to Philips.[33] She later recalled how "Mississippi Goddam" was her "first civil rights song" and that the song came to her "in a rush of fury, hatred and determination". The song challenged the belief that race relations could change gradually and called for more immediate developments: "me and my people are just about due". It was a key moment in her path to Civil Rights activism.[34] "Old Jim Crow", on the same album, addressed the Jim Crow laws. After "Mississippi Goddam", a civil rights message was the norm in Simone's recordings and became part of her concerts.

Kinda gonna disagree with you here.

I like sorting nuts by nuttiness. I expect murder rates to follow from the combination of nuttiness and number of members. I'm not aware of murders out of the Westboro Baptists(yet at least). Plenty of murderers though have claimed generic christianity though. I still class Westboro as less tolerable than generic christianity.

Going back to the video, this crowd is pretty far over on the nutcase scale.

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

Your video, Weightless - Jean-Baptiste Chandelier -Paragliding Proximity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thought you would dig this https://videosift.com/video/Weightless-Jean-Baptiste-Chandelier

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

Reading comprehension matters.

You prove my point. They murder each other over tiny details of the same belief...incredibly disrespectful....The ultimate disrespect in fact.

I don't murder, so clearly I respect their beliefs and their rights to hold different beliefs more than they do. I don't disqualify them from public office based on their differing beliefs....they do. I don't write them all off because they believe in a magic sky daddy, but most of them write me off for not believing.

The beliefs themselves deserve no respect....no belief does, only provable fact deserves respect and defense.

Adding beliefs? Explain. I quoted their clear written beliefs. If Christians ignore the bible, do they even have beliefs?

Edit: to answer your question-anyone in Westborough Baptist for one group, and anyone who takes the bible seriously as the undeniable word of God agrees with my take, but even they are too chicken shit to take up the sword for the Lord....even the fanatics don't follow the teachings of their own beliefs....that's also disrespectful....of their own beliefs.

I guess adding or building on my above post. If you justify contempt and vitriol against beliefs in a deity, likening it to Krampus, because in essence your view is the correct one that's dangerous. It is in point of fact EXACTLY what the Westboro Baptists tell themselves, most of ISIS too for that matter.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

Please expand, because while I can see that he's picking and choosing some easy targets for criticism (over the top SJW stuff) that may not be representative of the at-large "Progressive" agenda, nothing really jumped out at me as a "straw man" argument.

I'm a somewhat conservative-leaning person (at least on issues that I think should be in the realm of government), but I feel like I have a legitimate beef with some of what the party that is "supposed" to cater to conservatives actually does in government; what the GOP seems to present as its "platform".

This guy is a liberal-leaning person who feels like he has a legitimate beef with some of what his party thinks their platform should be. And I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying.

And I would hope that even if I didn't agree with anything that he was saying, I'd be all for protecting his right to say his piece. Some people/groups test our patience for that, like the Westboro Baptist Church -- ostensibly a crazy right-wing organization that just wants to get their message (of hate and bigotry) out there. But in reality they are just a bunch of con men who stir up trouble in order to provoke violent or other responses that they can start litigation over. The point is, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with idiots like that.

Threats to free speech from the other side of spectrum are much more subtle, and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous. For example, at about 3:00 in the video where he lists "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and islamophobia" as "meaningless buzzwords". For many people, those words are NOT meaningless, but real, concrete problems that they actually have to face in their lives. Problems many orders of magnitude more significant and weighty than any of the minutia that can make or ruin our average day. Unfortunately, those words do tend to carry a lot less weight when they are bandied about willy-nilly every time we disagree with someone for any reason.

I guess, we all really do have more things in common with each other than things that separate us from each other. The frequent and extreme factionalizing and partisanship today seems very counter productive. And there's plenty of blame for that to go around.