Trump Petition

[TIMON]

Another article here exposing the hypocrisy of the protest movement. Again , it's a bit lengthy but worth a read nonetheless.

 

 

 

Trojan Horses in Women's Movement

by Khadija Khan

February 11, 2017 at 5:00 am

Send

 

 

Share47

It must be so convenient, while marching in the safe confines of Washington DC, to advocate that other women -- far away -- be genitally mutilated, married off in childhood, and beaten and violated in their own homes. These women in hijabs marching on Washington do not have to live in this "Utopia." They are comfortably living in the "infidel West," protected from such barbarity.

 

The Western culture that allows women to shout into microphones is not even necessarily the culture these women believe in; it is often just a tool they use to promote totalitarian ideas such as anti-Semitism, religious intolerance and imposition of theocratic beliefs.

 

Does Linda Sarsour really think that people have gone so mad that they will give up the civil liberties that their ancestors earned through the centuries, merely for interest-free loans?

 

The hypocrisy is that Sarsour's bold lifestyle in the US portrays that deep down she herself loathes the suppressing conditions that she promotes for the poor women of the Muslim world, who actually have to live with them. Coming from a conservative Muslim society, I know the culture she yearns for would never allow her to launch such activism without permission from her "guardian" men.

 

The dissenting voices of the oppressed are fighting on two fronts. They are being crushed by their own totalitarian regimes and at the same time by Western apologists for these tyrants.

 

Why do women who believe in equal rights for women, pick as their spokesperson someone who one minute boasts of her supposed dissent as "patriotism," while the next minute advocating chopping off other womens' genitals? It is like choosing a hangman to campaign against the death penalty, or the head of ISIS to campaign for same sex marriages.

 

The principles of "dissent," of which they claim to be so proud, and to have borrowed from religious sources, are actually the modern world's liberal values and human rights -- just those rights values they seem to be trying to destroy.

 

From the other side of their mouths, however, they are trying to impose Islamic sharia law on the West. Unfortunately, sharia is openly antagonistic to Western values and human rights.

 

How can cults that believe in dominating others call themselves progressive, when their entire message runs counter to the spirit of tolerance and social coexistence?

 

The champions of sharia have always said they wish to establish a "righteous" form of government, made by divine law, and presumably to that end, they implant their set of rules -- such as allowing no debate or criticism on their beliefs, or such as segregating sexes -- to destroy modern democracies.

 

It must be so convenient, while marching on Washington DC, to advocate that other women -- far away -- be genitally mutilated, married off in childhood, and domestically beaten and violated -- and all the while, in the safe confines of Washington, to stay silent on issues of truly massive abuse: floggings; acid burnings; chopping off limbs or heads, or burning, drowning or burying people alive.

 

These women in hijabs marching on Washington DC do not have to live in this "Utopia." They are comfortably living in the "infidel West', protected from such barbarity.

 

The values they are enjoying here are the values of the enlightened world and have nothing to do with the culture they are trying to impose on others.

 

The culture that is allowing women such as Linda Sarsour to shout into microphones is not even necessarily the culture these women believe in; it is often just the culture they are using to promote totalitarian ideas such as anti-Semitism, religious intolerance and the imposition of theocratic beliefs through infiltration or force.

 

The culture to which Sarsour says she aspires, allows mutilating women but does not allow women to speak in a loud tone, let alone speaking through microphones. Hence, she owes her current privileges to her American identity.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mark J]

[ame]

[/ame]

[Mull]

 

 

Springsteen is not a fan of Trump, I don't think he's on his own there, big deal!

We all have opinions.

Why post a song about about the lack of care and broken promises to Vietnam veterans?

I assume you have a specific point in choosing this particular song?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[TIMON]

Springsteen is not a fan of Trump, I don't think he's on his own there, big deal!

We all have opinions.

Why post a song about about the lack of care and broken promises to Vietnam veterans?

I assume you have a specific point in choosing this particular song?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

Is anyone really a fan of Trump? My understanding is that (proportionally) the American people were only interested in preventing Clinton getting elected.

Trump was the only other "game in town" he got elected purely because he wasn't Clinton, in the same way Obama got elected because he wasn't white. Which is also why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mull]

Is anyone really a fan of Trump? My understanding is that (proportionally) the American people were only interested in preventing Clinton getting elected.

Trump was the only other "game in town" he got elected purely because he wasn't Clinton, in the same way Obama got elected because he wasn't white. Which is also why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

I can't really argue with that, other than Trump had the money to put himself there!(that's not an argument btw)

Also, that's politics! Shite eh!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[difflock]

Is anyone really a fan of Trump? My understanding is that (proportionally) the American people were only interested in preventing Clinton getting elected.

Trump was the only other "game in town" he got elected purely because he wasn't Clinton, in the same way Obama got elected because he wasn't white. Which is also why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

My take also,based on the absolute loathing of the Clinton's on Benzworld.org, including by a significent %age of Democrat voters.

 

mth

[skyhuck]

IMO, elections are generally lost, not won.

 

Clinton was so hated anyone going against her would have stood a good chance.

 

The fact that he did not win by a landslide (or even lost the popular vote) suggests he is by no means popular, just the lesser of two evils.

 

But the hysterical reaction to his every move is just childish and could actually end up boosting his popularity.

[Duncansimpson]

I think his reaction to not getting his own way is childish. He tweets like a petulant teenager bitching at the judges who have only told him 'no'. The American constitution is there to stop presidents turning into dictators. He's running the US now not his own business. He can't just do as he likes.

[Mark J]

Springsteen is not a fan of Trump, I don't think he's on his own there, big deal!

We all have opinions.

Why post a song about about the lack of care and broken promises to Vietnam veterans?

I assume you have a specific point in choosing this particular song?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

I'm well aware that Springsteen stands for everything that Trump doesn't. There was even talk of Trump hiring a Springsteen cover band to play at his inauguration.

 

My particular point was exactly that. Springsteen knows...

[matelot]

I agree, you can certainly be concerned about immigration without being a racist. We should all be concerned about if only because so many people are.

 

Brilliant, after the last 50 years of people getting labelled a racist if they were concerned about immigration it's good to have some common sense.

 

You are only a racist (imo) if you start dictating which colour, race or creed you want in, or don't want in.

 

Things were looking promising...

 

Sorry, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that some "creeds" don't really belong in the West and cause nothing but trouble. Sweden is now the rape capital of the world (after Lesotho), why is that?

 

What "creeds" were behind the Cologne sexual assaults? What "creeds" are behind most terrorism?

 

IMHO, keeping those "creeds" out is pure unadulterated common sense...