Maybe Trump will help the resistence in Iran

[popinjay]

Lord knows Obama didn't do shit, even though he could have.

Isn't it obvious why things seem to be on the upswing? If nothing else, the world has more confidence in Trump than they did in Obama, whether it is justified or not. People felt doom and gloom with Obama.

[BillB]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:48:23 AM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:
> Lord knows Obama didn't do shit, even though he could have.
>
> Isn't it obvious why things seem to be on the upswing? If nothing else, the world has more confidence in Trump than they did in Obama, whether it is justified >or not. People felt doom and gloom with Obama.

Ya, there was something just....dark...about the guy. I can't put my finger on it.

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 12:48:23 AM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:

> Lord knows Obama didn't do shit, even though he could have.

Like what?

>
> Isn't it obvious why things seem to be on the upswing? If nothing else, the world has more confidence in Trump than they did in Obama, whether it is justified or not. People felt doom and gloom with Obama.

I'd say you're speaking only for yourself. (And that ain't much)

[popinjay]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:07:21 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:



>
> Like what?
>



Like not continuing the bullshit that the Iran regime was "moderate", that's what. He could have at least given verbal and moral support to the 2009 protests.

[popinjay]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:07:21 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:




>

> I'd say you're speaking only for yourself. (And that ain't much)

I don't think the stock market would agree.

Where would the market be right now if Obama were president? Or maybe even worse, Hillary?

[VegasJerry]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:24:19 AM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:07:21 AM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:

> > > Lord knows Obama didn't do shit, even though he could have.

> > Like what?

> Like not continuing the bullshit that the Iran regime was
> "moderate", that's what.

So not doing something is doing something in your weird world?
(It's obvious why you cut part of the post - you're embarrassed...)

[BTSinAustin]

The stock market would have loved Hillary, why else would they have given her all that money? Not for her speaking skills that's for sure.

[Bill Vanek]

"The stock market" gave her money? Does that make sense to you? Do you
know the difference between the market and the people who work in the
securities industry?

[Dutch]

The trend line is virtually unchanged from the Obama era, so the answer
is, it would most likely be the same.

[fffurken]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M

--
"I think hijabs look smashing!" - Dutch

https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk

[risky biz]

Is who he's referring to as 'they' really elude you so completely? That's disconcerting.

[risky biz]

There's no hijab in the image, pea brain. One thing I can say for 'dutch' is that he's intelligent enough to try to employ some deception in his lies about Muslims. All you do is post idiocy that screams 'LIES' on it's face which you must think someone is going to believe or you wouldn't take time to post them. Either that or it's compulsive transference mechanism to avoid the reality of your mental collapse.

[Dutch]

Big protest in Iran right now.. could get ugly.

Don't post shitty videos like that.

[risky biz]

Wow! Those Muslim women wearing headscarves are INCREDIBLY submissive. They must be utterly and completely brainwashed.

[fffurken]

On Sunday, 31 December 2017 22:15:38 UTC, risky biz wrote:

> > https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk
>
> There's no hijab in the image, pea brain.

(Translation: I didn't watch the video)

That's a picture of Linda Sarsour from the anti-Tru.. eh, "Women's March".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SoPjZoISeM

Oh look, it's close to the witching hour (where I'm from). Almost time for you to go bye-bye

[fffurken]

lol What's "shitty" about it Dutch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M&t=3m47s

[Dutch]

Human beings when given half a chance will risk everything for a chance
at freedom. That includes women by the way.

[Tim Norfolk]

Sadly, that is not true, or we would never succeed in enslaving large numbers of people. Most people turn out to be quite passive.

[Bill Vanek]

Yep, and that's not the first time Dutch posted that nonsense. He'll
argue anyway, just like he argued with me. He is absolutely divorced
from reality.

[fffurken]

On Monday, 1 January 2018 00:42:41 UTC, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Yep, and that's not the first time Dutch posted that nonsense. He'll
> argue anyway, just like he argued with me. He is absolutely divorced
> from reality.

I don't think "progressives" are very good at understanding that other people aren't like them.

It's right there in the definition of 'libtard'.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libtard

[Bill Vanek]

It also involves solipsism, which all liberals seem to suffer from,
and which Dutch also denies.

[fffurken]

Oooh, 'solipsism', Wordsmith.

I've been addressing this a little bit lately, and I've used the word 'egocentrism'. I think regressive (morons) are very egocentric. The Canadian dhimmi thinks *hiking* will save Western civilisation.. Bahahahahahahahahahahaa

[Bill Vanek]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:36:45 -0800 (PST), fffurken

<fffu...@mail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 1 January 2018 01:22:48 UTC, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:18:10 -0800 (PST), fffurken
>> <fffu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, 1 January 2018 00:42:41 UTC, Bill Vanek wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yep, and that's not the first time Dutch posted that nonsense. He'll
>> >> argue anyway, just like he argued with me. He is absolutely divorced
>> >> from reality.
>> >
>> >I don't think "progressives" are very good at understanding that other people aren't like them.
>> >
>> >It's right there in the definition of 'libtard'.
>> >
>> >https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libtard
>>
>> It also involves solipsism, which all liberals seem to suffer from,
>> and which Dutch also denies.
>
>Oooh, 'solipsism', Wordsmith.
>
>I've been addressing this a little bit lately, and I've used the word 'egocentrism'. I think regressive (morons) are very egocentric.

That's part of the definition of solipsism. It follows naturally.

> The Canadian dhimmi thinks *hiking* will save Western civilisation.. Bahahahahahahahahahahaa

He doesn't think anything. He says whatever he believes will piss off
whoever he wants to piss off.

[Dutch]

On 12/31/2017 3:36 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 December 2017 23:04:04 UTC, Dutch wrote:
>> On 12/31/2017 1:36 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M
>>>
>>> --
>>> "I think hijabs look smashing!" - Dutch
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk
>>>
>>
>> Big protest in Iran right now.. could get ugly.
>>
>> Don't post shitty videos like that.
>
> lol What's "shitty" about it Dutch?

The screaming women are wearing headscarves. ??

Mostly I have no idea what's happening.

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M&t=3m47s
>

[Dutch]

Has either of you ever picked up a history book?

[fffurken]

On Monday, 1 January 2018 02:56:54 UTC, Dutch wrote:

> >> Don't post shitty videos like that.
> >
> > lol What's "shitty" about it Dutch?
>
> The screaming women are wearing headscarves. ??

lol I'm not the one who said it's a "shitty" video. You are now, ostensibly, asking *me*, why you think it's a shitty video.

[fffurken]

Or no wait, maybe that was a statement.. You think it's a "shitty" video because there are screaming women wearing hijabs in it.

lol Go to your safe space, snowflake.

[fffurken]

I don't need to read a history book to know what a libtard is

[Bill Vanek]

Why, do you want one of us to read it to you? There is a range of
urges running from total "leave me alone" independence, all the way to
"please tell me what to do" total passivity. In other words, far right
to far left. There are people all along that spectrum.

You don't need history. Just take a look at Russia. There are people
there who still worship Stalin. There are people inside and outside of
Cuba who still worship Fidel, and everything he stands for. How about
N. Korea? How many of those people would have any idea what to do with
themselves if they were free?

[popinjay]

That's rich. Dutch is on record saying what a good thing socialism is and he's asking others if they've ever read a history book. One of the most clueless on this newsgroup.

[Dutch]

On 12/31/2017 7:16 PM, fffurken wrote:
> You think it's a "shitty" video because there are screaming women wearing hijabs in it.

I thought it was women risking their lives to protest having to wear
head scarves. Then why are they wearing head scarves?

[BillB]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-8, popinjay wrote:

> That's rich. Dutch is on record saying what a good thing socialism is and he's >asking others if they've ever read a history book. One of the most clueless on >this newsgroup.

Define socialism. If you are defining it as any deviation from pure laissez-faire economics (as most right wing nutcases seem to want to define it), then yes, socialism is a good thing. The richest countries in the world suddenly became MUCH, MUCH richer, MUCH, MUCH faster when they adopted economic policies you would almost certainly regard as "socialistic".

[risky biz]

You didn't explain why those Muslim women wearing headscarves AREN'T the brainwashed, submissives you have repeatedly claimed they are. I wasn't expecting you to be able to, though.

[Dutch]

You're missing the whole point. It's not about who they are, it's about
what is imposed on them by a sexist authoritarian ideology. This is
wonderful news; I only hope it results in more freedom for women and not
more violence and repression.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/1/2018 12:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:53:38 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >> On 12/31/2017 3:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:04:04 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> On 12/31/2017 1:36 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> "I think hijabs look smashing!" - Dutch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Big protest in Iran right now.. could get ugly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't post shitty videos like that.
> >>>
> >>> Wow! Those Muslim women wearing headscarves are INCREDIBLY submissive. They must be utterly and completely brainwashed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Human beings when given half a chance will risk everything for a chance
> >> at freedom. That includes women by the way.
> >
> > You didn't explain why those Muslim women wearing headscarves AREN'T the brainwashed, submissives you have repeatedly claimed they are. I wasn't expecting you to be able to, though.
> >
>
> You're missing the whole point. It's not about who they are,

Where did I say anything about 'who they are'? More of your diversionary word salad.

it's about
> what is imposed on them by a sexist authoritarian ideology. This is
> wonderful news; I only hope it results in more freedom for women and not
> more violence and repression.

No, you're missing the point. The point is that you have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women couldn't possibly CHOOSE to wear a headscarf because they are submissive and brainwashed. The video quite clearly shows a lot of Muslim women wearing headscarves and being anything but submissive.

You're reacting the way you always do when factual information contradicts your propaganda fantasies- divert, divert, divert.

[risky biz]

In the first place, to clear up your confusion, the video of women protesting a headscarf requirement has been spliced together with people protesting other things.

If women protesting a headscarf requirement are risking their lives it must be exceptionally low risk if no one got killed. Are you incapable of saying anything about Muslims without HUGE exaggerations?

Your framing that headscarves were imposed on Iranian women by Islamic religion and that none of them would wear a headscarf by choice collapses in the face of factual information:

'Since pre-Islamic times, the wearing of a headscarf by women has been common in Greater Iran, veils are first recorded in the region in ancient Mesopotamia.'

'In the mid-1930s, pro-Western ruler Reza Shah issued a decree, banning all veils. Many types of male traditional clothing were also banned in order that "Westerners now wouldn’t laugh at us",[73][74][75] the ban humiliated and alienated many Iranian women. To enforce this decree, police were ordered to physically remove the veil off of any woman who wore it in public. Women were beaten, their headscarves and chadors torn off, and their homes forcibly searched. Until Reza Shah’s abdication in 1941, many women simply chose not leave their houses in order to avoid such embarrassing confrontations'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

A headscarf is formally required by law in Iran now and that's just as wrong as France banning headscarves. Explain why you consider the former imposition by the state authoritarian while you have absolutely no condemnation of the latter imposition of the state as authoritarian.

[Dutch]

On 1/1/2018 2:59 PM, risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>> On 1/1/2018 12:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:53:38 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2017 3:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:04:04 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2017 1:36 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "I think hijabs look smashing!" - Dutch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big protest in Iran right now.. could get ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't post shitty videos like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! Those Muslim women wearing headscarves are INCREDIBLY submissive. They must be utterly and completely brainwashed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Human beings when given half a chance will risk everything for a chance
>>>> at freedom. That includes women by the way.
>>>
>>> You didn't explain why those Muslim women wearing headscarves AREN'T the brainwashed, submissives you have repeatedly claimed they are. I wasn't expecting you to be able to, though.
>>>
>>
>> You're missing the whole point. It's not about who they are,
>
> Where did I say anything about 'who they are'? More of your diversionary word salad.

You said they were submissive and brainwashed. That's a comment on who
they are. I've said all along that they are victims. My beef is not with
them, it is with their oppressors and the facilitators of their
oppressors, people like you.

> it's about
>> what is imposed on them by a sexist authoritarian ideology. This is
>> wonderful news; I only hope it results in more freedom for women and not
>> more violence and repression.
>
> No, you're missing the point. The point is that you have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women couldn't possibly CHOOSE to wear a headscarf because they are submissive and brainwashed. The video quite clearly shows a lot of Muslim women wearing headscarves and being anything but submissive.
>
> You're reacting the way you always do when factual information contradicts your propaganda fantasies- divert, divert, divert.

You're an idiot. If they're protesting wearing headscarves then they
probably don't want to be compelled to wear headscarves.. duh!

Would you?

If they're wearing headscarves as they protest then they probably want
to avoid being arrested or punched for not having their heads covered.

And I am quite certain that the headscarf is just the symbol of a whole
lot of oppressive rules and customs that they are balking at. People
eventually strike out when they are oppressed, it's human nature.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 7:30:41 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/1/2018 2:59 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >> On 1/1/2018 12:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:53:38 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >>>> On 12/31/2017 3:11 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 3:04:04 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/31/2017 1:36 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-GCa0MG9M
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> "I think hijabs look smashing!" - Dutch
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/ycdg9ejk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Big protest in Iran right now.. could get ugly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't post shitty videos like that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow! Those Muslim women wearing headscarves are INCREDIBLY submissive. They must be utterly and completely brainwashed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Human beings when given half a chance will risk everything for a chance
> >>>> at freedom. That includes women by the way.
> >>>
> >>> You didn't explain why those Muslim women wearing headscarves AREN'T the brainwashed, submissives you have repeatedly claimed they are. I wasn't expecting you to be able to, though.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're missing the whole point. It's not about who they are,
> >
> > Where did I say anything about 'who they are'? More of your diversionary word salad.
>
> You said they were submissive and brainwashed. That's a comment on who
> they are. I've said all along that they are victims. My beef is not with
> them, it is with their oppressors and the facilitators of their
> oppressors, people like you.

I never said Muslim women were submissive and brainwashed, you did. The women in that video are anything but submissive. You can't deal with that so you dump word salad and claim that I said what you said.

> > it's about
> >> what is imposed on them by a sexist authoritarian ideology. This is
> >> wonderful news; I only hope it results in more freedom for women and not
> >> more violence and repression.
> >
> > No, you're missing the point. The point is that you have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women couldn't possibly CHOOSE to wear a headscarf because they are submissive and brainwashed. The video quite clearly shows a lot of Muslim women wearing headscarves and being anything but submissive.
> >
> > You're reacting the way you always do when factual information contradicts your propaganda fantasies- divert, divert, divert.
>
> You're an idiot. If they're protesting wearing headscarves then they
> probably don't want to be compelled to wear headscarves.. duh!
>
> Would you?
>
> If they're wearing headscarves as they protest then they probably want
> to avoid being arrested or punched for not having their heads covered.

They aren't protesting wearing headscarves, you mental midget.

> And I am quite certain that the headscarf is just the symbol of a whole
> lot of oppressive rules and customs that they are balking at. People
> eventually strike out when they are oppressed, it's human nature.

Word salad.

[Dutch]

That's not ALL they are protesting, but it is a symbol of the theocratic
bully regime they live under. And it's the subject of the video and is
mentioned in the video.

>> And I am quite certain that the headscarf is just the symbol of a whole
>> lot of oppressive rules and customs that they are balking at. People
>> eventually strike out when they are oppressed, it's human nature.
>
> Word salad.

A common symptom of cognitive dissonance.

[risky biz]

Did the Muslim women in the videos look submissive to you, 'dutch'?

[Dutch]

You really should give it a rest.

Everyone who is oppressed is submissive until they finally can't take it
anymore, and it helps when a movement breaks out that supports them.

You'd keep your scarf on if showing your hair meant being tossed in jail
and/or slapped silly.

And my mistake, it's two male witnesses or one male and two female, but
not four female, noooo, they're not believable.

Your constant running interference for inhumanity is despicable.

[risky biz]

Are you having a serious problem with this question, 'dutch'?

Did the Muslim women in the videos look submissive to you, 'dutch'?

What's wrong? Cat got your tongue because the reality which everyone can see in those videos slaps your Islamophobic fantasy in the face with facts? It's monumental arrogance on your part to attribute to a Muslim woman wearing modest clothing a submissive inability to dress in the manner which YOU choose.
And YOU'RE claiming that the Islamic religion is sexist. Towering hypocrisy.

> You'd keep your scarf on if showing your hair meant being tossed in jail
> and/or slapped silly.

You're way off base when you impute to me behavior that would be your choice.

> And my mistake, it's two male witnesses or one male and two female, but
> not four female, noooo, they're not believable.

Sharia stipulates that rape by force is proven if the woman shouts out for help. The punishment of the perpetrator ranges from death to 100 lashes. You've exchanged one LIE for a new LIE.

You don't know the first thing about Islamic law or Muslims yet you're shouting your mouth off about it on a daily basis. The sources of your falsehoods are websites whose sole purpose is to whip up hatred of all Muslims. The falsehoods you find there and mimic here have been outed as baldfaced lies numerous times yet you stubbornly return to them again and again for new lies about Muslims. That, ipso facto, makes you a pernicious LIAR.

> Your constant running interference for inhumanity is despicable.

By your definition Joseph Goebbels could make the same statement. You have everything in the world in common with his methods.

[risky biz]

Inability to provide explanation noted. The slithering away in silence defense.

[Dutch]

On 1/2/2018 9:37 AM, risky biz wrote:
> Did the Muslim women in the videos look submissive to you

The question is a clumsy strawman. You are a waste of time.

[Dutch]

On 1/2/2018 9:39 AM, risky biz wrote:
>> A headscarf is formally required by law in Iran now and that's just as wrong as France banning headscarves. Explain why you consider the former imposition by the state authoritarian while you have absolutely no condemnation of the latter imposition of the state as authoritarian.

Context matters. The headscarf has become a symbol of the oppression of
females, attaching shame to the display of feminine beauty, something
anathema to French values and traditions. However I don't find banning
the headscarf to be a particularly good way to approach the issue.
Education would be better.

[fffurken]

Good man

I don't think headscarves or burkas or any of that shite should be banned.. because the wearing of hideous Islamic garb, particularly full face coverings, is a political statement, and a two fingered salute to eh, "integration". And the broader public will eventually get that.

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 21:08:17 UTC, Dutch wrote:

And by the way, two additional points;

1) There has not been a ban of headscarves in (secular) France, the ban is on full face coverings

2) AFAIK, there is no requirement for females in terms of their clothing other than "modesty" in any of the Muslim hate books

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 2:22:04 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

~ 2) AFAIK, there is no requirement for females in terms of their clothing other than "modesty" in any of the Muslim hate books

Someone might think this is an indication that you finally learned something about Muslims after years of pretending you know something about Muslims but they would be mistaken. What you stated is incorrect.

It's interesting too that you, of all people, describe something else as hate after all your years of reveling in your lies about Muslims.

[risky biz]

How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a flagrant affront to common civility.

Extra points, though, for the extra effort expended to find a crack in the middle to slither into.

[fffurken]

lol You are an utter Moslem spastic, masquerading as an utter "libertarian" spastic, _maybe_ vica versa.

Although personally I can't believe anyone would shill (/lie) for the death cult (like you do) other than one who is in it.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:48:09 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> lol You are an utter Moslem spastic, masquerading as an utter "libertarian" spastic, _maybe_ vica versa.
>
> Although personally I can't believe anyone would shill (/lie) for the death cult (like you do) other than one who is in it.

It's resoundingly ironic to hear you mention the term 'death cult':

'furkedon': 'We shall not be defeated. Heil Hitler.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/2Hq4WPwT5X0/D1huHYW1CwAJ

"Don't you realise it's going to end in gas chambers? lol And you asked for it."
'fffurken', 5/15/15, 'Question for Vegas Dwellers' thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/GzqKtBnhNPU/zY5zEICXeWYJ

"I will die a happy man if I see that cunt's head on a stick."
'fffurken', referring to Angela Merkel 9/17/15 'Can I have 800,000 more please' thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/zx__2RpD1lI/pT9LilwrCQAJ

If I actually had a Muslim (hock, spit) friend, I'd smack him (or her) in the face and tell them to wake the fuck up. And take off that ridiculous garb, you stupid bitch.
'fffurken', 3/8/14 'OT: Obama is a foreign policy genius.' thread

That is one Noam Chomsky Paul, I'm surprised you don't know who he is . . I would personally behead him.
'fffurken', 8/21/15 'fffurkens' Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity list' thread

"What's better than a Muslim? A dead one."
'fffurken', 9/19/15 'They caught the Phoenix freeway shooter' thread

'This was the time of the greatest spiritual upheaval I have ever gone through. I had ceased to be a weak-kneed cosmopolitan and became an anti-Semite.'
- Adolph Hitler

"so what if they think Merkheil is the worst chancellor in German history" "at least Hitler wasn't a TRAITOR"
'fffurken', 3/15/16 'fffurken's' beloved German anti-immigrant political party' thread

"What I will say though is this. If and when the time comes, I hope I am still young enough to pick up a rifle.. and shoot me some traitorous multiculti progressives."
'fffurken', 3/31/15 'Question about 'furkon'' thread

"Yes, when the civil wars come, I hope to be young enough to pick up a rifle and shoot me some progressives."
"fffurken', 6/26/15 'Al Jazeera poll' thread

"I long for the day when progressives are put in front of firing squads. And it will happen."
'fffurken', 6/24/15 'Why do these two sound so much like 'furkedon'?' thread

"Frankly, I can't wait until we start killing progressives - beheadings, drownings, burnings, who cares as long as they're dead."
'fffurken', 7/10/15 'Question for RGPers' thread

comment on a white racist killing a person and injuring 17 others by driving a car into protestors in Charlottesville, VA at high speed on 8/12/17:
'lol I haven't really been following the story but from what I gather he drove into antifa scum. Antifa scum are not _real_ people, as I conveyed in the videos. Good riddance to anti-American communist trash.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/xxzOipGlkxg/djdK6S2CAQAJ

"Yes, the minute someone mentions "Islamophobia" you may as well tune out right there because that person has nothing sensible to say. The people who use the phony made-up word on this newsgroup are in the following categories, there's the progressives like Billb or Clave, the religious fanatics like ramashiva, or the Muslims like Reza Risky, Paul Popinjay and ramashiva."
'fffurken', 9/12/15 "Sam Harris Discusses His Ben Affleck Debate on Real Time with Bill Maher" thread

P.S. You're a vile sack of s***.

[Dutch]

On 1/2/2018 3:37 PM, risky biz wrote:
> How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a flagrant affront to common civility.

How someone dresses is an indication of whether or not she in fact has
the freedom that a free society grants every citizen. That is a flagrant
assault on human dignity.

[Clave]

On 1/2/2018 6:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/2/2018 3:37 PM, risky biz wrote:
>> How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a
>> flagrant affront to common civility.
>
> How someone dresses is an indication of whether or not she in fact has
> the freedom that a free society grants every citizen.

So you can just *tell* by what people are wearing what their motives for
wearing those things are?

You are *so* full of shit.

[risky biz]

He's a real prize package, isn't he?

[fffurken]

lol *Clave*, you are an *absolute* and *utter* *moron*.

And this thread has turned into cancer, we have two far leftists arguing (because one isn't Islamophilic enough for the other) and the rabid Muslim mutt.

[Dutch]

It's not rocket science, but I'll 'splain it for you anyway. In a
society where women have the same freedom as a man you see a wide
variety in styles of dress, because women are individual human beings
with individual tastes, ideas, motivations, etc.. Some like to dress
modestly, some like to dress flirtatiously or provocatively. It depends
on the person, the mood and the occasion. It defies reason that a
population of different people, all doing the same thing, are all doing
so by choice. You might say, so what if a whole group of people are
forced to wear scarves on their heads, but what if some days they don't
feel like it? And what about being forced to cover their faces? Facing
other people is one of the most fundamental and fulfilling parts of
human social interaction. It's a human right as basic as breathing air.

[Clave]

On 1/2/2018 9:08 PM, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/2/2018 7:07 PM, Clave wrote:
>> On 1/2/2018 6:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2018 3:37 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>>> How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a
>>>> flagrant affront to common civility.
>>>
>>> How someone dresses is an indication of whether or not she in fact
>>> has the freedom that a free society grants every citizen.
>>
>> So you can just *tell* by what people are wearing what their motives
>> for wearing those things are?
>>

>> You are *so* full of shit.
>

> It's not rocket science...
Telepathy is indeed not rocket science. In fact it isn't any science,
and you don't have superpowers.

Other than the ability to be more full of shit than most people.

[Dutch]

On 1/2/2018 11:00 PM, Clave wrote:
> On 1/2/2018 9:08 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> On 1/2/2018 7:07 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2018 6:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2018 3:37 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>>>> How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a
>>>>> flagrant affront to common civility.
>>>>
>>>> How someone dresses is an indication of whether or not she in fact
>>>> has the freedom that a free society grants every citizen.
>>>
>>> So you can just *tell* by what people are wearing what their motives
>>> for wearing those things are?
> >>
> >> You are *so* full of shit.
>>
>> It's not rocket science...
> Telepathy is indeed not rocket science.

Wow, you did quite the hack job on my response, even more than I
expected, which was bad enough.

There's no telepathy required. There is no group of human beings who
will all make the same choice when given a variety of options.

When a group of people all make the same choice there is a very high
likelihood that there is coercion involved. If it walks like a duck..

The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 9:09:06 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/2/2018 7:07 PM, Clave wrote:
> > On 1/2/2018 6:59 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2018 3:37 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >>> How someone else dresses is not YOUR 'issue', moron, if it isn't a
> >>> flagrant affront to common civility.
> >>
> >> How someone dresses is an indication of whether or not she in fact has
> >> the freedom that a free society grants every citizen.
> >
> > So you can just *tell* by what people are wearing what their motives for
> > wearing those things are?
>
> It's not rocket science, but I'll 'splain it for you anyway. In a
> society where women have the same freedom as a man you see a wide
> variety in styles of dress, because women are individual human beings
> with individual tastes, ideas, motivations, etc.. Some like to dress
> modestly, some like to dress flirtatiously or provocatively. It depends
> on the person, the mood and the occasion. It defies reason that a
> population of different people, all doing the same thing, are all doing
> so by choice.

That's exactly why either requiring a certain type of dress or banning a certain type of dress are both equally despicable and why it reveals a despicable character to advocate one or the other. Guess who I'm talking about.

[risky biz]

But it's OK if mental midget 'dutch' is making the choice for them.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 12:48:41 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.

LOL @ Dutch the Islamophobic Nazi

In Canada we have a Charter of Rights which enumerates the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians. This is considered part of the "supreme law" of Canada, so that even if an Islamophobic Nazi party were to be elected to run the country -- even if Dutch *himself* was the Islamophobic Nazi Prime Minister -- the creation of fascist laws like the one Dutch proposes above will be deemed by the courts to be of no legal force or effect.

Certain of those aforementioned rights enumerated in the Charter are considered so basic, so important, and so immutable to a free society that they are given a special section and title titled FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Among those FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS are rights that facists like Dutch have absolutely no regard for, including freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, communication and association.

Simply put, Dutch does not believe in even the most fundamental tenets of freedom. And why would we expect him to? Dutch is an Islamophobe. Islamophobes do not believe in freedom.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:57:34 AM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> In Canada we have a Charter of Rights which enumerates the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians.

Pardon me...that was misleading. Fundamental Charter rights apply to anyone present in Canada, not just Canadian citizens.

[fffurken]

Do you really expect anyone to buy into your SJW "logic" other than low IQ SJWs?

Banning hideous Islamic garb in France is equally as bad as enforcing it in an Islamic theocracy? lofl What an utter buffoon.

[VegasJerry]

Bull. When my wife and I were being interviewed for my job offer in Bahrain, my wife was told she must ware long sleeves and head cover when shopping off the compound (ARAMCO), and I had to do the driving. (This was in the late 70's)

[Tim Norfolk]

Like Canadians wearing flannel?

[Dutch]

On 1/3/2018 1:30 AM, risky biz wrote:
> That's exactly why either requiring a certain type of dress or banning a certain type of dress are both equally despicable

I'm glad you agree that requiring women to cover their faces is
despicable. However your equivalency is flawed. Very few people would
cover their face in public unless they were compelled, certainly not all
the time. Of course banning anything is problematic when one is an
advocate of personal freedom, but the context of a free society taking a
stance against theocratic bullying has to be considered.

[Dutch]

On 1/3/2018 1:32 AM, risky biz wrote:
>> When a group of people all make the same choice there is a very high
>> likelihood that there is coercion involved. If it walks like a duck..
>>
>> The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.
> But it's OK if mental midget 'dutch' is making the choice for them.

I want them to have the choice, and they don't.

[Dutch]

On 1/3/2018 1:57 AM, BillB wrote:
> Islamophobes do not believe in freedom.

What about a woman's freedom to dress as she chooses within the
reasonable boundaries of modesty that are set out in law?

And dressing as she chooses is just the tip of the iceberg.

You're the one carrying the water for misogynistic theocratic bullies.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/3/2018 1:32 AM, risky biz wrote:
> >> When a group of people all make the same choice there is a very high
> >> likelihood that there is coercion involved. If it walks like a duck..
> >>
> >> The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.
> > But it's OK if mental midget 'dutch' is making the choice for them.
>

~ I want them to have the choice, and they don't.

Two lines below 'The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.'

[Dutch]

My desire for equal rights for women applies to all women everywhere in
the world. To that end I believe France's veil ban should apply to men also.

[Dutch]

And that contradicts me how exactly?

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/3/2018 1:30 AM, risky biz wrote:
> > That's exactly why either requiring a certain type of dress or banning a certain type of dress are both equally despicable
>
> I'm glad you agree that requiring women to cover their faces is
> despicable.

Stop your typical wandering off into irrelevant diversions. Iran does not require women to cover their faces.

However your equivalency is flawed. Very few people would
> cover their face in public unless they were compelled, certainly not all
> the time. Of course banning anything is problematic when one is an
> advocate of personal freedom, but the context of a free society taking a
> stance against theocratic bullying has to be considered.

Very few people would agree to your arrogant, domineering insistence that you know what they want without having ever met them or learned anything about them or even having learned anything about the most elementary aspects of their culture. In fact, I'm guessing that NO ONE would agree to that if they found out that you get all your information about them from websites whose sole purpose is to encourage other people to hate them, invariably by the production of lies about them.

BillB is correct. You're a fascist.

[risky biz]

You're just annoyed that he hasn't adopted YOUR theocracy, the one which elevates the God of Islamophobia above all other Gods.

[Dutch]

I'm not surprised in the least that the nuance of that position is lost
on you. Do you have trouble understanding the concept of affirmative
action too?

[risky biz]

That isn't a 'nuance', fascist.

[Dutch]

On 1/3/2018 1:45 PM, risky biz wrote:
> However your equivalency is flawed. Very few people would
>> cover their face in public unless they were compelled, certainly not all
>> the time. Of course banning anything is problematic when one is an
>> advocate of personal freedom, but the context of a free society taking a
>> stance against theocratic bullying has to be considered.
> Very few people would agree to your arrogant, domineering insistence that you know what they want without having ever met them or learned anything about them or even having learned anything about the most elementary aspects of their culture.

You seem to assume against all common sense that women wear hijabs by
choice.

I'm at a loss to understand how you can interpret being opposed to the
imposition of strict dress codes on women as domineering. I am
*anti-domineering*. Hijabs are mandatory in Iran. Moderate Muslim
countries have had hijab bans.

[Dutch]

What you call "Islamophobia" is actually standing up for individual
freedom and against theocratic domination.

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 22:24:59 UTC, Dutch wrote:

> You seem to assume against all common sense that women wear hijabs by
> choice.

lol You seem to not be able to associate Muslims with Islam.. unless they're chopping people's heads off, or are theocratic rulers, etc.

[Dutch]

In the risky bizarro dictionary, freedom of choice is fascism.

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 2:24:59 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 1/3/2018 1:45 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > However your equivalency is flawed. Very few people would
> >> cover their face in public unless they were compelled, certainly not all
> >> the time. Of course banning anything is problematic when one is an
> >> advocate of personal freedom, but the context of a free society taking a
> >> stance against theocratic bullying has to be considered.
> > Very few people would agree to your arrogant, domineering insistence that you know what they want without having ever met them or learned anything about them or even having learned anything about the most elementary aspects of their culture.
>
> You seem to assume against all common sense that women wear hijabs by
> choice.

And you don't seem to understand that some do. To some, it's an elected uniform; like our women that wear lipstick, or a bra.

[risky biz]

LIES are Islamophobia and you are a cornucopia of lies about Muslims.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 2:24:59 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

You must think that was a brilliant rhetorical maneuver. Imbecile.

'dutch' AKA, 'furkedon-lite': 'The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.'

[Dutch]

On 1/3/2018 4:32 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>> You seem to assume against all common sense that women wear hijabs by
>> choice.
> And you don't seem to understand that some do. To some, it's an elected uniform; like our women that wear lipstick, or a bra.

I don't deny that some do, but every one, all the time? There's a reason
countries like Turkey and Syria have had hijab bans. A hijab is a signal
of something more sinister than lipstick.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 00:32:23 UTC, VegasJerry wrote:

> > You seem to assume against all common sense that women wear hijabs by
> > choice.
>

> it's an elected uniform

That's exactly right Jerry, well done. When worn in the West, it should be seen as something akin to Nazi regalia, or a KKK outfit.

[fffurken]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 05:02:50 UTC, Dutch wrote:

> There's a reason countries like Turkey and Syria have had hijab bans.

Turkey is dissolving into an Islamic theocracy and a war was recently won (in a matter of months under the Trump presidency) in Syria against Islamic "fundamentalists", including those backed by Barack Hussein Obama. "Your guy" is a pure scumbag who sat idly by while people were genocided.

[da pickle]

Does make you wonder.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[risky biz]

Now you're making at least a little sense. It IS sinister when the state directs people how to dress. North Korea is a good example. Red fascism. But, still, you advocate it.

[Dutch]

> It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
personal choice. Your pretense that you don't see coercion when 100% of
women are covering their heads is just craven cowardice on your part.
Even Turkey and Syria have recognized it in the past.

[BillB]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 12:43:31 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> > It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
> dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
> personal choice.

Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear?? You are logically inconsistent.

It is already against the law in Western countries to force women to wear anything they don't want to? Why not just enforce that? Why are you trying to abolish constitutionally guaranteed freedoms?? If you're not a Nazi, you most certainly have Nazi inclinations.

[Dutch]

On 1/4/2018 1:01 PM, BillB wrote:
>>> It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
>> dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
>> personal choice.
> Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear??

I don't. I think the idea of a ban on the headscarf is very problematic,
but how do you curtail coercion by group leaders claiming control over
these women? Note that Turkey and Syria have instituted bans on the
hijab in the past for similar reasons. The veil is a different story.

I could call the person who takes no action to defend the equal
treatment and freedom of all citizens the one with the problem.

[BillB]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:41:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> >>> It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
> >> dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
> >> personal choice.

> > Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear??
>
> I don't.

Is that why you said a ban was reasonable? You're extremely confused, aren't you? One minute you're saying you AGREE with the state telling a woman she CAN'T wear something she wants to wear, and the next minute you say "it is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a personal choice."

Why don't you sit in a quiet room and get your thoughts together before you vomit all this nonsense on my newsgroup?

[Dutch]

On 1/4/2018 1:59 PM, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:41:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>
>>>>> It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
>>>> dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
>>>> personal choice.
>
>>> Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear??
>>
>> I don't.
>
> Is that why you said a ban was reasonable?

No, that's not the reason. I don't want to pay my property taxes, but
it's reasonable to do it anyway.

[BillB]

So in your opinion it's "reasonable" to be "sinister"? You are a very confused individual.

[Dutch]

On 1/4/2018 3:26 PM, BillB wrote:
>>>>> Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear??
>>>> I don't.
>>> Is that why you said a ban was reasonable?
>> No, that's not the reason. I don't want to pay my property taxes, but
>> it's reasonable to do it anyway.
> So in your opinion it's "reasonable" to be "sinister"? You are a very confused individual.

Is it reasonable to compel a company to consider the race of applicants
and favour applicants of colour, when colour is irrelevant to the
performance of the job? You are very dishonest BillB.

[risky biz]

Is that conclusion of yours validated by this statement of mine in this SAME thread, goober?

'That's exactly why either requiring a certain type of dress or banning a certain type of dress are both equally despicable and why it reveals a despicable character to advocate one or the other. Guess who I'm talking about.'

YOU'RE the one who's advocating coercion and the only way to understand your asinine, conflicting babbling is that you have a personal rule that YOUR coercion doesn't count as coercion because it's YOUR coercion. This is the babbling of an insane person.

> Even Turkey and Syria have recognized it in the past.

Turkey and Syria COERCED a particular form of dress.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 12:43:31 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>
> > > It is sinister when ANY person or group claiming authority seeks to
> > dictate to adult citizens of a free nation in matters that ought to be a
> > personal choice.
>
> Then why do you want to ban an object of clothing that at least some woman want to wear?? You are logically inconsistent.

A common characteristic of insanity.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 3:12:06 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

'dutch' is very nuanced about being a Nazi only when it's reasonable to be a Nazi. If it isn't reasonable to be a Nazi, then by golly, he won't be one. Which, by the way, is a great display of his consistently moral character. It all makes sense if you're insane enough.

[risky biz]

Dewd- you went down the drain a long time ago in this thread. Why not just disappear and hope it's forgotten?

[Dutch]

On 1/4/2018 5:20 PM, risky biz wrote:
>> It is already against the law in Western countries to force women to wear anything they don't want to? Why not just enforce that?

Not a terrible idea, but it's hard to imagine how it could be enforced.
Since we already know which garments are mandatory for women under
Islamic custom, if you're going to do anything a ban is much simpler.

[Dutch]

Word salad.