duanebigsby

10 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Nah I typically dont talk about politics around strangers in real life, but most liberal-type never trumpers cant help themselves. I will tell you that rarely do people like you say things face to face that you would say on these forums though. 

 

 

 

I'm never afraid to say things to Americans (or any other nationality)face to face.

I don't say things on this forum I wouldn't say directly to a person.

When I meet Trump supporters we usually agree to disagree amicably.

4 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

 

 

You misspelled embarrassing. 

And the current US administration isn't embarrassing?

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I wish you would read, and not put your spin and interpretation on other posts.

And also putting sped up gifs of the PM is disingenuous.

1 hour ago, Naam said:

our Western "culture" also protects minorities, e.g. in U.K. a Sikh male is not required a protective helmet when driving a motorcycle even though his turban provides no protection in case of an accident. a Catholic nun is wearing in most countries a garment which could be called a hybrid of a burqa and an abaya. nobody cares a flying fàrt that it might hide 25 kg of Semtex strapped to her body.

I have a bit of a problem with this Sikhs not needing helmets.

While all in favour of religious rights this one is borderline for me. Couldn't someone invent a helmet that encompasses a turban?

In Vancouver, I've seen many females on the pillion seat with no helmet piggybacking on the exclusion for Sihks.

I'm all for the protection of minorities but I'd like to see some form of helmet.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Passing the book doesn't make it right.

Of course not. I never said it did.

But saying it's a Muslim thing and blaming the practice on one religion is hate mongering.

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

And that's precisely what Christopher Hitchens is saying.

 

The Wahabbi men, mandated by their misreading of koranic dogma, have outlawed all but the most dehumanising dress for Wahabbi women.

 

Hitchens is suggesting that this koranic-inspired (so the Wahabbi "imams" claim) ban is overturned. Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation agrees (I have given his quote twice already, so I won't do it again here).

 

Dr Taj goes further in that his specialist knowledge indicates this form of attire is just desert tribe stuff, not muslim. Just desert gear imposed on Wahabbi sect women by Wahabbi men and their "imams", and endorsed by western pseudo-liberals who don't know what they're talking about.

 

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I call on all serious liberals to do so to.

 

The schoolboy liberals can carry on as before, jumping up and down and shouting "islamophobe islamophobe" in the absence of any informed opinion.

 

Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London, a well known muslim, agrees that this Wahabbi gear is not the result of free choice. I'll be talking about that tomorrow. Have a good evening.

 

Mandating clothing is the polar opposite of a ban. I disagree with both, but if women in the UK want to wear the gear they  have the right to do so.

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Here's an interesting point of view about banning the burqa, following my earlier posting quoting the suggestion to ban the burqa by Dr Taj Hargey, the imam at the Oxford Islamic Congregation.

 

Christopher Hitchens believes that banning the burqa is actually the lifting of a ban on freedom of dress imposed on muslim women by muslim men. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and call on all my fellow liberals to do so too.

 

“I dislike the way that the discussion around the Burka and other forms of veiling and enveloping of females is always referred to as a ban especially as it’s been applied or proposed in France. It’s not a ban, it’s the lifting of a ban on the right of women to choose what they can wear. The existing state of affairs is a ban by the male members of a religious cult organisation known as Islam. They believe they have the right to dictate the attire of their women. If you counterpose to that — well why can’t a woman wear anything she wants, you’d have to give me some evidence that there was ever a woman that wanted to go out in the street only with her husband’s permission and only wearing the curtains. There’s no evidence of that at all, there’s a great deal of evidence the other way.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@slinafirinne/christopher-hitchens-on-the-burka-8fe562032cb8

 

 

Outlawing a form of dress is a ban no matter how you spin it.

I disagree with the Saudis mandating the dress code every bit as much as I oppose Western nations banning it.

Saudi is changing ever so slowly and the new Prince is suggesting women are no longer required to adhere to the ancient dress codes.

I think in the UK Muslim immigrants will eventually drop the face coverings. It might take a generation or two, but I see a natural progression where the younger generations of girls will reject it naturally.

On 8/15/2018 at 6:02 AM, sweeneythailand said:

so now we now know that it is some kind of rubbish law we dont kneed it wont work can  not be implemented  and should be scraped as should the Thai driving license a uk license should bee all you need as  it use to be  but now even a international license is not a license in Thailand as it is for the police to make money from any one they want to rip off 400 baht no hat no license no bike papers no tax or any thing else they feel they can get you for.  my neighbour gets it for having a 3 wheeled bike salink     he takes dogs to get treatment  in a cage  400 baht its just ruining the city of pattaya

Not many countries in the world allow you to drive on a foreign license for more than 3 months. Once you hit 3 months you must get a local license. Worldwide for the most part.

Why do you think it's a scam to require you to have registration, crash hat, insurance, and proper bike papers? You should be above the law? I agree the TM30 requirement is BS but the others you stated are normal.

A delusional troll who doesn't write particularly well hoping for both a book deal and a job teaching English.

How pathetic is that?

1 minute ago, sawadeeken said:

Yes...... This is a far bigger problem...... for sure in Thailand but elsewhere as well.... But Thailand being a place where 'Foreign Criminals' (as in another post) blend in so well...... Is also a 'Haven' for those 'above others' to 'abuse' their seniority...... Teachers and elders taking advantage of their position to 'breed' those who are under their power (their superior authority).......  While they know that so many of the 'law-enforcement' can be bought-off cheaply when they get caught....... TIT.... This Is Thailand.....

However I know it happens elsewhere... Mostly where 'law-enforcement is similar to Thailands (almost non-existant).... 

After 35 years of expecting things to improve here in Thailand......... I GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!   

It keeps getting worse.... Not better.....

You've just turned around students having sex with each other into farang teachers are the ones doing most of the damage.

Nonsense. Kids are having sex of their own volition.

There isn't a vast conspiracy of Thai and farang teachers violating students. Does it happen?

Yes.

Is it nearly on the scale of student with student sex?

no where near.

24 minutes ago, Colabamumbai said:

It was never mandatory, I taught at many schools over 7 years and was never asked.

It's mandatory now since  about two years ago. 

It is required for teachers to get a criminal record check in order to get the Non-B visa.

It can be done in country at the police forensics office. It takes about 2 weeks.

On 8/11/2018 at 8:20 AM, rodney earl said:

 To belong to a religion that the founder married a 6year old girl and consumated it at 9years of age says everything that needs to be said about that religion. 

Pretty much the norm in 600 CE.

On 8/10/2018 at 2:34 PM, Hogs said:

THE RELIGION OF PEACE at it again 

Mohammed married Aiesha at 6 years then consumated the marriage at 9 years old.

All True and laid out clearly in the Quaran and the Islamic book The Life of Mohammed.

This is why Muslims think they can marry Children 

That's generalizing far too much.

Both the Quran and the Bible are full of vile and violent things.

The majority of both religions are moderates and ignore those parts of the holy books which are offensive.

The vast majority of Muslims are not for marrying children.

Fundamentalism is the problem.

A Muslim fundamentalist will use the Quran to justify his pedophilia like a fundamentalist Mormon does the same. 

31 minutes ago, sambum said:

So?

How can ISIS force people who already wear the burka to wear the burka?

23 minutes ago, sambum said:

Indeed the issue is a politician ridiculing women who choose to wear the burka (Or are told to wear the burka!)

 

However, it is not a ludicrous comparison at all. As far as I know, there has been no moped crime carried out in London by burka wearers because that would immediately bring the blame down on Muslims, and Muslims would say that it was people trying to look like Muslims so that Muslims would get the blame (Ooops!) 

 

The fact is that for years ISIS forced women to  wear the burka, but now, even they realise that it is not a good idea! :-

 

"isis-bans-women-from-wearing-burkas-after-chiefs-attacked-by veiled assassins"

 

 

Wearing of the burka is many centuries older than ISIS.

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

What else are they for?

Mr Misogyny, I rest my case.