1 of 2
1
Are you British? Sign the petition against the use of sharia in the UK - NOW!
Posted: 02 October 2008 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain.”


New petition against sharia tribunals in Britain: SIGN! Deadline 1st of January:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Sharia Law from being binding in law under arbitration tribunals rules.

[ Edited: 06 October 2008 08:50 AM by Mel Olontha]
 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2008 04:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15

Only just noticed this - missed the deadline by one day! But 5,500 signatories I think is an impressive number.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2008 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04
mesomorph - 05 October 2008 08:04 AM

Only just noticed this - missed the deadline by one day! But 5,500 signatories I think is an impressive number.

I disagree. In a population of 60 million this is not even statistically relevant. The problem seems to me the toxicity and idiocy of the debate: too easy is it to silence people now publicly by accusing them of “islamophobia” or being in other ways “politically incorrect”. Thus most of the left stays multiculturally deluded and the right follows the reactionary verdict of the Church of England that hopes to in that way keep it’s privileges in an increasingly post-Christian UK. Not to speak of the racists who now see their xenophobic fantasies come true of somekind of “race-war” in Britain.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2008 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Mel Olontha - 05 October 2008 12:45 PM

In a population of 60 million this is not even statistically relevant.

Your points on the failings of multiculturalism, the C of E and the nationalists aside, if a significant number of people take the trouble to register their view, it bespeaks a much larger number that either did not take the trouble (not necessarily because of apathy) or did not know they could do so.

The Advertising Standards Authority reckons that if they receive 10 complaints about an ad it’s enough to justify an investigation. Scaling the numbers down from 60 million to 5,500, it would require 101,000 people to be aware of an issue for 10 complaints to be registered. Out of our 60 million population I wouldn’t think there is more than one million that is aware of the sharia courts issue. Let’s be generous and say 5 million. Even that would make the number of complaints 12 times what the ASA would regard as significant enough to act on.

The government will take notice. What they will do about it is not hard to predict: they won’t repeal legislation on sharia courts, because to do so would a) infuriate the Muslim community, b) simply drive them underground, making cruel and irrational judgments more likely. Far better to have them out in the open where they can be seen and their activities made accountable to the law and to the majority of the population.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2008 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

Yes, voter apathy and civic idiocy is the biggest problem in western democracies today.

The government will take notice. What they will do about it is not hard to predict: they won’t repeal legislation on sharia courts, because to do so would a) infuriate the Muslim community, b) simply drive them underground, making cruel and irrational judgements more likely. Far better to have them out in the open where they can be seen and their activities made accountable to the law and to the majority of the population.

The part about a) is not hard to predict, the “invertebrate nature” of the political class is obvious and the fundamentalists convinced even you by now that they are the sole speakers for the “Muslim community” that should live “by their own law”. All the Muslims that want to live their life undisturbed by this and want to become real British citizens, are marginalised also thanks to this “liberal” (as many are calling it, I would call it culture-suicidal) sentiment that they are represented by fanatic mullahs.

About b), “driving them underground”, in which fantasy world do you live? The problem will exactly be that the existing fundamentalist underground thanks to violent intimidation will force many Muslims (especially young women) to submit themselves unto this courts, to be “cheated out of their rights” as Pat Condell puts it. This kind of “community jurisdiction” will lead on the contrary to the opposite: more than today the police will not protect women from the violence of their husbands in case those are “just Pakis and Arabs” (how condescending and racist is that?), they will look away when young girls are abducted by their own parents to be sold to old men in Pakistan to be raped and even killed when they try to rebel against their destiny of being factories to produce offspring for allah. 

Here two websites to convince you that to tolerate this is not “liberal” at all:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/ - read especially Gina Khan’s Diary

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/ especially the study “Crimes of the Community: Honour-based violence in the UK” for policy advise that really would help Muslims instead of their self acclaimed “community” leaders.

[ Edited: 06 October 2008 06:56 AM by Mel Olontha]
 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2008 05:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15

Mel, I can’t really understand what you are getting at, so I will have a go at deconstructing your post in order to try and make sense of it.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

the Muslims that want to live their life undisturbed by this and want to become real British citizens, are marginalised also thanks to this “liberal” (as many are calling it, I would call it culture-suicidal) sentiment that they are represented by fanatic mullahs.

Are you saying the liberal view is that fanatical mullahs represent the majority of Muslims? No, that is the extreme right-wing view. The liberals know perfectly well that fanatics are a small minority. What we want is for the majority moderates to come forward and speak out against the fanatics, which they seem too frightened or disempowered to do.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

in which fantasy world do you live?

Not in yours at the moment, apparently…

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

The problem will exactly be that the existing fundamentalist underground thanks to violent intimidation will force many Muslims (especially young women) to submit themselves unto this courts, to be “cheated out of their rights” as Pat Condell puts it.

Which is in line with what I said.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

Here two websites to convince you that to tolerate this is not “liberal” at all

Tolerance is liberal. Intolerance is illiberal. I think what you are trying to say is that tolerance in this case is not advisable, not that it is not liberal. If so, I agree. But I think a worse outcome than tolerance would be ensured by making Sharia courts illegal, for reasons explained earlier. Expose them to the light of day and they will be shamed out of existence by the public outrage they cause. Especially if moderate Muslims are at the forefront of the public outrage, which they should be.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2008 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

Are you saying the liberal view is that fanatical mullahs represent the majority of Muslims? No, that is the extreme right-wing view. The liberals know perfectly well that fanatics are a small minority.

You spoke of the “Muslim community” “outraged” in case the government would do something against it, but why should they be outraged about this if they are not fanatics? You used the fatuous term of “community” which is used all over the world to strip individuals of their rights in favour of frauds and fanatics that call themselfs “community leaders”. How does one become member of such a “community” and how can one get out? A initially term used by the colonizers, has become so mainstream that one hears it now from so called liberals to leftists in their attempts to subvert the word “tolerance” to fit in with their multicultural fantasies.

What we want is for the majority moderates to come forward and speak out against the fanatics, which they seem too frightened or disempowered to do.

And I said that these sharia courts empower the fanatics, nobody else, wich is not “in line with” what you said: you fantasize about Islamists driven underground if they don’t get this. I tell you that this kind of sharia jurisdiction helps them to legalize their until now illegal “underground” practices of oppression.

Tolerance is liberal. Intolerance is illiberal. I think what you are trying to say is that tolerance in this case is not advisable, not that it is not liberal. If so, I agree. But I think a worse outcome than tolerance would be ensured by making Sharia courts illegal, for reasons explained earlier.


I don’t run the Martha Nussbaums quote “We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.” to now lecture you that tolerance towards inhumane and illiberal practices is neither humane nor liberal, I found this obvious. You show exactly the confusion Nussbaum wrote about.

Expose them to the light of day and they will be shamed out of existence by the public outrage they cause. Especially if moderate Muslims are at the forefront of the public outrage, which they should be.

Now this “exposition theory” is a naive illusion if at the same time you (and if not you many other people) argue one has to be tolerant towards this kind of practices because they are part of sharia and thus supposedly the legitimate law of the “muslim community”.

[ Edited: 06 October 2008 07:27 AM by Mel Olontha]
 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  585
Joined  2007-10-11
mesomorph - 06 October 2008 09:59 AM

Mel, I can’t really understand what you are getting at, so I will have a go at deconstructing your post in order to try and make sense of it.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

the Muslims that want to live their life undisturbed by this and want to become real British citizens, are marginalised also thanks to this “liberal” (as many are calling it, I would call it culture-suicidal) sentiment that they are represented by fanatic mullahs.

Are you saying the liberal view is that fanatical mullahs represent the majority of Muslims? No, that is the extreme right-wing view. The liberals know perfectly well that fanatics are a small minority. What we want is for the majority moderates to come forward and speak out against the fanatics, which they seem too frightened or disempowered to do.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

in which fantasy world do you live?

Not in yours at the moment, apparently…

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

The problem will exactly be that the existing fundamentalist underground thanks to violent intimidation will force many Muslims (especially young women) to submit themselves unto this courts, to be “cheated out of their rights” as Pat Condell puts it.

Which is in line with what I said.

Mel Olontha - 06 October 2008 09:15 AM

Here two websites to convince you that to tolerate this is not “liberal” at all

Tolerance is liberal. Intolerance is illiberal. I think what you are trying to say is that tolerance in this case is not advisable, not that it is not liberal. If so, I agree. But I think a worse outcome than tolerance would be ensured by making Sharia courts illegal, for reasons explained earlier. Expose them to the light of day and they will be shamed out of existence by the public outrage they cause. Especially if moderate Muslims are at the forefront of the public outrage, which they should be.


One of the stupidist notions that is almost forced on us by liberalistic do-gooders is that we must be tolerant to be fair . The other man’s ideas about faith etc. must be tolerated because he is within his rights . What rubbish ! Hell no, we don’t have to tolerate the other person’s religion - but it has been determined by politically correct society that if we don’t respect all faiths we are not decent. Stupid as it may sound that is the way it is -we are still that backward
Can you imagine how far a politician would get if he showed any sign of bias against a religion ?  If we protest Islamic religious law it is because it makes sense to do so .

There should be no arguement in a modern and humane society ,or country about whether the Sharia law can be accepted or not. Anytime a government with a good backbone gets softened up enough to even consider radical Muslim life style as a posibility because it is “only right ” to be tolerant, something is really WRONG with that government . The UK has invited Islamist leeches onto it’s ship and now the waters are becoming perlious. There must be a fight to keep it from sinking .


One of the better books on this subject is Melanie Phillips book “Londanistan ” . It wakes the reader up to frightening facts . And the UK is only one country finding it necessary to resist Muslim imposistion. These countries have been proud of their “tolerance”. There is such a thing as being too nice.


By the way, why do people want to draw such a sharp line between “Radical” Islam and “moderate” Islam ? In truth , Islamic households practice despicable religious customs . There are always people who want to argue this. They think what they enjoy thinking; they aren’t interested in the facts. Their ignorance is one of the enemy’s weapon against the unbelievers. The enemy thrives on the ignorance of the foe.


The UK should practice prevention and be more discriminating. Why let a virus in the house ? When will we ever learn ? I hope the next president has perspective on these things .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2008 10:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04

I mentioned this in many posts earlier: I see the biggest problem is this confusion about the norms and values of our secular societies. Connected to this is that most European societies have been only de facto but never de jure secular: Britain is the example with it’s state Church, also France is not really secular, but rather “laical” in the sense that the state controls religion, builds churches and mosques etc, thus subsidizing “faith” by supposedly beeing neutral at the same time. The so called Turkish “secular” model is the greatest lie in this respect: the state takes care only of the “state religion” (Sunni-Islam of the Hanfi school) while discriminating all other religions by defining Christian and Jewish Turks as “foreigners” (non-citizens) and denying Alevi and Atheist Turks existence. All other European countries also have somekind of religious entanglements: they subsidize faith schools or hang crucifixes in public ones, etc. etc.
I thus follow Hitchens in this respect that he declares the USA the sole real secular country, although this is under threat by right wing as well as left wing forces: Obama for example to get elected promised a “faith-based” initiative that goes further than Bush would have ever imagined. Not to speak of Sarah Pale-head and other creepy God-bonce.

We should rather think about the meaning of “religious freedom” again: just like “freedom of expression” it is a state guarantee to be able to freely say what you think and believe what you want, it is not a right to be protected from other peoples opinions, be it whatever: expression of belief or unbelief.
Thus to silence peoples voices critical of religion, in general or a certain one, in the name of religious tolerance is exactly the opposite of “religious freedom”: it is in effect intolerance disguised under the name of tolerance. Welcome in 1984.

And the proponents of this “religious meta-tolerance” go even further: they now claim that criticism not only of certain opinions (say that everything was magically created by an irascible sky monster, that we have to submit ourselves) is taboo, but no! you have now to publicly show “respect” (or rather submission) to this (and dare you don’t) and ignore all atrocities and evil done in it’s name, or otherwise you will be labelled or ostracised as “offensive” or “racist”.

This is insane, and not liberal at all. This is the opposite of liberality or common sense: this is madness, totalitarian tautology. That it comes in the sheepskin of warm and soft political correctness is strategy, read the following statements by Muslims who actually see this as threatening to their well beeing, Tarek Fatah, Nasser Khader and Dr Walid Phares all speak out against this insanity that the Islamists of the OIC now want to push down on us as “amendments” to Human Rights, that would in fact turn them into their opposite. One truly has to be a sheep to continue playing this game.

One should not misunderstand me here however: I’m in favour of Human Rights and of the fair treatment of everybody, right-wing fascist, racists and Christian fundamentalists that now come out of their holes to profit politically from the threat to democracy posed by radical islam and political irresponsibility are as much our enemies as islamists.

I hope the next president has perspective on these things

The UK has a prime minister and a queen. I hope we would have a secular Republic and a President instead, especially before the idiot and Islam-lover Charles takes over, I do not expect anything good from this mindless degenerate.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2008 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  585
Joined  2007-10-11
Mel Olontha - 08 October 2008 02:02 PM

I mentioned this in many posts earlier: I see the biggest problem is this confusion about the norms and values of our secular societies. Connected to this is that most European societies have been only de facto but never de jure secular: Britain is the example with it’s state Church, also France is not really secular, but rather “laical” in the sense that the state controls religion, builds churches and mosques etc, thus subsidizing “faith” by supposedly beeing neutral at the same time. The so called Turkish “secular” model is the greatest lie in this respect: the state takes care only of the “state religion” (Sunni-Islam of the Hanfi school) while discriminating all other religions by defining Christian and Jewish Turks as “foreigners” (non-citizens) and denying Alevi and Atheist Turks existence. All other European countries also have somekind of religious entanglements: they subsidize faith schools or hang crucifixes in public ones, etc. etc.
I thus follow Hitchens in this respect that he declares the USA the sole real secular country, although this is under threat by right wing as well as left wing forces: Obama for example to get elected promised a “faith-based” initiative that goes further than Bush would have ever imagined. Not to speak of Sarah Pale-head and other creepy God-bonce.

We should rather think about the meaning of “religious freedom” again: just like “freedom of expression” it is a state guarantee to be able to freely say what you think and believe what you want, it is not a right to be protected from other peoples opinions, be it whatever: expression of belief or unbelief.
Thus to silence peoples voices critical of religion, in general or a certain one, in the name of religious tolerance is exactly the opposite of “religious freedom”: it is in effect intolerance disguised under the name of tolerance. Welcome in 1984.

And the proponents of this “religious meta-tolerance” go even further: they now claim that criticism not only of certain opinions (say that everything was magically created by an irascible sky monster, that we have to submit ourselves) is taboo, but no! you have now to publicly show “respect” (or rather submission) to this (and dare you don’t) and ignore all atrocities and evil done in it’s name, or otherwise you will be labelled or ostracised as “offensive” or “racist”.

This is insane, and not liberal at all. This is the opposite of liberality or common sense: this is madness, totalitarian tautology. That it comes in the sheepskin of warm and soft political correctness is strategy, read the following statements by Muslims who actually see this as threatening to their well beeing, Tarek Fatah, Nasser Khader and Dr Walid Phares all speak out against this insanity that the Islamists of the OIC now want to push down on us as “amendments” to Human Rights, that would in fact turn them into their opposite. One truly has to be a sheep to continue playing this game.

One should not misunderstand me here however: I’m in favour of Human Rights and of the fair treatment of everybody, right-wing fascist, racists and Christian fundamentalists that now come out of their holes to profit politically from the threat to democracy posed by radical islam and political irresponsibility are as much our enemies as islamists.

I hope the next president has perspective on these things

The UK has a prime minister and a queen. I hope we would have a secular Republic and a President instead, especially before the idiot and Islam-lover Charles takes over, I do not expect anything good from this mindless degenerate.


“Charles” ? I’m assuming you mean the prince - am I right ? You call him an Islam-lover ; I don’t know but I am not at all shocked if he is just that . But isn’t there quite a bit of this attitude now in the UK ? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury was talking in possitive terms about Muslim religious rule. Mealy-mouthed idiots with thier smug declarations about thier “tolerance”—the trouble is they probably are only tolerant because they don’t really know what it is they are tolerating. That is——if they were really aware of the threat that Islam presents, they might shed thier self-rightious “tolerance”. Some education is in order to help preserve the secular society and Democratic way . BTW : have you read Melanie Phillips “Londonistan” book ? Everyone should read it .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 October 2008 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Mel Olontha - 02 October 2008 06:01 PM

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain.”


New petition against sharia tribunals in Britain: SIGN! Deadline 1st of January:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Sharia Law from being binding in law under arbitration tribunals rules.

Out of curiosity, how well publicized was this petition?  That might explain why only a few thousand people signed it.

Sorry I’m not a British citizen, otherwise I could have been #5,501.

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2008 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-09-11

Does anyone know what the status of this whole thing is?  I figured could file suit in come British court saying it violates something or other - in the US I imagine it might be separation of church and state, I don’t know what it would be in the UK.  It seems strange that a parallel legal system could arise without there being a big legal battle over it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Montague - 27 October 2008 11:16 AM

Does anyone know what the status of this whole thing is?  I figured could file suit in come British court saying it violates something or other - in the US I imagine it might be separation of church and state, I don’t know what it would be in the UK.  It seems strange that a parallel legal system could arise without there being a big legal battle over it.

Nothing more recent than this, but the Mail is one of our right-wing tabloids, so has a tendency to skew or distort facts. For a more impartial background see this.

Those people getting so hot under the collar imagine that the introduction of Sharia means a parallel legal system. It’s not and it couldn’t be. We are not going to invite in a complete legal system centuries out of date and opposed to almost everything we stand for - that would be worse than idiotically irresponsible, it would be criminal. And that’s not what’s happening. The introduction of Sharia is to help take some pressure off the British legal system in non-criminal cases such as arbitration and domestic disputes.

Jewish Beth Din courts have been operating in this country for over a century (and in the USA since 1960). Scottish law is an example of a slightly variant system that differs from English law on things like property purchase procedure, but not criminal law. It’s important to realise that Beth Din and Sharia are only allowed to deal with minor social and domestic issues, and are not empowered to make rulings that countermand English law in any way. Sharia courts are being accepted in a limited way because of the socio-political knock-on. If they are not, many Muslims will continue to feel like second-class citizens in a country where they do the same jobs and pay the same taxes as everyone else. The courts would be held anyway, and would probably produce more unjust rulings than they would if carried out in the open.

It is not, as you Yanks fear, the thin end of the wedge of some Muslim extremist nightmare. We are trying to find effective (i.e. not paranoid) ways of dealing with ignorance, cruelty and criminal behaviour in our own society as well as in the Muslim one. The remit given to Sharia courts doesn’t figure very large on that canvas - for good reason.

And be assured our Archbish, for all his mad appearance, is a pretty astute guy and will have done a lot of consultation with Muslim leaders before pronouncing on the subject.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-09-11

Maybe it’s not a huge deal, but still, isn’t this what separate countries are for?  Why not just encourage these people to move to the Middle East?  I guess some of them came because they were being politically oppressed in the countries that they came from and many were born in the UK, but I imagine it’s still thousands coming every year.  Also, if it includes divorice and inheritance, that might not be criminal, but it still might pretty serious in terms of the importance of the cases.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  585
Joined  2007-10-11
bigredfutbol - 14 October 2008 03:40 PM
Mel Olontha - 02 October 2008 06:01 PM

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain.”


New petition against sharia tribunals in Britain: SIGN! Deadline 1st of January:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Sharia Law from being binding in law under arbitration tribunals rules.

Out of curiosity, how well publicized was this petition?  That might explain why only a few thousand people signed it.

Sorry I’m not a British citizen, otherwise I could have been #5,501.


Okay Bigredfutbol - why are you stuck on something I said about three months ago ( I think it was )  ?  That I commented on Obama’s hair is no real big deal is it ? Why are you so miffed about it ? You are the one who can’t stop thinking about it .  My words must have hit a nerve . That guy who talks just like a Southern Baptist black evangilist preacher is just a spit away from being our president. He WILL be our president.  By and by the hair subject is bound to be brought up. Get over it .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 06:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05
Dee - 30 October 2008 01:56 AM

Okay Bigredfutbol - why are you stuck on something I said about three months ago ( I think it was )  ?  That I commented on Obama’s hair is no real big deal is it ? Why are you so miffed about it ? You are the one who can’t stop thinking about it .  My words must have hit a nerve . That guy who talks just like a Southern Baptist black evangilist preacher is just a spit away from being our president. He WILL be our president.  By and by the hair subject is bound to be brought up. Get over it .

We wouldn’t want a President who talks like a black guy, now would we, Dee? 

Oddly enough, I’d just updated my sig line before reading your post, given that you’ve been replaced as my favoritist poster here.  I hope you don’t think this coincidence had anything to do with your post; after all, as you noted the “hair subject is bound to be brought up.”  You can’t blame me for being focused on the issues, can you?

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed