Orlando Shooting

• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1799537 wrote:Good Lord, you are freaking assuming. You have no evidence to back up your insane claim. You are just talking out your ass as you usually do to fit your narrow point of view.

  
  Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.
• queencitybuckeye

  QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

  I can think of several other valid reasons, but I'm not burdened by starting with a fixed conclusion.
• salto

  

  Belly35;1799408 wrote:From my cold dead hand with the government take my weapons. I have my rights and earned the freedom to carry, and own weapons and continue to protect myself, family, others from criminals, terroist and a government.

  Obama already does and I assume anyone else elected President in the future, except likely Donald Trump, will understand the 2nd amendment and our constitutional rights. The NRA is one of the most powerful political special interest groups. Too many politicians are in the NRA's pocket books for anything to change dramatically.
  
  Don't worry Belly, you'll be long gone from a natural death before anyone comes to take your weapons.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

  Sigh, God you are dense.
  You are assuming he is letting his religious faith guide his policy decisions.
  Did it even occur to you that maybe he separates the two?
  Probably not cause you have such a narrow and ignorant point of view.
• salto

  

  QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

  Are you generalizing all muslim groups as the same? Can we also bring up the Christian misogynistic groups?
  
  "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." —Official statement of Southern Baptist Convention, summer 1998 (15.7 million members)
• Wolves of Babylon

  QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

  After reading the article, it sounds more like a sjw whining about body shaming than a religious based reason.
  
  It didn't state women should cover up, just that it portrays a false ideal of what an attractive woman is in relation to body type.
  
  I don't agree with him whatsoever but I don't believe it has anything to do with his faith.
  
  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
• QuakerOats

  Yes, you are right; maybe he is just really more like an old-fashioned Christian prude.
  
  
  What is ignorant is the refusal to acknowledge the situation we are in.
• salto

  

  QuakerOats;1799535 wrote:Again you are completely off base. First, I did not label anyone, much less "every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist". Second, I pointed out that the muslim mayor of London was banning advertising (that many/most westerners would not object to) obviously because of his religious beliefs. Many on here, including you, abhor a politician inflicting his religious views upon the governed, so it was worth mentioning.
  
  Unfortunately you are so quick to pounce you completely miss the point, not to mention the facts. Amazing.

  Even if it was because of religious beliefs, so what? He was elected because in some parts of London almost half the population are now Islamic.
• raiderbuck

  raiderbuck;1799528 wrote:His religious beliefs allow him to vote for same-sex marriages too?
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/06/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-muslim/84016822/
  
  And what "game" are you pertaining to?

  QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

  Khan voted for same-sex marriages. He was even threatened by extremists for going against Islamic law. Khan as been a civil rights attorney for years. He's also a liberal. Christ, if you're going to just lump all Muslims in with extremists at least pick a guy who's toeing the (muslim extremists) party line.
• O-Trap

  

  Man, this thread is just a shit show, isn't it?
• majorspark

  

  Quaker think of Kahn like Chuck Schumer, a Jew who is a flaming liberal who worships at the alter of big government not Jehovah. Kahn is doing this because he believes little girls need big government to intervene to care for their emotional well being. Body shaming is what feminists call it. He's ok with scantily clad women just need to be less attractive and have some healthy "curves". In other words big government determines what a "healthy" body looks like.
• QuakerOats

  majorspark;1799560 wrote:Quaker think of Kahn like Chuck Schumer, a Jew who is a flaming liberal who worships at the alter of big government not Jehovah. Kahn is doing this because he believes little girls need big government to intervene to care for their emotional well being. Body shaming is what feminists call it. He's ok with scantily clad women just need to be less attractive and have some healthy "curves". In other words big government determines what a "healthy" body looks like.

  
  No doubt.
• QuakerOats

  salto;1799547 wrote:Even if it was because of religious beliefs, so what? He was elected because in some parts of London almost half the population are now Islamic.

  
  Oh my, you just trampled on the almighty belief held among all the libs on here; you can't govern based on your religious beliefs ---- wow, what kind of wing nut would try to do that; any such religious zealot should be run out of office and then jailed for such acts .............................. yada yada yada.
• majorspark

  

  friendfromlowry;1799452 wrote:There are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent her from doing it.

  Yes there are and thankfully so. We have peaceful recourse. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment however is not to preserve the right to pursue a gun hobby.
• majorspark

  

  Back to the shooting. My biggest question is why did it take 3hrs in a major city for the SWAT team to storm the building? Why was a shooter who already shot dozens talked to by authorities other than a distraction? The excuse out there is to save lives because the situation went from an active shooter situation to a hostage situation. But what about all those still alive bleeding out inside?
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1799566 wrote:Oh my, you just trampled on the almighty belief held among all the libs on here; you can't govern based on your religious beliefs ---- wow, what kind of wing nut would try to do that; any such religious zealot should be run out of office and then jailed for such acts .............................. yada yada yada.

  Well, whether this decision was made due to religious belief or SJW "think of the feelz" leanings, I think most people can agree that it's the sort of frivolous nonsense that one would consider a waste of a politician's time. Which sums up most attempts by either the religious right or the SJW left (different sides of the coin, but so, so equal...) to enact policy solely based on their beliefs.
  
  I mean, the only noteworthy thing accomplished by all this was that I had a good laugh at your "OMG MUSLIMS MAKING LAWS!!!! OUTRAGE!!!!!" stuff, but you're always good for "OUTRAGE!!!!!" laughs.
• like_that

  

  WTF happened to this thread?
• salto

  

  QuakerOats;1799566 wrote:Oh my, you just trampled on the almighty belief held among all the libs on here; you can't govern based on your religious beliefs ---- wow, what kind of wing nut would try to do that; any such religious zealot should be run out of office and then jailed for such acts .............................. yada yada yada.

  Do you live in London or the United States? How the fuck does what the brit's decide, have to do with us?
• superman

  like_that;1799577 wrote:WTF happened to this thread?

  The usual suspect politards showed up. (QO, Heretic, etc)
• O-Trap

  

  like_that;1799577 wrote:WTF happened to this thread?

  That.
• QuakerOats

  I admit that the London mayor's muslim beliefs playing a role in his decision regarding the advertising issue should have been relegated to its own thread. My apologies to the group.
• Heretic

  

  I'll take my responsibility. While calling out derps is fun, I probably don't need to do it all the time.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  The shooters wife needs to be behind bars. Now. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Jail the bitch.
• salto

  

  CenterBHSFan;1799645 wrote:The shooters wife needs to be behind bars. Now. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Jail the bitch.

  I'm sure she's going away for a long time, if it's proven she knew he was an ISIS supporter and had premeditated plans of a mass killing.
• Heretic

  

  salto;1799668 wrote:I'm sure she's going away for a long time, if it's proven she knew he was an ISIS supporter and had premeditated plans of a mass killing.

  Depends.
  
  https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-charges-could-omar-mateens-wife-noor-zahi-salman-face-230644631.html
  
  Apparently, her coming forward and saying she tried to talk him out of it does open the door for her to face charges, but the linked article phrases things in a way that indicates that if she is cooperative with the investigation AND makes it sound like she either didn't think he'd go through with his threats or that she was intimidated into keeping silent, it would be difficult to get any charges against her to stick.
  
  Apparently, legally, there's a difference between "knowing a guy said he was going to do something" and "knowing a guy was definitely going to do something". At least that's how I read that article.