Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did your parents teach you to do thisAgain, on full display, your ignorance of female sexuality as well as human anatomy. As far as your ignorance of Islam well it's pretty much on par with the rest of the racist & bigots here.Nope when you remove the clitoris the woman can never orgasm, but since in Islam all women are the property of a man or stoned to death as lesbians there is no need for fun anyway. Have a good jihad of a life retard
My parents brought us up to be kind to others, to not make fun of those who are disabled or to refer to people as retards. I see your parents were negligent in your upbringing. This is the result, an uneducated, ignorant, bigoted & racist individual who can't even discern when they are in the company of their betters.
100 percent Muslim
Same could be said of Pearl harbor on 12/07/1941. Those that attacked us mostly were of one religion, and sponsored by one government as well. And, they didn't attack American homeland and they killed less people. And we nuked them less than 5 years. I like the ending of this parable. So what makes Saudis so special? We would destabilize world economy? well, kiss ma grits, what the fuck happened after Germany invaded Poland? So what do the Saudis expect? Its funny, because we haven't done a thing in retribution. Nope. Yet.Well kiddo. Perhaps because 9/11 was...let me se here...funded by Saudis...and then the religion itself came from Saudi Arabia. And the majority of the perpetrators were Saudi as well. So lets go back to say... 1941 December 7th. Did we have this level of denial of the Japanese? Perhaps, it was big oil conspiracy? Perhaps, we shift the blame, the Japanese would never do such thing. We provoked them be cause WE were embargoing them. They were victims They were just reacting to provocations...This is what liberals do, equivocate, split hairs and spread doubt. No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
Individuals who were mostly born in Saudi Arabia attacked us. If Osama had shown his face in Saudi Arabia, he would have been looking up at his own body after his head had been forcibly removed. The Saudi government considered him exactly as he was, a terrorist and threat to their Kingdom.
Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Like Vietnam. I am of the firm belief that the Bush family, and oil, and the fact they even helped sneak out rich members of the house of Saud out of the US hours after the 9/11 attack speaks for itself. I doubt too many people were helping the Japanese aristocracy sneak around after Pearl Harbor. Nope. Because NOW, unlike THEN, that's were allegiances where , with you country, not big money.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
Good grief... It doesn't matter how far anything goes back, but what matters is if it is still in practice today, and if it is still obeyed and believed today.Who ever done this to this women, should be tracked down and stoned to death. Period. India you say ? Who does this ?Enjoy your jihad of ignorance, remember to stone a dyke today and throw a homo off the roof
Yes, Female Genital Mutilation happens in India; here's everything you need to know
Its a Muslim tradition...…………………
BULLSHIT.
It's not even a religious rite.
Wrong, google it yourself
Muslim means hate of woman
I don't *NEED* to "Google" it Hunior, Anthropology was my major in college --- I already know this shit. FGM (once AGAIN) was around centuries before Mohammed, centuries before Jesus, centuries before Moses, centuries before Buddha, centuries before fill in deity here. See also "Linear Time". See also the FACT that there is no religious function in it AT ALL in any of those or any other religion, since it is not a religious ritual but a SOCIAL one.
Imagine that ............ actually knowing something instead of pulling it out of one's ass because one would "like it to be true". Amazing innit?
Fucking stupid asshole.
What special benefits do you think AA infers? At it's core, it created a statutory cause of action (a right to sue) for those who suffered an adverse action in regards to their employement, things like being passed over for a promotion, having the company hire a lesser qualified applicant who is white, being demoted, retaliated against, etc. all based on race, religion, gender, color, national origin, etc.So....you want equality with special benefits? Isn't that what affirmitive action is, special benefits?
I'm sure MLK would not have wanted that....just equality.
And you believe that would have been a good thing?Because nobody had the stones to make Medina and Mecca vanish in the fire of split atoms.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Like Vietnam. I am of the firm belief that the Bush family, and oil, and the fact they even helped sneak out rich members of the house of Saud out of the US hours after the 9/11 attack speaks for itself. I doubt to many people were helping the Japanese aristocracy sneak around after Pearl Harbor. Because that's were allegiances are, with money, not nations anymore. Well, fuck that.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
Wow, what a crazy projection and ridiculous interpretation of my post. Kidding me right ?You're projecting your own insecurities and failings onto another group of people. Essentially you're saying that all people of X group are inherently bad although there are exceptions to the rule as opposed to some people of group X are bad. And then you further insult the entire group by claiming that the only thing that's keeping them from killing anyone are our laws & punishment which shows you know very little about what motivates people who are intent on killing.The same as all red necks aren't racist or all blacks aren't racist or all well you get the point. Ever heard of sleeper cells ? Do you not think that people are killers in their minds maybe, but they fear the consequences of such actions so much so that they will never bring those thoughts into the light of day ?? You never know who you have in your midst, but thank God for all the laws and punishments we have in place as somewhat of a deterrent.
"All black's aren't racist" is a perfect case in point. Who is their right mind would even question whether black people are racists or not, let alone that most are when it was the white race which codified their racism and then enforced it at the barrel of a gun or the end of a rope.
Turning one holy city into glass and free-floating atoms? yes.And you believe that would have been a good thing?Because nobody had the stones to make Medina and Mecca vanish in the fire of split atoms.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
A white person can be passed up for promotion also because of AA. A white being passed over for a lesser qualified person of color. I've seen it, so don't tell me I'm wrong.What special benefits do you think AA infers? At it's core, it created a statutory cause of action (a right to sue) for those who suffered an adverse action in regards to their employement, things like being passed over for a promotion, having the company hire a lesser qualified applicant who is white, being demoted, retaliated against, etc. all based on race, religion, gender, color, national origin, etc.So....you want equality with special benefits? Isn't that what affirmitive action is, special benefits?
I'm sure MLK would not have wanted that....just equality.
And ironically the group that has benefited the most from affirmative action has been white females so when white people start complaining about AA without realizing how members of their own group has benefited as a result of the program, even more than people of color, it makes them look even more petty than they would otherwise.
I just wrote up some really informative responses to the very topic, with links and examples and it all disappeared when the message board lost those 4 days of postings about a month ago, otherwise i could direct you to more specific information.
Turning one holy city into glass and free-floating atoms? yes.And you believe that would have been a good thing?Because nobody had the stones to make Medina and Mecca vanish in the fire of split atoms.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
Holey crap-ola. Um yes, Bush helped sneak out members of the Royal Saudi family after 9/11. I am like, most of the attackers were Saudis, the religion itself was spawned in Saudi Arabia...um this is a no brainer. The funding came from Saudi Arabia, all of this...Saudi.We had less evidence the Japanese attacked us on 12/07/1941.I am no genius, and its pretty damned obvious. So my question is: why are you defending...THEM?Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Like Vietnam. I am of the firm belief that the Bush family, and oil, and the fact they even helped sneak out rich members of the house of Saud out of the US hours after the 9/11 attack speaks for itself. I doubt to many people were helping the Japanese aristocracy sneak around after Pearl Harbor. Because that's were allegiances are, with money, not nations anymore. Well, fuck that.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
They did not sneak rich members of the house of Saud out of the country. Are you a 9/11 Truther? Take it to the Conspiracy Theory thread where it belongs! Your delusions can be addressed there.
There should be no one in this United States that would be fearful of speaking out against anyone that would actually attack or kill American's in their own nation. If it gets to that point, then this nation is done, and the enemy (any enemy) has finally won.I'm not downplaying the 1st Amendment. It's an awesome document. Without it, we wouldn't be here exercising this freedom of speech. Thank goodness for our fabulous founding fathers, James Madison, who wrote the 1st Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson who inspired it.How do you reconcile the fact that you are citing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land which it is, while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying the role of the First Amendment which is also the supreme law of the land, irrespective of your agreement with it, because it is a part of the U.S. Contsitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Can you answer just this part? And just FYI the First Amendment is not a separate document, it's part of the Bill of Rights.
So you guys wanna talk 1st Amendment ? OK. But the only relationship that Islam has to the 1st amendment, is that it is probably the least agreeable creed to the 1st Amendment of any in America. When a Danish newspaper, Jylands Posten, published an unflattering picture of the so-called prophet Mohammed, in 2005, the cartoon picture set off Muslim riots all over the world, resulting in the killing of civilians, burning of cars, massive looting, and violent invasion of embassies. Looks like the Muslim crowd isn't too sympathetic to the 1st Amendment, and its idea.
Neither was the New York Times, the LA Times, and other prominent publications that refused to print the Danish cartoon. The white flag of surrender (while ignoring the 1st Amendment) hung from these previously stalwart defenders of the Constitutional right to free speech. It was a testament to the fact that Muslim bullying works.
When Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders produced his film Fitna, which connected acts of violence by Muslims to violent passages of the Koran, the world's most powerful Islamic organization the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) went into high gear to stop all speech critical of Islam, and Muslims. The Sect. General of the OIC, Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, called for restrictions on freedom of speech, saying >> "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy."
Iran and Pakistan lodged formal complaints with the EU, about the film Non-Muslims joined in the censorship campaign. UN Sect general Ban Ki-moon repeated the OIC's argument that free speech does not apply in words offensive to Muslims. Jorge Sampiano, another high UN official urged Muslims to avoid pointing out the evils that Muslim "extremists" were committing (exactly the OIC's campaign, which was quickly embraced by the UN).
After much conferring on the subject of freedom of expression regarding Islam, the UN's Human Rights Council banned criticism of Islam during UNHRC meetings. No more talk about execution of women by stoning, female genital mutilation, and child marriage, as sanctioned by Islamic law. Thus, an international body ostensibly dedicated to promoting human rights, voluntarily renounced any study of one of the leading sources of international human rights violations.
As far back as 1989, a British-India journalist Salman Rushdie published a book that the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeni deemed "blasphemous" to Islam. Khomeni issued a fatwa to murder Rushdie because of his book. The fatwa has never been rescinded, and Rushie is still alive. After decade in hiding, he's lucky. One of his translators was murdered, and several others attacked.
When the US filmmaker Tom Clancy produced a movie Sum of All Fears, the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) pressured paramount Pictures to alter the adaptation of the film, to change from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis. Paramount fearing a campaign of intimidation, typical of CAIR's style, caved and changed the script. Apparently, the Aryan Nation doesn't have the clout of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Want more examples of Islam's repudiation of the 1st Amendment ? There are dozens, if not hundreds of them. >> talk show host Micheal Graham of WMAL-AM radio, Thomas Klocek of Depaul University, Stephen Coughlin of the Pentagon all were fired from their jobs for expressing views critical of Islam. All the result of Muslim intimidation and coercion.
By the same token, others in the media have been vilified, by the Muslim Islamization train, such as Paul Harvey, Cal Thomas, ex Virginia representative Virgil Goode, Terrorism expert writer Daniel Pipes, book writers Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, P. David Gaubatz, et al. This list could go on and on. The writers of the TV show 24, are also on this list. There is no greater enemy of the 1st Amendment in America than Islam, and the lack of freedoms - speech, religious, and the press, in Islamic countries more than testifies to that. Try building a Christian church in Saudi Arabia and watch what happens. You might get arrested just for wearing a cross necklace.
Holey crap-ola. Um yes, Bush helped sneak out members of the Royal Saudi family after 9/11. I am like, most of the attackers were Saudis the religion itself was spawned in Saudi Arabia...um this is a no brainer. All of this. We had less evidence the Japanese attacked us on 12/07/1941.I am no genius, and its pretty damned obvious. So my question is: why are you defending...THEM?Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Like Vietnam. I am of the firm belief that the Bush family, and oil, and the fact they even helped sneak out rich members of the house of Saud out of the US hours after the 9/11 attack speaks for itself. I doubt to many people were helping the Japanese aristocracy sneak around after Pearl Harbor. Because that's were allegiances are, with money, not nations anymore. Well, fuck that.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
They did not sneak rich members of the house of Saud out of the country. Are you a 9/11 Truther? Take it to the Conspiracy Theory thread where it belongs! Your delusions can be addressed there.
Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
The left?Wow, what a crazy projection and ridiculous interpretation of my post. Kidding me right ?You're projecting your own insecurities and failings onto another group of people. Essentially you're saying that all people of X group are inherently bad although there are exceptions to the rule as opposed to some people of group X are bad. And then you further insult the entire group by claiming that the only thing that's keeping them from killing anyone are our laws & punishment which shows you know very little about what motivates people who are intent on killing.The same as all red necks aren't racist or all blacks aren't racist or all well you get the point. Ever heard of sleeper cells ? Do you not think that people are killers in their minds maybe, but they fear the consequences of such actions so much so that they will never bring those thoughts into the light of day ?? You never know who you have in your midst, but thank God for all the laws and punishments we have in place as somewhat of a deterrent.
"All black's aren't racist" is a perfect case in point. Who is their right mind would even question whether black people are racists or not, let alone that most are when it was the white race which codified their racism and then enforced it at the barrel of a gun or the end of a rope.
The left loves attempting to asign all sorts of bullcrap to ones words, even if they are absolutely wrong in their projections or interpretations of those words. But whattaya gonna do right ?? ROTFLMBO.
Really? I am going to put you on iggy unless you apologize or admit the obvious. I am not going to hold my breath.Holey crap-ola. Um yes, Bush helped sneak out members of the Royal Saudi family after 9/11. I am like, most of the attackers were Saudis the religion itself was spawned in Saudi Arabia...um this is a no brainer. All of this. We had less evidence the Japanese attacked us on 12/07/1941.I am no genius, and its pretty damned obvious. So my question is: why are you defending...THEM?Iraq had nothing to do with anything. Like Vietnam. I am of the firm belief that the Bush family, and oil, and the fact they even helped sneak out rich members of the house of Saud out of the US hours after the 9/11 attack speaks for itself. I doubt to many people were helping the Japanese aristocracy sneak around after Pearl Harbor. Because that's were allegiances are, with money, not nations anymore. Well, fuck that.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?
We didn't attack Iraq over 9/11. It was about 18 months after 9/11 that we invaded Iraq.
They did not sneak rich members of the house of Saud out of the country. Are you a 9/11 Truther? Take it to the Conspiracy Theory thread where it belongs! Your delusions can be addressed there.
Why are you lying? That is a much better question!
Except you can't identify any of those people, you can only identify the group that they belong to and then attempt to assign the same nefarious intentions to the entire group. How would you like to be judged in that manner.There should be no one in this United States that would be fearful of speaking out against anyone that would actually attack or kill American's in their own nation. If it gets to that point, then this nation is done, and the enemy (any enemy) has finally won.I'm not downplaying the 1st Amendment. It's an awesome document. Without it, we wouldn't be here exercising this freedom of speech. Thank goodness for our fabulous founding fathers, James Madison, who wrote the 1st Amendment, and Thomas Jefferson who inspired it.How do you reconcile the fact that you are citing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land which it is, while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying the role of the First Amendment which is also the supreme law of the land, irrespective of your agreement with it, because it is a part of the U.S. Contsitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Can you answer just this part? And just FYI the First Amendment is not a separate document, it's part of the Bill of Rights.
So you guys wanna talk 1st Amendment ? OK. But the only relationship that Islam has to the 1st amendment, is that it is probably the least agreeable creed to the 1st Amendment of any in America. When a Danish newspaper, Jylands Posten, published an unflattering picture of the so-called prophet Mohammed, in 2005, the cartoon picture set off Muslim riots all over the world, resulting in the killing of civilians, burning of cars, massive looting, and violent invasion of embassies. Looks like the Muslim crowd isn't too sympathetic to the 1st Amendment, and its idea.
Neither was the New York Times, the LA Times, and other prominent publications that refused to print the Danish cartoon. The white flag of surrender (while ignoring the 1st Amendment) hung from these previously stalwart defenders of the Constitutional right to free speech. It was a testament to the fact that Muslim bullying works.
When Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders produced his film Fitna, which connected acts of violence by Muslims to violent passages of the Koran, the world's most powerful Islamic organization the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) went into high gear to stop all speech critical of Islam, and Muslims. The Sect. General of the OIC, Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, called for restrictions on freedom of speech, saying >> "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy."
Iran and Pakistan lodged formal complaints with the EU, about the film Non-Muslims joined in the censorship campaign. UN Sect general Ban Ki-moon repeated the OIC's argument that free speech does not apply in words offensive to Muslims. Jorge Sampiano, another high UN official urged Muslims to avoid pointing out the evils that Muslim "extremists" were committing (exactly the OIC's campaign, which was quickly embraced by the UN).
After much conferring on the subject of freedom of expression regarding Islam, the UN's Human Rights Council banned criticism of Islam during UNHRC meetings. No more talk about execution of women by stoning, female genital mutilation, and child marriage, as sanctioned by Islamic law. Thus, an international body ostensibly dedicated to promoting human rights, voluntarily renounced any study of one of the leading sources of international human rights violations.
As far back as 1989, a British-India journalist Salman Rushdie published a book that the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeni deemed "blasphemous" to Islam. Khomeni issued a fatwa to murder Rushdie because of his book. The fatwa has never been rescinded, and Rushie is still alive. After decade in hiding, he's lucky. One of his translators was murdered, and several others attacked.
When the US filmmaker Tom Clancy produced a movie Sum of All Fears, the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) pressured paramount Pictures to alter the adaptation of the film, to change from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis. Paramount fearing a campaign of intimidation, typical of CAIR's style, caved and changed the script. Apparently, the Aryan Nation doesn't have the clout of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Want more examples of Islam's repudiation of the 1st Amendment ? There are dozens, if not hundreds of them. >> talk show host Micheal Graham of WMAL-AM radio, Thomas Klocek of Depaul University, Stephen Coughlin of the Pentagon all were fired from their jobs for expressing views critical of Islam. All the result of Muslim intimidation and coercion.
By the same token, others in the media have been vilified, by the Muslim Islamization train, such as Paul Harvey, Cal Thomas, ex Virginia representative Virgil Goode, Terrorism expert writer Daniel Pipes, book writers Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, P. David Gaubatz, et al. This list could go on and on. The writers of the TV show 24, are also on this list. There is no greater enemy of the 1st Amendment in America than Islam, and the lack of freedoms - speech, religious, and the press, in Islamic countries more than testifies to that. Try building a Christian church in Saudi Arabia and watch what happens. You might get arrested just for wearing a cross necklace.
So in your thoughts here, you assume that I am a white supremacists ??? Stop worrying, because yes I am white, but no supremacists. Funny you mention the civil Rights act of 64, and how you figure that it somehow trumps our security for all citizens in this nation. Well it doesn't. An enemy of this nation can change things if they are successful at harming American's by way of hiding behind the act somehow.This is not lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that you're advocating any such thing leads me to wonder if you're in a position to actually attempt to implement such an unlawful scheme.The vetting process must be strenuous. No just waltzing right on into these jobs anymore. By the way some of these people have been talking, it appears that the vetting job (the final hurdle), wasn't met in satisfaction of our system of government and our constitution. So the voters speak, and it's merely a done deal ?? No vetting by security ????
And yet it didn't happen. Wanna wager a guess as to why?Turning one holy city into glass and free-floating atoms? yes.And you believe that would have been a good thing?Because nobody had the stones to make Medina and Mecca vanish in the fire of split atoms.Then why in the hell did our U.S. military attack Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?No, it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11. No doubt.
