Judge Pirro

[Rigby5]

Actually that is not true.
Muslims do not believe God controls government, but that God is ethical and government should try to be ethical also.
No one is forced to pray in Islam, but people want to in order to be better people.
The Quran says only to fight in defense, so Muslim are the least aggressive and most peaceful.
What people do not realize is that around 1200 AD or so, Asiatic Mongols, Moguls, and Turks defeated the Arab Muslims and took over. They are the ones known for attacking Europe, not Arab Muslims.
The whole point of Mohammad creating Islam was to improve the rights of women, as a favor to his wife. Before Islam, women were considered to not have souls, could not own property, could not divorce, could not inherit, etc. Mohammad fixed all that by reforming Judaism into Islam.

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

 

[MarathonMike]

Actually that is not true.
Muslims do not believe God controls government, but that God is ethical and government should try to be ethical also.
No one is forced to pray in Islam, but people want to in order to be better people.
The Quran says only to fight in defense, so Muslim are the least aggressive and most peaceful.
What people do not realize is that around 1200 AD or so, Asiatic Mongols, Moguls, and Turks defeated the Arab Muslims and took over. They are the ones known for attacking Europe, not Arab Muslims.
The whole point of Mohammad creating Islam was to improve the rights of women, as a favor to his wife. Before Islam, women were considered to not have souls, could not own property, could not divorce, could not inherit, etc. Mohammad fixed all that by reforming Judaism into Islam.

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually that is not true.
Muslims do not believe God controls government, but that God is ethical and government should try to be ethical also.
No one is forced to pray in Islam, but people want to in order to be better people.
The Quran says only to fight in defense, so Muslim are the least aggressive and most peaceful.
What people do not realize is that around 1200 AD or so, Asiatic Mongols, Moguls, and Turks defeated the Arab Muslims and took over. They are the ones known for attacking Europe, not Arab Muslims.
The whole point of Mohammad creating Islam was to improve the rights of women, as a favor to his wife. Before Islam, women were considered to not have souls, could not own property, could not divorce, could not inherit, etc. Mohammad fixed all that by reforming Judaism into Islam.

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

 

[Slyhunter]

Actually that is not true.
Muslims do not believe God controls government, but that God is ethical and government should try to be ethical also.
No one is forced to pray in Islam, but people want to in order to be better people.
The Quran says only to fight in defense, so Muslim are the least aggressive and most peaceful.
What people do not realize is that around 1200 AD or so, Asiatic Mongols, Moguls, and Turks defeated the Arab Muslims and took over. They are the ones known for attacking Europe, not Arab Muslims.
The whole point of Mohammad creating Islam was to improve the rights of women, as a favor to his wife. Before Islam, women were considered to not have souls, could not own property, could not divorce, could not inherit, etc. Mohammad fixed all that by reforming Judaism into Islam.

Suggested reading: Islam and women's rights.

The rigid laws of Islam have deprived half of the population of their basic human rights. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34, and the subjugated half is led to believe, through Islamic teachings, that the supremacy of the man is the will of Allah, and it has been predestined for women to live as submissive, obedient wives.

Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible.
Male being in charge of female is from the Bible, and the Quran just does not alter that.
But after Mohammad, women at least had a soul, rights, could own property, inherit, divorce, etc.
Before the Quran they had no rights under the Old Testament, at all.

"Islam is not rigid in that the Quran, (not Koran), says that newer revelations replace older ones, unlike the Bible." So that is how Islam manages to maintain it's 7th Century charm. It is not rigid. Got it.

I said in comparison with the Old Testament, which says everything is to be taken literally and infallible.
The Quran pretty much says to use common sense, and almost always finishes with the statement that God is merciful, or something like that to help you understand the positive spin you are supposed to put on each verse.
It it not like the Old Testament where mostly you are just supposed to fear.

That's why they made the New Testament.

 

[WheelieAddict]

That fool was a lawyer and a judge? wtf

 

[Slyhunter]

regardless, the primary point I was making in my thread, that got merged into this one, is that Fox News is not my news source any longer. They lost too many good people in their attempts to appease their advertisers. I'm going to a medium that doesn't kowtow to advertisers, one that more reflects viewerships wills than Fox News does. Not everything on Blaze I like so I'll only watch those things I do like. I'll miss Tucker, but I'm sure he'll be fired soon and will be on Blaze himself as well. Fox is now almost as antiquated as the Liberal news outlets.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Amazing. There are hate mongers at Fox who believe that American values are going to be destroyed by a hijab. I guess that we can take some comfort in knowing that some people over there have cooler heads that sometime prevail.

 

[Vandalshandle]

regardless, the primary point I was making in my thread, that got merged into this one, is that Fox News is not my news source any longer. They lost too many good people in their attempts to appease their advertisers. I'm going to a medium that doesn't kowtow to advertisers, one that more reflects viewerships wills than Fox News does. Not everything on Blaze I like so I'll only watch those things I do like. I'll miss Tucker, but I'm sure he'll be fired soon and will be on Blaze himself as well. Fox is now almost as antiquated as the Liberal news outlets.

I am sure that you will find a good home at Breitbart and Stormfront....

 

[bripat9643]

Good as a former judge she should know better. The United States is based on the idea to have freedom to practice any religion. Part of Omar's religion is to wear a hijab. Pirro is fucking ignorant to tie wearing a hijab to radical Islamic activity.

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pirro is just another ignorant, hateful rightwing bigot propagating lies about ‘sharia.’

‘…sharia isn’t even “law” in the sense that we in the West understand it. And most devout Muslims who embrace sharia conceptually don’t think of it as a substitute for civil law. Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Koran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn’t come from the state, and it doesn’t even come in one book or a single collection of rules.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.05ba2d0fd392

 

[bripat9643]

Amazing. There are hate mongers at Fox who believe that the American values are going to be destroyed by a hijab. I guess that we can take some comfort in knowing that some people over there have cooler heads that sometime prevail.

It's not the Hijab. It's the people who wear the hijab.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

There are private and Muslim community only forms of Sharia law, and the Hijab is one such item.


It is mopstly a cultural requirement and many do not have any such requirement.

Some advocates of Sharia law are going against our Constitution, no doubt, but the hijab is not one of them, IMO.

In Christianity it used to be a custom for Women to wear a veil, and in my opinion they still should out of modesty, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Kind of like the Executive attempting a power grab through emergency order because Congress won't bow to his will?

The law defines the breadth, scope and conditions for declaring a national emergency and Trump is solidly within the law.

Just because he is doing an end run around obstructionist Dimocrats does not make it unConstitutional or a power grab, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Declaring some people to not be human is more troubling to me than wearing a hijab.

Ilhan Omar denies equating Obama and Trump, says only one is 'human'

 

[Issa]

The Hijab violates Everything about this country.

It is a symbol of oppression.

It is a symbol of slavery.

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

Pohahaha hijab sign of opression... I'm a Muslim I know of no woman thats forced to wear it, most wear by choice....you want women naked to you and your president can choose which to grab by the pussy ?

Sure, are they "forced" to wear it in Saudi Arabia and other Radical Islamic nations? Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

there are 56 Muslims majority countries, two have strict dress code for women one of them is a holy site...just like when Melania the whore went to the vatican she covered her hair, why didn't you scream opression?

If you really cared about women's right, you wouldn't vote for someone who bragged about grabbing women's pussy....Mr conservative with morals.

 

[Issa]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

Both you and Pirro are ignorant bigots...and I'm damn sure that you dont give a fuck about jews... you just using them to attack muslims.

What sis omar say that's anti semitic ?

Then im proud to be a “Ignorant Bigot”

I'm sure you are....
so where is your evidence that Omar side anti semitic stuff?

 

[The Purge]

The Hijab violates Everything about this country.

It is a symbol of oppression.

It is a symbol of slavery.

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

Pohahaha hijab sign of opression... I'm a Muslim I know of no woman thats forced to wear it, most wear by choice....you want women naked to you and your president can choose which to grab by the pussy ?

Sure, are they "forced" to wear it in Saudi Arabia and other Radical Islamic nations? Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

there are 56 Muslims majority countries, two have strict dress code for women one of them is a holy site...just like when Melania the whore went to the vatican she covered her hair, why didn't you scream opression?

If you really cared about women's right, you wouldn't vote for someone who bragged about grabbing women's pussy....Mr conservative with morals.

Instead you voted for a guy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and paying $850K for an out of court settlement on a rape case..... Apparently you are so stupid you don't know joking around from fucking..... do you have children?

 

[Camp]

The Hijab violates Everything about this country.

It is a symbol of oppression.

It is a symbol of slavery.

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

Pohahaha hijab sign of opression... I'm a Muslim I know of no woman thats forced to wear it, most wear by choice....you want women naked to you and your president can choose which to grab by the pussy ?

Sure, are they "forced" to wear it in Saudi Arabia and other Radical Islamic nations? Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

there are 56 Muslims majority countries, two have strict dress code for women one of them is a holy site...just like when Melania the whore went to the vatican she covered her hair, why didn't you scream opression?

If you really cared about women's right, you wouldn't vote for someone who bragged about grabbing women's pussy....Mr conservative with morals.

Instead you voted for a guy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and paying $850K for an out of court settlement on a rape case..... Apparently you are so stupid you don't know joking around from fucking..... do you have children?

Clinton did not pay for the out of court settlement. His insurance carrier did and it wasn't for rape, it was for alleged sexual harassment. No sexual contact or incident was ever alleged. There was no "rape" charge of allegation ever made in the case.

 

[The Purge]

The Hijab violates Everything about this country.

It is a symbol of oppression.

It is a symbol of slavery.

Pohahaha hijab sign of opression... I'm a Muslim I know of no woman thats forced to wear it, most wear by choice....you want women naked to you and your president can choose which to grab by the pussy ?

Sure, are they "forced" to wear it in Saudi Arabia and other Radical Islamic nations? Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

there are 56 Muslims majority countries, two have strict dress code for women one of them is a holy site...just like when Melania the whore went to the vatican she covered her hair, why didn't you scream opression?

If you really cared about women's right, you wouldn't vote for someone who bragged about grabbing women's pussy....Mr conservative with morals.

Instead you voted for a guy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and paying $850K for an out of court settlement on a rape case..... Apparently you are so stupid you don't know joking around from fucking..... do you have children?

Clinton did not pay for the out of court settlement. His insurance carrier did and it wasn't for rape, it was for alleged sexual harassment. No sexual contact or incident was ever alleged.

He didn't have an insurance carrier...HE BEGGED for donations for his LEGAL DEFENSE FUND.....AND $850K For a sexual harassment charge sounds LIKE MORE was in store for him IF he went through court especially in 20+ year ago money!!!

Defense Fund Is Set Up to Help Pay Clintons' Legal Bills : Presidency: Aides say the call for donations is distasteful but necessary. Lawyers' charges could ring up as much as $2 million a year.
June 29, 1994|JOHN M. BRODER | TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON — President Clinton, in what aides called a distasteful but necessary move, has established a defense fund to pay his mounting legal bills, which advisers said could be as high as $2 million a year until the cases against him are resolved.

The fund marks an unwelcome first for a sitting President and illustrates the heavy toll that the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment complaint and the Whitewater controversy are taking on the Clinton presidency and the Clintons personally.

White House Counsel Lloyd N. Cutler said that the President's and the First Lady's legal bills will dwarf their income while in office, and the legal proceedings against them could drag on for years.

The Clintons reported income of $293,000 and a net worth of about $1.6 million on their 1993 tax returns.

 

[Issa]

The Hijab violates Everything about this country.

It is a symbol of oppression.

It is a symbol of slavery.

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

Pohahaha hijab sign of opression... I'm a Muslim I know of no woman thats forced to wear it, most wear by choice....you want women naked to you and your president can choose which to grab by the pussy ?

Sure, are they "forced" to wear it in Saudi Arabia and other Radical Islamic nations? Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.

there are 56 Muslims majority countries, two have strict dress code for women one of them is a holy site...just like when Melania the whore went to the vatican she covered her hair, why didn't you scream opression?

If you really cared about women's right, you wouldn't vote for someone who bragged about grabbing women's pussy....Mr conservative with morals.

Instead you voted for a guy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and paying $850K for an out of court settlement on a rape case..... Apparently you are so stupid you don't know joking around from fucking..... do you have children?

what that has to do with the orange and the first whore? i'm not a fan of clinton...rephrase again.