Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
but what if i wear the french flag burqas?
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_frenchtricolor.jpg)
Then those bastards would fine you, as Islam is not an authorised religion in France, even if you are patriotic (perhaps more so than they are).
I'm going to buy one for my ex husband (french dude)
I recall this started out in schools some years ago, i didnt think they wouldnt accept it even on the streets.
Its very convenient, because its a restriction that doesnt affect all the christian assholes.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 11:04:01 PM
I'm going to buy one for my ex husband (french dude)
The question is, will he wear it? And make sure to warn him that if he wears it in France that he will be fined:
"He said the fine would apply to 'all people on the public street whose face is entirely covered'."
Also, I will look for one here, as we have a French presence in this area, so they may be selling them cheaper.
Also, I can see the eyes of the woman in the picture with the article. She shouldn't get fined, as her face isn't entirely covered.
I told you guys Europe doesn't have a handle on this "freedom of religion" thing.
You think over a hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) of sectarian provoked warfare might've taught us something, but nooooooooooo....
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2010, 11:10:41 PM
I told you guys Europe doesn't have a handle on this "freedom of religion" thing.
You think over a hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) of sectarian provoked warfare might've taught us something, but nooooooooooo....
Obviously it isn't a war on religion in France, it is them fighting for equal rights for women.
Quote from: rygD on January 07, 2010, 11:13:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2010, 11:10:41 PM
I told you guys Europe doesn't have a handle on this "freedom of religion" thing.
You think over a hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) of sectarian provoked warfare might've taught us something, but nooooooooooo....
Obviously it isn't a war on religion in France, it is them fighting for equal rights for women.
:troll:
Quote from: rygD on January 07, 2010, 11:07:35 PM
"He said the fine would apply to 'all people on the public street whose face is entirely covered'."
point of policy not woman's rights thats just the veil :fnord:
Quote from: rygD on January 07, 2010, 11:13:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2010, 11:10:41 PM
I told you guys Europe doesn't have a handle on this "freedom of religion" thing.
You think over a hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) of sectarian provoked warfare might've taught us something, but nooooooooooo....
Obviously it isn't a war on religion in France, it is them fighting for equal rights for women.
a woman should have the right to wear one if she wants, and the right to flash her boobies if she wants. im just saying......
Focusing on supressing the aesthetic and superficial parts of an ideology doesnt ever make a big change.
If you dont allow the Ku Klux Klan to wear their hoods in public... does that not make them racist anymore?
And Islam isnt the Ku Klux Klan either.
1. Its not about women's rights.
2. Its a conveniently designed law that targets Muslims.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 11:20:17 PM
Quote from: rygD on January 07, 2010, 11:13:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2010, 11:10:41 PM
I told you guys Europe doesn't have a handle on this "freedom of religion" thing.
You think over a hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) of sectarian provoked warfare might've taught us something, but nooooooooooo....
Obviously it isn't a war on religion in France, it is them fighting for equal rights for women.
a woman should have the right to wear one if she wants, and the right to flash her boobies if she wants. im just saying......
The way it seems to be going in France, they will tell you that you MUST flash your tits...
One significant difference between Islam and the KKK is that one is something that is broad and cultural manifestation that its central point isnt the "keeping down of women" while the other is merely a racist ideology.
And its also xenophobic and racist, because even do i think these women have fewer rights, they seem to be content with them; its assuming everyone should conform to occidentalized ideas as the norm/law/truth.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:21:24 PM
Focusing on supressing the aesthetic and superficial parts of an ideology doesnt ever make a big change.
If you dont allow the Ku Klux Klan to wear their hoods in public... does that not make them racist anymore?
And Islam isnt the Ku Klux Klan either.
1. Its not about women's rights.
2. Its a conveniently designed law that targets Muslims.
I am pretty sure we all know that, but the quotes in the article claim it is to protect the women's rights, such as:
"President Sarkozy has called them 'a sign of subservience and debasement that imprison women', saying they are 'not welcome in France'."
As kel said, the woman should be the one to decide what she wears.
500 years ago, Christians covered their heads too. Egads! Zounds! Radical I know...
Quote from: Suu on January 07, 2010, 11:30:33 PM
500 years ago, Christians covered their heads too. Egads! Zounds! Radical I know...
Suu, your posts make me happy.
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Quote from: rygD on January 07, 2010, 11:27:22 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:21:24 PM
Focusing on supressing the aesthetic and superficial parts of an ideology doesnt ever make a big change.
If you dont allow the Ku Klux Klan to wear their hoods in public... does that not make them racist anymore?
And Islam isnt the Ku Klux Klan either.
1. Its not about women's rights.
2. Its a conveniently designed law that targets Muslims.
I am pretty sure we all know that, but the quotes in the article claim it is to protect the women's rights, such as:
"President Sarkozy has called them 'a sign of subservience and debasement that imprison women', saying they are 'not welcome in France'."
As kel said, the woman should be the one to decide what she wears.
<kicks sarcasm radar> Right.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
You own the building, you make the rules.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
You own the building, you make the rules.
Right, we shouldnt let in any niggers either.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
You own the building, you make the rules.
Right, we shouldnt let in any niggers either.
You're funny.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
You own the building, you make the rules.
Right, we shouldnt let in any niggers either.
oi mother fucker, remove that word from my thread! My thread, my rules!
:lol:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 07, 2010, 11:31:37 PM
Ridiculous. In a private building, ok, I can see that... but in public? Bullshit.
Why would that make the situation different?
You own the building, you make the rules.
Right, we shouldnt let in any niggers either.
Do you fucking think before you post?
He's being edgy!
Up to what point does "my place, my rules" applies?
supreme court
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:56:31 PM
Up to what point does "my place, my rules" applies?
How do you mean?
I think he is saying he will wear a burqa at your place if he wants to.
I wouldn't care, personally.
BUT, I think someone has the right to refuse him entry to their property, if they so choose.
Does that answer the question?
Personal homes i can get down with that.
But companies and stuff like that...
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:13:03 AM
Personal homes i can get down with that.
But companies and stuff like that...
Well, if its a privately owned company, why should that be different?
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Yes, as unpopular as I know that opinion is; HOWEVER, I wouldn't buy anything there.
Well, for me, i dont think that kind of discrimination should be allowed.
And i draw parallels between the WalMart example and the actions of the frenchies.
Just that the frenchies is even worse, because its the public government bashing on Muslims, when they toot their horns of being so progressive.
Fair enough. You have that right.
there are already laws on the books about discrimination based on a set criteria
eta: or in countries where there isnt, im sure that kinda policy is a curse
you can disallow someone entry as long as its not because of the protected status
no shirts no shoes no service OK
no Towelheads NOT OK
English only OK but :horrormirth:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:23:32 AM
Well, for me, i dont think that kind of discrimination should be allowed.
And i draw parallels between the WalMart example and the actions of the frenchies.
Just that the frenchies is even worse, because its the public government bashing on Muslims, when they toot their horns of being so progressive.
I think Wal-Mart could do that, if they wanted. But Hoopla had it right, and they will lose many customers, and probably be out of business fairly quickly due to such a policy. I am sure many of us here are disgusted by knowing that a government would put such a policy into effect, but things that I thought most of the world was moving away from are now becoming laws. The shit I see in my home country tends to make me ashamed to call myself American. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to take my citizenship away because I said that.
Governments and corporations are corrupt and they will both do what the fuck they want as long as it gives them more power/money and control.
On the other hand, most people are cool with torture now, so they'd probably be down with casual racism and sexism too, so long as there was no social stigma.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:23:32 AM
Well, for me, i dont think that kind of discrimination should be allowed.
And i draw parallels between the WalMart example and the actions of the frenchies.
Just that the frenchies is even worse, because its the public government bashing on Muslims, when they toot their horns of being so progressive.
I think Wal-Mart could do that, if they wanted. But Hoopla had it right, and they will lose many customers, and probably be out of business fairly quickly due to such a policy. I am sure many of us here are disgusted by knowing that a government would put such a policy into effect, but things that I thought most of the world was moving away from are now becoming laws. The shit I see in my home country tends to make me ashamed to call myself American. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to take my citizenship away because I said that.
Governments and corporations are corrupt and they will both do what the fuck they want as long as it gives them more power/money and control.
They could even create a huge niche-market compromised of the middle and south-east fundies and keep making loads of money
I know everyone is corrupt and all that, but for me, that doesnt make it an ok practice.
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2010, 12:38:10 AM
On the other hand, most people are cool with torture now, so they'd probably be down with casual racism and sexism too, so long as there was no social stigma.
Seems like France is open for religious persecution. Do you think that shit will fly in the US and UK?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:39:29 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 12:32:12 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:23:32 AM
Well, for me, i dont think that kind of discrimination should be allowed.
And i draw parallels between the WalMart example and the actions of the frenchies.
Just that the frenchies is even worse, because its the public government bashing on Muslims, when they toot their horns of being so progressive.
I think Wal-Mart could do that, if they wanted. But Hoopla had it right, and they will lose many customers, and probably be out of business fairly quickly due to such a policy. I am sure many of us here are disgusted by knowing that a government would put such a policy into effect, but things that I thought most of the world was moving away from are now becoming laws. The shit I see in my home country tends to make me ashamed to call myself American. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to take my citizenship away because I said that.
Governments and corporations are corrupt and they will both do what the fuck they want as long as it gives them more power/money and control.
They could even create a huge niche-market compromised of the middle and south-east fundies and keep making loads of money
I know everyone is corrupt and all that, but for me, that doesnt make it an ok practice.
I agree that it isn't ok, but until the masses get off their lazy asses and do something about it, or at least speak out about it, things will progressively get worse. If people do try to do something they may very well find themselves imprisoned, or may just vanish, and that is why it seems that the masses approve of such policies, as only small groups seem to give a fuck about it. I am not to knowledgeable of the politics involved though, it seems Europe hates Islam to me.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 11:20:17 PM
a woman should have the right to wear one if she wants, and the right to flash her boobies if she wants. im just saying......
And I'm just saying, hellz yeah. :fap:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:07:12 PM
I recall this started out in schools some years ago, i didnt think they wouldnt accept it even on the streets.
Its very convenient, because its a restriction that doesnt affect all the christian assholes.
You guys are right: this is some bullshit legislation. However, I'm not sure we're reading the subtext properly. From what I know of France, it's not a "Christians vs. Muslims" thing so much as a "secular nationalists vs. anyone who displays a nonsecular identity" thing. Atheists vs. unassimilated theists. France doesn't want to get rid of the Muslims; France just wants them to act like everybody else.
It's still bullshit, but slightly less heinous bullshit, or at least different bullshit.
I find it funny when people say the veil is a debasement of women. No, the veil isn't a debasement of women, a mandatory wearing of the veil is a debasement of women. I've heard stories by Muslim women who wear a veil, that it makes them more confident and creates a separate womens space. If thats the case, all power to them.
It's also funny that they're fining people (but we know they mean women) who wear a veil because they want to wear one, since France is apparently not some sort of theocracy. Apparently.
Quote from: Brotep on January 08, 2010, 01:00:59 AM
You guys are right: this is some bullshit legislation. However, I'm not sure we're reading the subtext properly. From what I know of France, it's not a "Christians vs. Muslims" thing so much as a "secular nationalists vs. anyone who displays a nonsecular identity" thing. Atheists vs. unassimilated theists. France doesn't want to get rid of the Muslims; France just wants them to act like everybody else.
It's still bullshit, but slightly less heinous bullshit, or at least different bullshit.
Nahh, it's the same bullshit going on in the rest of Europe. Prolly.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Luckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Quote from: Brotep on January 08, 2010, 01:00:59 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 11:20:17 PM
a woman should have the right to wear one if she wants, and the right to flash her boobies if she wants. im just saying......
And I'm just saying, hellz yeah. :fap:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 07, 2010, 11:07:12 PM
I recall this started out in schools some years ago, i didnt think they wouldnt accept it even on the streets.
Its very convenient, because its a restriction that doesnt affect all the christian assholes.
You guys are right: this is some bullshit legislation. However, I'm not sure we're reading the subtext properly. From what I know of France, it's not a "Christians vs. Muslims" thing so much as a "secular nationalists vs. anyone who displays a nonsecular identity" thing. Atheists vs. unassimilated theists. France doesn't want to get rid of the Muslims; France just wants them to act like everybody else.
It's still bullshit, but slightly less heinous bullshit, or at least different bullshit.
Just because their discourse is about "women's rights" and "secularism" doesnt mean its not christian zealots behind it.
For every shitty action theres a possible "reasonable" justification.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AMLuckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Did I just catch that you can't wear lude clothing in SLUT?
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Luckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Parks, homes, members clubs/organizations fine.
Jobs or government, i think not fine.
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AMLuckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Did I just catch that you can't wear lude clothing in SLUT? Oh no no no. We're fine with it, you should see gay pride day. Sl,ut is all about lude behavior, even the momo's are. It's just their organization that doesn't like it.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:17:14 AM
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 01:11:24 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AMLuckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Did I just catch that you can't wear lude clothing in SLUT?
Oh no no no. We're fine with it, you should see gay pride day. Sl,ut is all about lude behavior, even the momo's are. It's just their organization that doesn't like it.
I got that, I was just, well, I mean it's called SLUT.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Luckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Parks, homes, members clubs/organizations fine.
Jobs or government, i think not fine.
I know of no job that will allow you to go into your workplace and wear whatever you want. Working from home perhaps, but all employers will likely have some policy.
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 01:19:07 AM
I got that, I was just, well, I mean it's called SLUT.
[/quote]
Got to love it. We have t-shirts. :lulz:
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:22:02 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:13:19 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:07:09 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 12:16:31 AM
Do you think it would be ok for a private company as Wal Mart to declare "we do not hire blacks or women"?
Luckily enough there are Federal Anti Discrimination Laws in place so companies cannot do that, at least where I live.
In my home of SL,UT there was actually a battle going on against the LDS Church and the ACLU because the church bought a city block and made it private property. They turned it into a park, awwwww...but you cannot swear clothing that is lude and have naughty words on it, a gay couple got harassed by security even because they kissed http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922 (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=299&sid=8102922). But the ACLU lost because ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner has that right, just like people in their homes have a right to say "GTFO" if they don't like what you're doing. It's a two way street. Like you're remark about the Ku Kluxx Klan wearing their hoods, they have a right to on their own private property and on public lands, hell police even have to protect them when they march because IT IS A RIGHT. I would much rather be able to do what the fuck i want, then have that freedom taking from me all cause i don't want some asshole racist to have their freedoms taken away from them.
TWO WAY STREET!
ugh *steps off soapbox*
Parks, homes, members clubs/organizations fine.
Jobs or government, i think not fine.
I know of no job that will allow you to go into your workplace and wear whatever you want. Working from home perhaps, but all employers will likely have some policy.
Mmm, on that sense you do have a point, bureaucratic jobs have an all alienating dress code that doesnt distinguish culture, religion or personal taste.
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:08:55 AM
Just because their discourse is about "women's rights" and "secularism" doesnt mean its not christian zealots behind it.
For every shitty action theres a possible "reasonable" justification.
Christian ain't the only brand zealotry comes in.
Quote from: Brotep on January 08, 2010, 01:27:56 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:08:55 AM
Just because their discourse is about "women's rights" and "secularism" doesnt mean its not christian zealots behind it.
For every shitty action theres a possible "reasonable" justification.
Christian ain't the only brand zealotry comes in.
Of course not, but in this context it seems to be
so this kind.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
Oh, but you'd look so much better in this....
(http://igargoyle.com/archives/sig.jpg)
Wait I just found this. (http://www.freewebs.com/ttshirt/camiseta.jpg)
Buying it, going down to the temple. Let's see how long it takes to get arrested.
Will be calling for bail later.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:45:56 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
Oh, but you'd look so much better in this....
(http://igargoyle.com/archives/sig.jpg)
I am not girly enough for that. She sure does look fuckable though...please pardon me while I go fantasize about the Borg Queen.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
It should totally be illegal to wear big bulky jackets. That'll teach people in Wisconsin to go outside in winter! They're all terrorists anyway.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:23:02 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
It should totally be illegal to wear big bulky jackets. That'll teach people in Wisconsin to go outside in winter! They're all terrorists anyway.
And backpacks! Surely they are filled with drugs, korans and C4 !!!
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:18:55 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
My jacket was directed at you. I can understand restrictions on people wearing certain clothes in certain places. I don't see how that makes no sense. Some things are a no-no. If you saw me in front of your home wearing my previously described jacket, you think I should be left alone?
I still think a woman being told that she is not allowed to wear attire suiting her religious beliefs in public is fucking stupid. Just outlaw religion and make it easier.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
No, only fully covered faces would be outlawed. Beards would be fine.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
you should have every right to wear a vest with wires coming out of it and leading to a switch in your hand.
you do not have the right to blow yourself up in public, but legislating behavior based on what possible bad outcomes may occur is flawed and should not be encouraged.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:32:00 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:18:55 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
My jacket was directed at you. I can understand restrictions on people wearing certain clothes in certain places. I don't see how that makes no sense. Some things are a no-no. If you saw me in front of your home wearing my previously described jacket, you think I should be left alone?
I still think a woman being told that she is not allowed to wear attire suiting her religious beliefs in public is fucking stupid. Just outlaw religion and make it easier.
If you were just standing there, whatever. If when i exited my apartment complex you stared at me creepily id keep an eye out for you, while i walk towards wherever im going. You could very well be covered in tar and feathers and i wouldnt mind.
Besides, suicide bombers dont wait, they just strike.
And you dont need a burqa to hide plastic explosives, it more than well fits in said backpack i mentioned.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
No, only fully covered faces would be outlawed. Beards would be fine.
A heavy beard with full moustache and sideburns covers everything a burqha covers but the nose and forehead. Add a hat and the guy might as well be wearing a burqha, inasmuch that as soon as he shaves the beard he's unrecognizable.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 01:48:19 AM
Wait I just found this. (http://www.freewebs.com/ttshirt/camiseta.jpg)
Buying it, going down to the temple. Let's see how long it takes to get arrested.
Will be calling for bail later.
(http://kimag.es/share/83549442.gif)
And im not sure, but i think you can fit enough C4 up your rectum to kill a dozen people.
So the "banning clothing" for Safetytm doesnt make much sense to me.
Quote from: Frenulum Pendulum on January 08, 2010, 02:39:20 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
you should have every right to wear a vest with wires coming out of it and leading to a switch in your hand.
you do not have the right to blow yourself up in public, but legislating behavior based on what possible bad outcomes may occur is flawed and should not be encouraged.
This is why you are so fun to have conversations with.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:32:00 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:18:55 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
My jacket was directed at you. I can understand restrictions on people wearing certain clothes in certain places. I don't see how that makes no sense. Some things are a no-no. If you saw me in front of your home wearing my previously described jacket, you think I should be left alone?
I still think a woman being told that she is not allowed to wear attire suiting her religious beliefs in public is fucking stupid. Just outlaw religion and make it easier.
If you were just standing there, whatever. If when i exited my apartment complex you stared at me creepily id keep an eye out for you, while i walk towards wherever im going. You could very well be covered in tar and feathers and i wouldnt mind.
Besides, suicide bombers dont wait, they just strike.
And you dont need a burqa to hide plastic explosives, it more than well fits in said backpack i mentioned.
As I said, I think a burqa is fine. If I saw some asshole in my neighborhood wearing my jacket I would beat the shit out of him and take my jacket back. If I saw someone I thought might have a bomb I would get my family out of the area, then inform the police "there was a guy walking around outside with a big bulky jacket covering something, with wires, and a switch in his hand."
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
No, only fully covered faces would be outlawed. Beards would be fine.
A heavy beard with full moustache and sideburns covers everything a burqha covers but the nose and forehead. Add a hat and the guy might as well be wearing a burqha, inasmuch that as soon as he shaves the beard he's unrecognizable.
The stuff I sometimes see the ladies wear here covers them completely, and they look through little holes that are too few and small for me to be able to see them...but I rarely see them wearing that. They are like the "French Flag" one on that site.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:50:05 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:32:00 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:18:55 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
My jacket was directed at you. I can understand restrictions on people wearing certain clothes in certain places. I don't see how that makes no sense. Some things are a no-no. If you saw me in front of your home wearing my previously described jacket, you think I should be left alone?
I still think a woman being told that she is not allowed to wear attire suiting her religious beliefs in public is fucking stupid. Just outlaw religion and make it easier.
If you were just standing there, whatever. If when i exited my apartment complex you stared at me creepily id keep an eye out for you, while i walk towards wherever im going. You could very well be covered in tar and feathers and i wouldnt mind.
Besides, suicide bombers dont wait, they just strike.
And you dont need a burqa to hide plastic explosives, it more than well fits in said backpack i mentioned.
As I said, I think a burqa is fine. If I saw some asshole in my neighborhood wearing my jacket I would beat the shit out of him and take my jacket back. If I saw someone I thought might have a bomb I would get my family out of the area, then inform the police "there was a guy walking around outside with a big bulky jacket covering something, with wires, and a switch in his hand."
:lulz: lol wtf
NO, I WOULD RUN TOWARDS HIM IN FULL SPEED, THROW SOME DUST IN HIS FACE TO BLIND HIM, THEN TACKLE HIM AND STRUGGLE TO GET THE SWITCH OFF HIS HAND, PUNCH HIM UNTIL HES UNCONSCIOUS, THEN STRANGLE THE DIRTY SAND NIGGER WITH THE WIRE - THEN ID GET MEDALS AND GET THE KEY TO THE CITY.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
AMEN!
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
No, only fully covered faces would be outlawed. Beards would be fine.
A heavy beard with full moustache and sideburns covers everything a burqha covers but the nose and forehead. Add a hat and the guy might as well be wearing a burqha, inasmuch that as soon as he shaves the beard he's unrecognizable.
The stuff I sometimes see the ladies wear here covers them completely, and they look through little holes that are too few and small for me to be able to see them...but I rarely see them wearing that. They are like the "French Flag" one on that site.
The burqhas that are popular here (you see them a lot on the PSU campus) cover pretty much everything but the eyes. I understand the ones in Middle Eastern countries usually even have some veiling over the eyes (which, holy hell, would have been so awesome at Burning Man during the dust storms) but still, would you recognize this guy
(http://imagecache5.art.com/p/LRG/37/3798/HNJIF00Z/loomis-dean-morman-believer-wearing-hat-suit-and-full-beard.jpg)
if he removed his hat and shaved?
How would France treat women who went to this:
(http://www.neublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/beardcap-beard-cap-hat.jpg)
Would that be acceptable because it leaves the nose uncovered? What if it's really cold? What about skiiers?
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:56:02 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:50:05 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:32:00 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 02:18:55 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 08, 2010, 01:26:21 AM
Still, not allowing them to wear what they want on the street is completely off-the-wall, over-the-top.
What if I decided to take a stroll in front of your house wearing a big bulky jacket covering something up, with, what is that...WIRES!? What is this thing in my hand here with the switch on it for...
I am not comparing the wearing of a burqa with suicide bombers, but there are legitimate reasons for not allowing people to wear certain things in certain places, and if you test me, I will always find a way to be over the top in my clothes.
If you arent comparing burqa wearers to suicide bombers, then your example makes no sense.
Your right, muslims should only wear transparent ponchos so they dont blow us up.
My jacket was directed at you. I can understand restrictions on people wearing certain clothes in certain places. I don't see how that makes no sense. Some things are a no-no. If you saw me in front of your home wearing my previously described jacket, you think I should be left alone?
I still think a woman being told that she is not allowed to wear attire suiting her religious beliefs in public is fucking stupid. Just outlaw religion and make it easier.
If you were just standing there, whatever. If when i exited my apartment complex you stared at me creepily id keep an eye out for you, while i walk towards wherever im going. You could very well be covered in tar and feathers and i wouldnt mind.
Besides, suicide bombers dont wait, they just strike.
And you dont need a burqa to hide plastic explosives, it more than well fits in said backpack i mentioned.
As I said, I think a burqa is fine. If I saw some asshole in my neighborhood wearing my jacket I would beat the shit out of him and take my jacket back. If I saw someone I thought might have a bomb I would get my family out of the area, then inform the police "there was a guy walking around outside with a big bulky jacket covering something, with wires, and a switch in his hand."
:lulz: lol wtf
NO, I WOULD RUN TOWARDS HIM IN FULL SPEED, THROW SOME DUST IN HIS FACE TO BLIND HIM, THEN TACKLE HIM AND STRUGGLE TO GET THE SWITCH OFF HIS HAND, PUNCH HIM UNTIL HES UNCONSCIOUS, THEN STRANGLE THE DIRTY SAND NIGGER WITH THE WIRE - THEN ID GET MEDALS AND GET THE KEY TO THE CITY.
:D
Wait...what did you call me?
Noses with frost-bite are just a small price to pay for "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité"
P.S. It's not coincidence it does not say "Sororité" in the national motto.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 03:06:19 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:53:29 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 02:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 02:26:46 AM
I do understand the security risk to not being able to identify people on private property, particularly banks and other places where surveillance is a legitimate need. But on the street, in public, there is no more excuse for telling people they must keep their face bare at all times than there is for telling people that they must be microchipped and wear a tracking device. Not only that, but unless they also outlaw full beards on men, they are discriminating against women by permitting men to obscure their faces, while women cannot.
No, only fully covered faces would be outlawed. Beards would be fine.
A heavy beard with full moustache and sideburns covers everything a burqha covers but the nose and forehead. Add a hat and the guy might as well be wearing a burqha, inasmuch that as soon as he shaves the beard he's unrecognizable.
The stuff I sometimes see the ladies wear here covers them completely, and they look through little holes that are too few and small for me to be able to see them...but I rarely see them wearing that. They are like the "French Flag" one on that site.
The burqhas that are popular here (you see them a lot on the PSU campus) cover pretty much everything but the eyes. I understand the ones in Middle Eastern countries usually even have some veiling over the eyes (which, holy hell, would have been so awesome at Burning Man during the dust storms) but still, would you recognize this guy
(http://imagecache5.art.com/p/LRG/37/3798/HNJIF00Z/loomis-dean-morman-believer-wearing-hat-suit-and-full-beard.jpg)
if he removed his hat and shaved?
How would France treat women who went to this:
(http://www.neublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/beardcap-beard-cap-hat.jpg)
Would that be acceptable because it leaves the nose uncovered? What if it's really cold? What about skiiers?
I get what you are saying, and agree with your security conscious perspective. There is a reason we don't make the laws in France.
I need that ski mask.
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 03:13:45 AM
I need that ski mask.
I KNOW, RIGHT?
http://www.beardhead.com/shop.html
I am trying to decide between the black and the brown.
I want the grey one. I'd wear it with a top hat and a monocle.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 08, 2010, 03:17:09 AM
Quote from: rygD on January 08, 2010, 03:13:45 AM
I need that ski mask.
I KNOW, RIGHT?
http://www.beardhead.com/shop.html
I am trying to decide between the black and the brown.
Fucking nice...I still need the Cthulhu one too.
gonna have to pick up the blue/grey one.
EITHER
France is for lovers.
OR
(http://www.microkitten.com/images/prods/mariana-g/8.jpg)
OR, OR
(http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/3/f/IranWomen03-1928.jpg)
I have to wonder if France and Switzerland are trying to create their own terrorism problem by doing shit like this so it can make its own PATRIOT act.
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 08, 2010, 03:46:17 AM
OR
(http://) (http://)http://www.microkitten.com/model.asp?id=30&model=mariana
OR
:fap:
The comments astound me. And people bitch about the US being racist? Fuck. They don't hold a candle to the British.
Especially about South Asians. Racism against blacks doesn't seem very common - I know it still exists, of course, but I'm much more shocked to hear anti-black sentiment than, say, anti-Pakistani sentiment.
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
Please,
please don't do this.
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 06:06:56 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
Please, please don't do this.
I'm sorry, but it's the most random and humiliating team I can think of outside of the sacred AL East.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 08, 2010, 03:53:06 AM
I have to wonder if France and Switzerland are trying to create their own terrorism problem by doing shit like this so it can make its own PATRIOT act.
sad truth though it may be, you might very well win the thread. governments need enemies to distract the populace in times of economic downturn.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
EITHER
I agree with your sentiment SUU. I have to say however, that the U.S. is the land of "freedom fries" and innumerable other subtle social reform. Although surrounded by confusion of media goal and twists given to perception, the U.S. / Mexican border is currently patrolled by active forces of the organized "minute men". Most Americans don't remember at this point in time, what life was like in America before the current (911 & POST) "WAR ON TERROR". Civilizations' substance is rumbling and transforming. Think of how sick your gut was at the thought of "W" being "President" and all of the effects. "Obama" may be yet an altered deception, deeper into the same sick betrayal of humanity.
FRANCE has had hard-core shit going on for a loong time now, tension-wise, and there are complex elements to consider. I'm certainly not supporting any established government decision. We can't point fingers at FRANCE. Our current "Administration" is totally O.K. with the idea that there are burqa donned terrorists. Take your shoes off and dispense of all liquids, my friend. If necessary, the government has loads of back up discs, you're on file. In America, you are the enemy too. But because there's so many of you fuckers we don't discriminate, we just "disappear" 'ya.
OR
I'm opening a private club, only for burqa wearers. And their admirers.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
... and Richter was the Heretics
Again.
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:09:30 AM
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 06:06:56 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
Please, please don't do this.
I'm sorry, but it's the most random and humiliating team I can think of outside of the sacred AL East.
This would be more humiliating:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/19/c/AAAADCpi_vcAAAAAABnAkQ.jpg)
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 08, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
EITHER
I agree with your sentiment SUU. I have to say however, that the U.S. is the land of "freedom fries" and innumerable other subtle social reform. Although surrounded by confusion of media goal and twists given to perception, the U.S. / Mexican border is currently patrolled by active forces of the organized "minute men". Most Americans don't remember at this point in time, what life was like in America before the current (911 & POST) "WAR ON TERROR". Civilizations' substance is rumbling and transforming. Think of how sick your gut was at the thought of "W" being "President" and all of the effects. "Obama" may be yet an altered deception, deeper into the same sick betrayal of humanity.
FRANCE has had hard-core shit going on for a loong time now, tension-wise, and there are complex elements to consider. I'm certainly not supporting any established government decision. We can't point fingers at FRANCE. Our current "Administration" is totally O.K. with the idea that there are burqa donned terrorists. Take your shoes off and dispense of all liquids, my friend. If necessary, the government has loads of back up discs, you're on file. In America, you are the enemy too. But because there's so many of you fuckers we don't discriminate, we just "disappear" 'ya.
OR
I'm opening a private club, only for burqa wearers. And their admirers.
Yeah yeah, down with the system and all that jazz, right?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 08, 2010, 05:21:40 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:09:30 AM
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 08, 2010, 06:06:56 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
Please, please don't do this.
I'm sorry, but it's the most random and humiliating team I can think of outside of the sacred AL East.
This would be more humiliating:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/19/c/AAAADCpi_vcAAAAAABnAkQ.jpg)
Is that a classic Pittsburgh hat? That's AWESOME.
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Already have, and will again. There are pics on the interwebs as well. :lulz:
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:19:58 AM
The comments astound me. And people bitch about the US being racist? Fuck. They don't hold a candle to the British.
In all fairness, it IS The Daily Mail we're looking at.
From the comments:
QuoteThen there's the tangle over wearing religious symbols in Britain: Christians can't wear crosses but Muslims and others can wear whatever they like.
What? Cain, that's not accurate, is it?
Lastly, from the article:
QuoteThe amount could be doubled for Muslim men who force female members of their family to cover their faces.
I can agree with that much.
All i know is that im ready for fucking burning man if i ever go....
(http://www.zarinas.com/images/burqa_blue.jpg)
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_red.jpg)
CAMO!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_camo.jpg)
USA! USA! USA!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_usa1.jpg)
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_hotpink.jpg)
PURPLE!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/images/purpleburqa.jpg)
and last but not least....
I AM FROM DENMARK!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_denmark.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:18:44 PM
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
The only argument that I found some what credible so far is that it provides cover for women who are forced to wear it. Sort of like you can't wear a ski mask into a bank. Not because everyone wearing a ski mask would rob the bank but the ones that don't rob the bank provide cover to those who do. So they ban the right to wear ski masks in a bank
Personally Im not fully persuaded by the argument, especially if it's this argument alone, but I could see some governments finding it a legitimate concern.
To be honest Im on the fence with this issue, but I think the safer bet is always not limiting any freedoms.
Kind of like the abortion issue. Im generally anti-abortion in most cases, but socially and realistically I think allowing more choice is safer then limiting it.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Already have, and will again. There are pics on the interwebs as well. :lulz:
Yes, I do recall... I RECALL THE HORRIBLE DESECRATION OF THE HOLEY BOOBZORZ DEFILED WITH... DARE I SAY IT...
FABRIC COVERINGS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 06:34:45 PM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Already have, and will again. There are pics on the interwebs as well. :lulz:
Yes, I do recall... I RECALL THE HORRIBLE DESECRATION OF THE HOLEY BOOBZORZ DEFILED WITH... DARE I SAY IT... FABRIC COVERINGS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Not on here, sheesh. not going to post boobie pics on a forum.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:36:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 06:34:45 PM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Already have, and will again. There are pics on the interwebs as well. :lulz:
Yes, I do recall... I RECALL THE HORRIBLE DESECRATION OF THE HOLEY BOOBZORZ DEFILED WITH... DARE I SAY IT... FABRIC COVERINGS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Not on here, sheesh. not going to post boobie pics on a forum.
What is wonderful about that response was the
context was unacceptable, not the
event.
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:36:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 06:34:45 PM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:11:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I'm sure I read that -kel- was going to show off her boobs in the name of liberty and freedom.
Already have, and will again. There are pics on the interwebs as well. :lulz:
Yes, I do recall... I RECALL THE HORRIBLE DESECRATION OF THE HOLEY BOOBZORZ DEFILED WITH... DARE I SAY IT... FABRIC COVERINGS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Not on here, sheesh. not going to post boobie pics on a forum.
What is wonderful about that response was the context was unacceptable, not the event.
:lulz:
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
I don't ahve a problem with this, as I used to go watch the Royals. I used to live there.
I WANNA GO BACK! ITS GREEN THERE!
[/spaz]
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 08, 2010, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
I don't ahve a problem with this, as I used to go watch the Royals. I used to live there.
I WANNA GO BACK! ITS GREEN THERE!
[/spaz]
Ah yes, but you see, the joke is that there is no living soul in the far reaches of New England who would dare wear that hat. Not even Discordians.
Ahhh.
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 08, 2010, 06:59:49 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
I don't ahve a problem with this, as I used to go watch the Royals. I used to live there.
I WANNA GO BACK! ITS GREEN THERE!
[/spaz]
Ah yes, but you see, the joke is that there is no living soul in the far reaches of New England who would dare wear that hat. Not even Discordians.
I would.
Kill me, you bastards.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:22:05 PM
From the comments:
QuoteThen there's the tangle over wearing religious symbols in Britain: Christians can't wear crosses but Muslims and others can wear whatever they like.
What? Cain, that's not accurate, is it?
Its only accurate if you go to a state school, and its not "other religious can wear what they like" but other religions can wear symbols or clothing that they are required to.
Lets put it this way: if you wear a cross under your clothing, thats fine. If, however, you wear a "purity ring" and then, when it is confiscated for being openly worn jewellery (this seems to be a rule in every school I ever went to) and you then whine to the European Court of Human Rights about religious oppression, then you're going to get laughed at.
Personally, I'm just disturbed by school age kids even having religions. There is no way they can have thought through the options in any reasonable way at that age. That is one area where I find myself agreeing with Dawkins et al.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 08, 2010, 06:25:18 PM
All i know is that im ready for fucking burning man if i ever go....
(http://www.zarinas.com/images/burqa_blue.jpg)
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_red.jpg)
CAMO!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_camo.jpg)
USA! USA! USA!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_usa1.jpg)
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_hotpink.jpg)
PURPLE!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/images/purpleburqa.jpg)
and last but not least....
I AM FROM DENMARK!!!
(http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_denmark.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I am sorry, but the Denmark one just makes me laugh...
I should get a pink one or something...damn, I need to go shopping. If anyone wants one lemme know and I will check prices and see what they are offering.
Someone forgot the burkini:
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/Burkini230607MOS_468x810.jpg)
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:19:58 AM
The comments astound me. And people bitch about the US being racist? Fuck. They don't hold a candle to the British.
who bitches about the US being racist?
the furthest I would go would be to call the US a country of opposites, cause it's also the country most vehemently opposed to racism I know of.
same seems to go for religious tolerance btw, as shown by the topic of this thread.
at least, that's what it seems like from over here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:23:09 PM
Lastly, from the article:
QuoteThe amount could be doubled for Muslim men who force female members of their family to cover their faces.
I can agree with that much.
Worst is when the women doing it to themselves too, I saw a news item on the sharia law being reinstated in some part of Indonesia, and there was a sharia police riding around in a Jeep with guns enforcing it ... and the jeep was filled with female sharia police.
They weren't enforcing burkhas, but (among other things) head scarves and of course jeans were right out (there is another kind of traditional wear, it's not full-covering like the burkha, but "only" nearly).
Bah.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2010, 12:15:11 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:19:58 AM
The comments astound me. And people bitch about the US being racist? Fuck. They don't hold a candle to the British.
who bitches about the US being racist?
the furthest I would go would be to call the US a country of opposites, cause it's also the country most vehemently opposed to racism I know of.
same seems to go for religious tolerance btw, as shown by the topic of this thread.
at least, that's what it seems like from over here.
Go to GLP and say that again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:18:44 PM
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
I was thinking about getting one.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 01:19:26 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:18:44 PM
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
I was thinking about getting one.
Why?
I like the idea of being able to go about my daily business in relative anonymity, without having to think about whether my butt looks good or my facial expression is pleasant.
Public anonymity can be pretty fun.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 01:19:26 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:18:44 PM
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
I was thinking about getting one.
Why?
I like the idea of being able to go about my daily business in relative anonymity, without having to think about whether my butt looks good or my facial expression is pleasant.
Allow me to suggest an alternative solution:
(http://www.brianstoys.com/store/images/products/Star%20Wars/MasterReplica/Accessories/MasterReplica_DarthVaderHelmet.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 01:41:03 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 01:26:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 01:19:59 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 01:19:26 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 08, 2010, 06:18:44 PM
I don't like Burqas, either.
But I don't want to outlaw them.
I was thinking about getting one.
Why?
I like the idea of being able to go about my daily business in relative anonymity, without having to think about whether my butt looks good or my facial expression is pleasant.
Allow me to suggest an alternative solution:
(http://www.brianstoys.com/store/images/products/Star%20Wars/MasterReplica/Accessories/MasterReplica_DarthVaderHelmet.jpg)
But a Darth Vader mask is both funny, and not really anonymous because then I become "that chick in the Darth Vader mask". It's kind of the opposite of anonymous. Plus, burkhas make people uncomfortable.
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:25:24 AM
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
At times, hot chicks are of the opinion that fewer people eyeballing their tits is desirable. :)
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:30:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:25:24 AM
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
At times, hot chicks are of the opinion that fewer people eyeballing their tits is desirable. :)
This makes Roger a sad panda. :sad:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:30:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:25:24 AM
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
At times, hot chicks are of the opinion that fewer people eyeballing their tits is desirable. :)
This makes Roger a sad panda. :sad:
Yeah but
As nice as it is to be eyeballed as a hot piece of ass at times, sometimes the aspects of going out in public that involve having a thousand filthy strangers assessing your bits are not totally awesome. At times it would be nice to simply be an anonymous, generic human figure.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:37:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:30:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:25:24 AM
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
At times, hot chicks are of the opinion that fewer people eyeballing their tits is desirable. :)
This makes Roger a sad panda. :sad:
Yeah but
As nice as it is to be eyeballed as a hot piece of ass at times, sometimes the aspects of going out in public that involve having a thousand filthy strangers assessing your bits are not totally awesome. At times it would be nice to simply be an anonymous, generic human figure.
I can see that. But from a purely self-centered, ogling and leering pig point of view, it blows chunks.
Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:38:43 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:37:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:30:53 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 02:30:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 09, 2010, 02:25:24 AM
Roger is of the opinion that hot chicks covering themselves up like that is undesirable.
:sad:
At times, hot chicks are of the opinion that fewer people eyeballing their tits is desirable. :)
This makes Roger a sad panda. :sad:
Yeah but
As nice as it is to be eyeballed as a hot piece of ass at times, sometimes the aspects of going out in public that involve having a thousand filthy strangers assessing your bits are not totally awesome. At times it would be nice to simply be an anonymous, generic human figure.
I can see that. But from a purely self-centered, ogling and leering pig point of view, it blows chunks.
Just saying.
:lulz:
I WANT A BURQA TOO
Quote from: Fredamir Putin on January 09, 2010, 02:56:15 AM
I WANT A BURQA TOO
Seriously
Being allowed to wear burqhas in this country, I kind of feel like we should exercise our rights, and show our patriotism at the same time!
Mine will say "FUCK FRANCE" on it.
:D i wonder if they come in safety orange!!!!
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:33:16 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 08, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
EITHER
I agree with your sentiment SUU. I have to say however, that the U.S. is the land of "freedom fries" and innumerable other subtle social reform. Although surrounded by confusion of media goal and twists given to perception, the U.S. / Mexican border is currently patrolled by active forces of the organized "minute men". Most Americans don't remember at this point in time, what life was like in America before the current (911 & POST) "WAR ON TERROR". Civilizations' substance is rumbling and transforming. Think of how sick your gut was at the thought of "W" being "President" and all of the effects. "Obama" may be yet an altered deception, deeper into the same sick betrayal of humanity.
FRANCE has had hard-core shit going on for a loong time now, tension-wise, and there are complex elements to consider. I'm certainly not supporting any established government decision. We can't point fingers at FRANCE. Our current "Administration" is totally O.K. with the idea that there are burqa donned terrorists. Take your shoes off and dispense of all liquids, my friend. If necessary, the government has loads of back up discs, you're on file. In America, you are the enemy too. But because there's so many of you fuckers we don't discriminate, we just "disappear" 'ya.
OR
I'm opening a private club, only for burqa wearers. And their admirers.
Yeah yeah, down with the system and all that jazz, right?
EITHER
SWEET, and totally interesting response. I'm not criticizing your idealistic view of Americans' "liberty for all" sentiment. The immigration issue in France is at least as complex as it is here for the U. States, and the media/ government interest groups do everything to construct information toward not, any actual benefit of citizens/ humanity. In my opinion, laws exist mostly because some fuckead(s) can't play nice, now everyone pays, which sucks. However, SUU, think for just one second why a society MAY NOT want fully masked individuals wandering around(?) Where I live, you can't wear a ski mask on ANY public transport, in any bank, or into MOST stores. It has nothing to do with religion, I'm pretty sure, or ignorant discrimination. Here in the U.S., OBAMA is still doggin 'the gays' and waging war to establish peace. Every "alleged" taliban operant killed by the U.S. involves airstrikes which take out like, 50-100 civilians. Our administration probably murders a burqa a day. Perhaps France ought to just tell everyone who wasn't born there to GET THE FUCK OUT!
You could have just ignored my post. I didn't write, "Hey SUU, STILL living on campus?", or, "Hey SUU, ever thought of crawling out from under that rock on the east coast and discovering that there's a world out there?", or, "Hey SUU, TEAM AMERICA, FUCK YEAH (therockinversion)) !!" -don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude, just because you don't know me. My post was earnest.
Anyways, in the new improved, peaceful global (Mc)world, no pain, no gain. Everyone gets asked to compromise & homogenize.
OR
As I write this, I'm wearing my CHE Guevara "Earnesto special" thong. And nothing else. Down with whitey.
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 09, 2010, 06:08:02 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:33:16 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 08, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
EITHER
I agree with your sentiment SUU. I have to say however, that the U.S. is the land of "freedom fries" and innumerable other subtle social reform. Although surrounded by confusion of media goal and twists given to perception, the U.S. / Mexican border is currently patrolled by active forces of the organized "minute men". Most Americans don't remember at this point in time, what life was like in America before the current (911 & POST) "WAR ON TERROR". Civilizations' substance is rumbling and transforming. Think of how sick your gut was at the thought of "W" being "President" and all of the effects. "Obama" may be yet an altered deception, deeper into the same sick betrayal of humanity.
FRANCE has had hard-core shit going on for a loong time now, tension-wise, and there are complex elements to consider. I'm certainly not supporting any established government decision. We can't point fingers at FRANCE. Our current "Administration" is totally O.K. with the idea that there are burqa donned terrorists. Take your shoes off and dispense of all liquids, my friend. If necessary, the government has loads of back up discs, you're on file. In America, you are the enemy too. But because there's so many of you fuckers we don't discriminate, we just "disappear" 'ya.
OR
I'm opening a private club, only for burqa wearers. And their admirers.
Yeah yeah, down with the system and all that jazz, right?
EITHER
SWEET, and totally interesting response. I'm not criticizing your idealistic view of Americans' "liberty for all" sentiment. The immigration issue in France is at least as complex as it is here for the U. States, and the media/ government interest groups do everything to construct information toward not, any actual benefit of citizens/ humanity. In my opinion, laws exist mostly because some fuckead(s) can't play nice, now everyone pays, which sucks. However, SUU, think for just one second why a society MAY NOT want fully masked individuals wandering around(?) Where I live, you can't wear a ski mask on ANY public transport, in any bank, or into MOST stores. It has nothing to do with religion, I'm pretty sure, or ignorant discrimination. Here in the U.S., OBAMA is still doggin 'the gays' and waging war to establish peace. Every "alleged" taliban operant killed by the U.S. involves airstrikes which take out like, 50-100 civilians. Our administration probably murders a burqa a day. Perhaps France ought to just tell everyone who wasn't born there to GET THE FUCK OUT!
You could have just ignored my post. I didn't write, "Hey SUU, STILL living on campus?", or, "Hey SUU, ever thought of crawling out from under that rock on the east coast and discovering that there's a world out there?", or, "Hey SUU, TEAM AMERICA, FUCK YEAH (therockinversion)) !!" -don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude, just because you don't know me. My post was earnest.
Anyways, in the new improved, peaceful global (Mc)world, no pain, no gain. Everyone gets asked to compromise & homogenize.
OR
As I write this, I'm wearing my CHE Guevara "Earnesto special" thong. And nothing else. Down with whitey.
You are entitled to your opinion.
You have terrible grammatical skills.
You have no need to capitalize every letter in my name.
You also do not have 50 posts yet.
Laws exist because monkeys can't get along. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a few fuckheads, everyone is a fuckhead. You get more than 2 people in a room and there's going to be politics. It's human nature to fling poo at each other, it's never going to get better, and laws are necessary to keep us in line.
I invite you to visit the "Think for yourself, Schmuck!" forum on this board and read the Black Iron Prison works, it may give you better insight as to how we work here on PD.
PS: I haven't lived on campus since 2001. I'm definitely aware of there being a world outside of the East Coast, but that doesn't mean I give a fuck.
PPS: You're fooling no one, Daruko.
What we really need are police cameras on every street and ID chips, so that no one can ever be anonymous in public, ever, ever. So that we can have Safety™ everywhere we go.
Forget about only having such rules in private establishments and public transportation. It needs to be EVERYWHERE.
EITHER
PPS: You're fooling no one, Daruko.
-Da'who? Well, I have noticed, that this board has a serious troll addiction amongst its' locals, and it comes out in their neurosis regarding others. I'm no Daruko. Maybe you have physically left the campus, Suu, I was commenting on your altruistic, if not delusional opinion of the goodwill of your fellow Americans.
OR
Re:garding fifty posts - I have just recently decided to begin posting here. I've read the BIP. A few times now. 'spart of what interested me toward participating. As far as your hazing rituals, I'm not into being told what to do and I'm not posting here to "fool" anyone. -Don't think my spellings so bad, I may get sloppy, sometimes intentionally, but I'm kinda a dictionary geek, really. I guess that comment's just another "privileged" way of being a dick to me because I'm a "N00B".
EOT I dont care whether you are Daruko or not, if you don't want people to treat you like a fucking annoying troll, stop the EITHER/OR thing. It's fucking annoying and unnecessary.
then you can talk about whether or not you "don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude" and expect one to actually give a flying fuck.
WOULD
It be less annoying if it wasnt indented
AND
spaced out like a title for each paragraph
It would be less annoying if it wasnt every post, but just when appropriate.
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 09, 2010, 07:14:29 AM
I was commenting on your altruistic, if not delusional opinion of the goodwill of your fellow Americans.
WHY YOU BEING SO UNPATRIOTIC?!!!
:amurrica:
America LOVES YOU, because we are charitable LOVING people who embrace ALL RACES AND RELIGIONS. I mean, I live in Rhode Island! Where some of the NICEST people in the world live because the colony was founded by expelled Puritans who thought for themselves! Our governor was drunk when he signed the Declaration of Independence! WHAT CHEER? HOPE!!!
Quote from: Suu on January 09, 2010, 06:26:01 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 09, 2010, 06:08:02 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 05:33:16 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 08, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Suu on January 08, 2010, 06:04:56 AM
In all honesty, if someone even mentioned outlawing the birqa or hijab over here, they'd be lynched on it violating the 1st Amendment (unless they are, of course, a group of minor Muslim kids from Detroit with sweatshirts.) If anything, I'm usually like, "Oooohhhh...pretty fabric!" when I see them anyway.
Just as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke, Islamic woman should be able to wear the hijab without questioning. And as I mentioned before, shit, up until ohh...the 1900s, good Christian folk ALWAYS wore hats of some sort when outdoors, and up through the Renaissance it was REQUIRED. It's a sign of piety and modesty.
In fact, I think it's going to be required now within the SPoK that all Discordians wear Kansas City Royals baseball caps.
EITHER
I agree with your sentiment SUU. I have to say however, that the U.S. is the land of "freedom fries" and innumerable other subtle social reform. Although surrounded by confusion of media goal and twists given to perception, the U.S. / Mexican border is currently patrolled by active forces of the organized "minute men". Most Americans don't remember at this point in time, what life was like in America before the current (911 & POST) "WAR ON TERROR". Civilizations' substance is rumbling and transforming. Think of how sick your gut was at the thought of "W" being "President" and all of the effects. "Obama" may be yet an altered deception, deeper into the same sick betrayal of humanity.
FRANCE has had hard-core shit going on for a loong time now, tension-wise, and there are complex elements to consider. I'm certainly not supporting any established government decision. We can't point fingers at FRANCE. Our current "Administration" is totally O.K. with the idea that there are burqa donned terrorists. Take your shoes off and dispense of all liquids, my friend. If necessary, the government has loads of back up discs, you're on file. In America, you are the enemy too. But because there's so many of you fuckers we don't discriminate, we just "disappear" 'ya.
OR
I'm opening a private club, only for burqa wearers. And their admirers.
Yeah yeah, down with the system and all that jazz, right?
EITHER
SWEET, and totally interesting response. I'm not criticizing your idealistic view of Americans' "liberty for all" sentiment. The immigration issue in France is at least as complex as it is here for the U. States, and the media/ government interest groups do everything to construct information toward not, any actual benefit of citizens/ humanity. In my opinion, laws exist mostly because some fuckead(s) can't play nice, now everyone pays, which sucks. However, SUU, think for just one second why a society MAY NOT want fully masked individuals wandering around(?) Where I live, you can't wear a ski mask on ANY public transport, in any bank, or into MOST stores. It has nothing to do with religion, I'm pretty sure, or ignorant discrimination. Here in the U.S., OBAMA is still doggin 'the gays' and waging war to establish peace. Every "alleged" taliban operant killed by the U.S. involves airstrikes which take out like, 50-100 civilians. Our administration probably murders a burqa a day. Perhaps France ought to just tell everyone who wasn't born there to GET THE FUCK OUT!
You could have just ignored my post. I didn't write, "Hey SUU, STILL living on campus?", or, "Hey SUU, ever thought of crawling out from under that rock on the east coast and discovering that there's a world out there?", or, "Hey SUU, TEAM AMERICA, FUCK YEAH (therockinversion)) !!" -don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude, just because you don't know me. My post was earnest.
Anyways, in the new improved, peaceful global (Mc)world, no pain, no gain. Everyone gets asked to compromise & homogenize.
OR
As I write this, I'm wearing my CHE Guevara "Earnesto special" thong. And nothing else. Down with whitey.
You are entitled to your opinion.
You have terrible grammatical skills.
You have no need to capitalize every letter in my name.
You also do not have 50 posts yet.
Laws exist because monkeys can't get along. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a few fuckheads, everyone is a fuckhead. You get more than 2 people in a room and there's going to be politics. It's human nature to fling poo at each other, it's never going to get better, and laws are necessary to keep us in line.
I invite you to visit the "Think for yourself, Schmuck!" forum on this board and read the Black Iron Prison works, it may give you better insight as to how we work here on PD.
PS: I haven't lived on campus since 2001. I'm definitely aware of there being a world outside of the East Coast, but that doesn't mean I give a fuck.
PPS: You're fooling no one, Daruko.
Hey, remember that dumbass on here that was acosting Suu over the whole Providence Plantations argument last year? I bet it's her, returned from tard-land and back for revenge.
Quote from: Brotep on January 09, 2010, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 03:12:46 AM
Mine will say "FUCK FRANCE" on it.
:lulz:
million burqa march!
If I had the moneys, I'd get me a camo one! Because nothing says anonymity like a camoflague burqa in the middle of Tucson. :lulz:
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 07:01:13 AM
What we really need are police cameras on every street and ID chips, so that no one can ever be anonymous in public, ever, ever. So that we can have Safety™ everywhere we go.
Forget about only having such rules in private establishments and public transportation. It needs to be EVERYWHERE.
Please don't joke like that. I think they will be pushing for all of these very soon.
Quote from: Suu on January 09, 2010, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 09, 2010, 07:14:29 AM
I was commenting on your altruistic, if not delusional opinion of the goodwill of your fellow Americans.
WHY YOU BEING SO UNPATRIOTIC?!!!
:amurrica:
America LOVES YOU, because we are charitable LOVING people who embrace ALL RACES AND RELIGIONS. I mean, I live in Rhode Island! Where some of the NICEST people in the world live because the colony was founded by expelled Puritans who thought for themselves! Our governor was drunk when he signed the Declaration of Independence! WHAT CHEER? HOPE!!!
Surely you jest, m'lady. I have found people in your region to be rather rude.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2010, 11:32:47 AM
EOT I dont care whether you are Daruko or not, if you don't want people to treat you like a fucking annoying troll, stop the EITHER/OR thing. It's fucking annoying and unnecessary.
then you can talk about whether or not you "don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude" and expect one to actually give a flying fuck.
I am mildly bemused that it gets to you that much.
Isn't there some guy here who posts everything in poem format, with no punctuation?
That seems much more annoying. The only thing this is doing to me is making me compulsively want to type "OR" before every afterthought. :lulz:
Quote from: rygD on January 09, 2010, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 07:01:13 AM
What we really need are police cameras on every street and ID chips, so that no one can ever be anonymous in public, ever, ever. So that we can have Safety™ everywhere we go.
Forget about only having such rules in private establishments and public transportation. It needs to be EVERYWHERE.
Please don't joke like that. I think they will be pushing for all of these very soon.
Oh, I know. :lulz:
re:nigel
as far as I know, he left?
and yes it does, it took me until today to figure out the bit he actually means is the first part. it makes me feel i can't talk to him normally.
i hate it too.
EITHER
Quit reading my posts, it's annoying me.
OR
I'm economizing, because these are such hard times. A post 2 in 1.
OR,OR
I'm not good with one liners.
OR,OR,OR
If there's anything to be said about anything, there's an absurd, or hysterical, or prudent, or simply possible, alternate. I like to exhaust my options.
I'm not gonna go berserk on E.O.T., but he really makes me wish we had the ignore function enabled.
I really detest affectations in speech.
Quote from: E.O.T. on January 11, 2010, 03:03:14 AM
EITHER
Quit reading my posts, it's annoying me.
OR
I'm economizing, because these are such hard times. A post 2 in 1.
OR,OR
I'm not good with one liners.
OR,OR,OR
If there's anything to be said about anything, there's an absurd, or hysterical, or prudent, or simply possible, alternate. I like to exhaust my options.
EITHER
I shit my pants from reading this while I slowly bleed out of each of my bodily orifices (yes, i know, poo and blood from the same place AT the same time, a modern marvel and quite possibly the pinnacle of human evolution)
OR
I completely lose faith that EOT is not a bot.
OR
Roger and I go after him with the Pink Slipper (plunger with an apple-corer epoxied to the middle inside the bowl)
AND
We all have a good laugh.
^ Tape please if this happens. ^
Bump for ban and the first two arrests.
Quote from: -Kel- on January 11, 2010, 03:06:37 AM
Quote from: Brotep on January 09, 2010, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 03:12:46 AM
Mine will say "FUCK FRANCE" on it.
:lulz:
million burqa march!
awesome idea!
^ love this! ^
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/972656--2-arrested-as-france-bans-face-covering-islamic-veil?bn=1
The people who think they're making western civilization say
they just want to save muslim women! What could possibly go wrong???
QuoteTwo of the veiled women were taken away by police for taking part in an unauthorized demonstration, Paris police authority said. They were released later Monday after questioning. Amnesty International condemned the detention of the two women and others at the protest.
It was unclear whether the women were also fined for wearing a veil.
The law says veiled women risk a €150 ($215) fine or special citizenship classes, though not jail. People who force women to don a veil are subject to up to a year in prison and a €30,000 fine ($43,000), and possibly twice that if the veiled person is a minor. The ban affects women who wear the niqab and the burqa.
The law is worded to skate safely through legal minefields: The words "women," ''Muslim" and "veil" are not even mentioned. The law says it is illegal to hide the face in the public space, but makes exceptions to allow for motorcycle helmets, traditional ceremonies such as weddings or Carnival costumes.
While Italy also has a law against concealing the face for security reasons, France's law was the first conceived to target veil-wearers. Sarkozy said he wanted a ban, and that the veils are not welcome in France.
:asplode:
I would laugh if French Muslim woman start to walk the streets in bicycle helmets.
I've got a fucking brilliant idea; if people want to ban Muslim "cultural practices," with force, they need to fucking start with excision, and how it still happens on the dining room and kitchen tables to young girls WORLDWIDE. That shit's NOT in the Qu'ran.
But it's so much fucking easier to attack the thing on the outside than the ugliness that's deep within.
I think I've just been reading too much fucking Ayaan Hirsi Ali lately.
This shit makes me want to start wearing a veil.
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on January 09, 2010, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Brotep on January 09, 2010, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 09, 2010, 03:12:46 AM
Mine will say "FUCK FRANCE" on it.
:lulz:
million burqa march!
If I had the moneys, I'd get me a camo one! Because nothing says anonymity like a camoflague burqa in the middle of Tucson. :lulz:
:lulz: :fap:
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
The law is carefully worded to avoid language specific to religion or sex.
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
The law is carefully worded to avoid language specific to religion or sex.
So, if I was a hermaphrodite in a bedsheet, I'd be fucked? That hardly seems fair.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 02:10:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
The law is carefully worded to avoid language specific to religion or sex.
So, if I was a hermaphrodite in a bedsheet, I'd be fucked? That hardly seems fair.
Well, it's not "fair" if you assume the law is targeted at Muslim women, as it clearly is, but it's "fair" if they apply it to everyone who covers their face in public.
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:12:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 02:10:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
The law is carefully worded to avoid language specific to religion or sex.
So, if I was a hermaphrodite in a bedsheet, I'd be fucked? That hardly seems fair.
Well, it's not "fair" if you assume the law is targeted at Muslim women, as it clearly is, but it's "fair" if they apply it to everyone who covers their face in public.
Bad time to be a leper in France.
Most people have a hard time remembering that the French were actually pretty big on Nazism. Looks like they've fallen back into the habit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 02:16:55 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:12:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 02:10:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 13, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 13, 2011, 01:46:09 AM
Quote from: -Kel- on January 07, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Women who wear burkhas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £750
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html)
1. Dailymail.
2. What if MEN wear burkhas in France?
The law is carefully worded to avoid language specific to religion or sex.
So, if I was a hermaphrodite in a bedsheet, I'd be fucked? That hardly seems fair.
Well, it's not "fair" if you assume the law is targeted at Muslim women, as it clearly is, but it's "fair" if they apply it to everyone who covers their face in public.
Bad time to be a leper in France.
Most people have a hard time remembering that the French were actually pretty big on Nazism. Looks like they've fallen back into the habit.
Yep.
I'm enjoying the thought of millions of Teabaggers trying to get their heads around the fact that France of all places is building the country of their dreams.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 13, 2011, 12:51:37 PM
I'm enjoying the thought of millions of Teabaggers trying to get their heads around the fact that France of all places is building the country of their dreams.
:lulz: Oh jesus, that's so true...but then I remember that plenty of right-wingers still like TRAVELLING in France, they just don't like the "smelly frogs" themselves. FREEDOM FRIES!!!! FREEEEDDDOOOOM FRIIIIES!
Freedom is frying.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 13, 2011, 02:19:41 PM
Freedom is frying.
Still? I thought they'd burned it extra crispy by now.... :|
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2010, 11:32:47 AM
EOT I dont care whether you are Daruko or not, if you don't want people to treat you like a fucking annoying troll, stop the EITHER/OR thing. It's fucking annoying and unnecessary.
then you can talk about whether or not you "don't exactly appreciate the disrespectful attitude" and expect one to actually give a flying fuck.
1. Worse things happen at sea.
2. Someone was disrespectful on PD? WHAT? :lulz: