Disqus - Latest Comments for H

Re: Public thinks foreign policy has been a failure

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:04:23 -0000

The Common Humanist

There isn’t a dictator he hasn’t sucked up to and he gives not a fuck about ordinary muslims around the world.

Since you are claiming George Galloway isnt a friend of the Muslims and doesnt care about them I'd be fascinated to hear a list of people you do believe are freinds of the Muslims. Well?

Re: Public thinks foreign policy has been a failure

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:58:10 -0000

marvin

76% of Iraqis said yet to “Do you think the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 was the right choice?”. War mongers.

The fear amongst dictators peaked, Syria pulled out of South Lebanon, there were massive pro-democracy protests, Gadaffi gave up his quest for weapons of mass destruction, 8 million Iraqis voted, Saddam paid for his GENOCIDE of 200,000 Kurds, sanctions were lifted, Iraqis won the football, conditions at prisons such Abu Grahib prison have improved markedly (for example on one day 600 prisoners were summarily executed)…

Your concern for the people of the Middle East's /Muslims political aspirations is deeply moving Marvin. The Iraqi invasion was of course all about giviing freedom to the Iraqis and nothing else. The US risked 1/4 million of its troops (remeber they said Saddam had WMDs) for this reason only. Anyone who says it was about oil, stopping the main threat to Israel or Bush's re-election/family fued is an appeaser, an islamofacist anti-semite or a realist. This goes for anyone who opposes the US controlling the world.

You are aware that the vast majority oppose US intervention in the region, including propping up corrupt dictators (as they did with Saddam) and oppose Israels illegals occupation of Palestinian/ Arab land. The US/UK has no problem with dictaors who opress their people per se (as Gaddafis case shows); only when they disobey or dont support US interests.

Why dont we listen to the people on these issues then? Or could it be you just use stats when they are favourable to your zionist arguments?

Re: Jewish queens of Bollywood

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:12:44 -0000

billeracy dicky
"This is a slightly different take on the ads that used to be in the Indian papers offering “Wheat complexioned” brides and skin lightening creams. I,ll see if I can find a fax number and send it to you."

thanks dicky - this will be a total shock to Asians

Re: The big showdown is tonight

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:11:40 -0000

I go quite frequently to CC events and they are always interesting and stimulating . If you're also going tonight take a chance to try some delicious Lebanese food from the restaurants on Edgware Road. Mmmmm shawarma

Re: How religion and race meet to create havoc

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:07:33 -0000

" And minorities better get used to that quickly – including that silly Hindu group pushing for open-air cremations."

Why not? If thats how they want to dispose of their bodies let them - as long as its consensual who are they hurting?

Re: US academics sign letter supporting protesters in Iran

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:26 -0000

People like Chomsky have a distinguished record in opposing US and Israeli imperialism- so no one can accuse them of condemning whats happening in Iran because of zionist political maneouvering as many are

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:58:50 -0000

Ravi Naik
"Only after the Iranian revolution. Which was in 1979. Before that women didn’t have to wear them, and they were Shiahs nontheless. Do you support the Iranian government policy on the hijab? "

Ravi at this point I shall refrain from responding. You are too stupid to realise there is a difference between what particular Muslim countries, communities and individuals may do and what Islam says.

Your logic would entail drinking alcohol only became forbiddin after the 1979 revolution since there were numerous bars in the Shah's time.

"Actually, no. I am just saying that there are more interpretations based on the Koran that differ to what you are defending."

There are a wide range of opinions in tafsir that is true- but not that wide - there are many many issuesthey disagree on (hence the 4 schools) but there certain issues that all ulema agree on because they are an essential part of the religion. Hijab is amongst them as much as you a non Muslim may not like it .

Your logic would imply that there is not one single set Islamic belief or practice. Thats Hinduism not Islam.

"There is a difference between me telling you about other voices of Islam that you may disagree, and you making assertions that are patently false under any interpretation of the Hindu religion. "

Why is it patently false? Its my interpretation and I said it was true. Maybe I could bring someone with a Hindu name to back me up.

You cant see that thats exactly what you are doing with Islam- you are saying "there are other voices in islam opposing consensus and making patently false statemnts under any interpreattion of Islam butyou must accept them no matter how absurd and false what they say is - however what you said about Hinduism is false"

It makes even less sense since Islam has clear beliefs and texts!

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:46:15 -0000

Jai
"including their interpretations of Shariah and the extent to which it should be implemented (and, consequently, how “compulsory” it is). "

No Jai there is no ikthilaf on the hijab. The article I posted was by a Sufi Sheikh !

There is not an never has been in islam, despite what wahabbis and orientalists say, a dichotomy between the Sufis and the ulema because all the sufis were ulema (though not vice versa)! Tassawuf (Sufism) was and is part of the basic maddrassa curriculum for ulema all over the Muslim world!

Whether the state should enforce is a difference issue. Id say not. But it is unquesionably a sin for a woman not to wear hijab when she knows its an obligation much as it would be for a Sikh not to wear a turban (and we know how upset you got and defensive of your religions orthodoxy when someone brought up Aurangzebs choice for Guru -so dont be a hypocrite)

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:58 -0000

Douglas Clark
"So, no. You don’t get to define anything Imran. The world ain’t what you think it is."

What and you do?

No. We Muslims get to define what our religion is. You dont.

Your arrogance astounds- you and the poisoned dwarf Sarkozy get to define what secularism is or French identity AND you get to define what Islam is.

Its bad enough that Sarkozy bans the niqab- but he wants to tell Muslims our religion! If he had just said "The Niqab is part of the Islamic religion but we wont have it in France" that would have been one thing - but he and his ignorant non-Muslim cronies say "We wont have niqab in France and it is not part of the Muslim religion"- he wants not just to be president of France, dictator of what French women can and cant wear but Sheikh ul-Islam!

He can go screw himself!

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:32:36 -0000

Ravi Naik
"Jai, I hope I was very clear in #281 and #285 that (a) historically the significance of veil changed – and the Prophet seemed to have more liberal attitudes than in subsequent centuries,"

I see. So you have understood the Prophet (peace be upon him)better than his wives, companions and those who they taught.

" and (b) there are different interpretations of Islam, something that Munir doesn’t acknowledge, "

hilarious- I already mentioned theer are 4 schools of thought in Sunni islam and the Jafari school in Shiasm - and they ALL agree hijab is fard and all the sunnis say niqab is either fard or mustahabb

"calling heretic and brainwashed anything that doesn’t fit his view. "

"My" view being what Orthodox Islam teaches

"In fact, he is presenting the same view as Islamophobes: that Islam is one single homogeneous bloc."

Pathetic. Islamophobes present "Muslims" as a single homogenous bloc all doing something negative "all Muslims are terrorists" etc .

There are as mentioned time and time again different schools of thought- the 4 Sunni schools (Hanafi/Maliki/Shafi/Hanbali). Though they differ on many many things they ALL say Hijab is an obligation and all say Niqab is part of the deen.

When it comes to key beliefs and practices there is homogenity amongst Muslims - for example we dont say "there is difference of opinion amongst Muslims of whether there is one God or the Quran is the word of God or whether Muhammed (pbuh) is the last prophet, or whether alcohol is forbidden or whether there are 5 daily prayers".

Hijab comes under the same category - there is absolute ijma (consensus) that it is an obligation on women.

-------------------------
I will post AGAIN the article written by a scholar
-lets hope Ravi understands it

"The Quranic verse, “Say to believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them drape their headcoverings over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment . . (Qur’an 24:31) is a specific requirement for Muslim women to cover their hair.

The word “headcoverings” (Ar. singular khimar, plural khumur), more familiar in our times as the hijab, is a word of well-known signification among scholars of Arabic, at their forefront the authors of the classical lexical reference dictionaries like Zabidis encyclopedic Taj al-arus or Mutarrizis al-Mughrib, both of which define khimar as “a womans headcovering”; or Fayumis al-Misbah or Fayruzabadis al-Qamus, which both define it as “a cloth with which a woman covers her head” The Taj al-arus also notes that a man's turban is sometimes referred to as a khimar because a man covers his head with it in like manner as a woman covers her head with her khimar when he disposes it in the Arab manner, turning part of it under the jaws nearly in the same manner in which a woman disposes her khimar. These authorities are cited in the eight-volume Arabic-English Lexicon of Edward William Lane, who describes the khimar as a womans muffler or veil with which she covers her head and the lower part of her face.

There is no other lexical sense in which the word khimar may be construed. The wording of the command, however, “and let them drape their headcoverings over their bosoms,” sometimes confuses nonspecialists in the sciences of the Quran, and in truth, interpreting the Quran does sometimes require in-depth knowledge of the historical circumstances in which the various verses were revealed. In this instance, the elliptical form of the divine command is because women at the time of the revelation wore their headcovers tied back behind their necks, as some village women still do in Muslim countries, leaving the front of the neck bare, as well as the opening (Ar. singular jayb, plural juyub, translated as “bosoms” in the above verse) at the top of the dress. The Islamic revelation confirmed the practice of covering the head, understood from the use of the word khimar in the verse, but also explained that the custom of the time was not sufficient and that women were henceforth to tie the headcover in front and let it drape down to conceal the throat and the dresses opening at the top.

This is why Muslim women cover their heads: because the Quran unambiguously orders them to, and there is no qualifying text or hadith or even other lexical possibility to show that the Quranic order might mean anything besides obligation.

Rather, the hadiths all bear this meaning out, Muslim scholars are in unanimous agreement about it and have been from the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) down to our own day, and it is even known by all non-Muslim peoples about them.

There was thus nothing new or surprising in the Islamic legal opinion promulgated in December 2003 by the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh �Ali Jumu�a of the Egyptian Fatwa Authority (Dar al-Ifta� al-Misriyya) that �the hijab is an obligation on all Muslim female adults, as firmly established in the Holy Qur�an and the Prophet Muhammad�s hadiths, as well as unanimously agreed upon by Muslim scholars.�

He pointed out that unlike the cross sometimes worn by Christians, or the skullcap worn by Jews, the hijab is not a �symbol� of Islam but rather that �Islam orders female adults to wear hijab as obligatory religious clothing.� It is part of every Muslim womans religious practice.

Some ink and words have been spent by some contemporary ethnic Muslim women writers (and an occasional convert) trying to do away with the covering of hair mandated by the Quran and the unanimous consensus of Muslims. They say accurately enough, for a Muslim does not leave Islam merely by committing a sin that one can take off the hijab and still remain a Muslim. But such a person remains a bad Muslim, who deems aping non-Muslims better than practicing Islam. For what? The Supreme Being knows our benefit better than we do; and if one believes in Allah, Master of every atom in the universe, it is only plain sense to follow Him. When all else fails, read the directions. Those who refuse to wear the hijab are acting out of ignorance or bad faith, and when one meets them, one seldom finds they manage to practice the other aspects of their religion. In the end, it is a matter of hearts. The heart that is alive has a sense of eternity, and knows that the infinite is greater than the finite. The heart that is dead follows the trends of the trend makers because it has turned its back on the Divine and forgotten endless time.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&...

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:14:46 -0000

Ravi Naik

"Reza Aslan is a Shi’a Muslim and a theological scholar – where do you get off telling people who you disagree with, that they are not Muslims?"

Er.Ravi. I was referring to link you posted to Michelle MacNeil's article - you didnt post any of Reza Aslans views

"You may not agree or accept his view, but it doesn’t make it any less valid."

In Shia Islam the hijab is considered an obligation -the regime in Iran even imposes it and polices it - not sure on their views on niqab)

"In fact, quite the opposite, while he researches his material and properly references it, you engage in whataboutery "

Sigh- I have on numerous posts brought forth the evidence for niqab and hijab - refer to my earlier post and douglas clarks post #99

There are none so blind

"mischaracterising other beliefs as some sort of argument for the use of niqab – coming up with this idiocy that Hindu women idolise their husbands as Gods."

Quite. You dont understand the irony of your criticising me for speaking ignorantly about another religion!

"This kind of ignorance plays well in blogs and forums full of people like yourself, but not here."

Absolutely hilarious. Your non- arguments would be laughed out of court on an islamic forum. You have to bring daleels if you want to show what you were saying is correct

The funny thing is I have refrained from using the Islamic terminology we usually used because you wouldnt understand it.

You are suggesting Muslims who have been practiciisig and studying the religion are more ignorant of the religion than you. The sheer arrogance!

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:53:35 -0000

douglas I make an effort to respond to any questions asked of me but your post #95 was so mind numbingly moronic Im not going to

Jesus (pbuh) said something along the lines of "i have brought , by God's leave, the dead to life, but I have never been able to cure a fool"

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:44:13 -0000

douglas I have said I dont agree with religious authorities enforcing dress. So i suggest you kindly retract or apologise for post #91

And BTW the story about the religious police in Saudi and the fire was later proven false

Zealotry isnt just religious- because of secular zealots religious women in turkey are denied an education - dont see the "campaigners for womens rights (eg campaign only for women who are like us)" kicking up a fuss about THAT denial of education for women

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:40:48 -0000

douglas clark
"So, is this woman an apostate?

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August/Dress/1...

hahahah you are comical and your ignorance truly deep .Why are you asking me oh sheikh of Islam Douglas Clark?

Islam is a belief -as long as people believe in its tenets they are considered Muslims (outwardly since only Allah knows anyones heart including people who may appear outwardly very pious) the acts they do or dont do , dont by themselves make them non Muslims

"You do know how ridiculous this sounds? It is a male attempt to deny beauty, or a hard on.

Whether religiously prescripted or not."

Well as Imam al Ghazali said "to a sick man sweet water tastes bitter"

These are the words of God. Muslims believe that - you dont have to but you dont have the right to tell them not to follow them . Do you even believe in God?

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:33:45 -0000

douglas clark
"What I am saying is that it is the Burka that is prescribed by idiots like munir, and it is that male dominant attitude I find reprehensible."

No the face veil is part of the religion.
http://www.muhajabah.com/niqab-index.htm

Here are some Muslim women explaining why they wear it

"What I have said is that women should not be manipulated by tits like munir. Frankly, I doubt any regular, female Muslim commentators on here are likely to disagree with me."

You are such a misogynist douglas clark! You believe women are stupid airheads who can easily be manipulated rather than intelligent people who can make up their own minds!

What strikes me about this whole converstaion from Sarkozy to Douglas Clark to Munir is teh voices that are missing are the most important ones- Muslim women who wear niqab!!

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:26:24 -0000

douglas clark
"I am clearly not dictating to Muslim women what they should wear or don’t wear."

"I find, correct me if I am wrong, munir to be a complete utter reprobate on this subject."

You are wrong since I have the same view: I never said I thought religious dress should be imposed at a state level

" What I am saying, and you’ll have a job defending the contrary, is that this is a male prescriptive practice."

Actually the job is yours to do since you have no proof for this

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:48:30 -0000

Halima
"I might wear the hijab but don’t because I am afraid all the liberals (whatever cultural background) around me at work would judge me. "

Halima wearing hijab is difficult but many women do it even in the west. Have you read what you haver written here? You are saying you are more afraid of people and their opinions than of Allah. Monotheism is having one God alone and that God isnt "public opinion"
You have to ask yourself if your God is the people you work with or God

Its ironic- the Muslim women who wear hijab are free - they were because they want to please God and couldnt care less what others think of them. Yet some women dress based on what others will think of them! And our society calls them liberated!

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:43:04 -0000

douglas clark

"I find you so, relaxed, about the possibility that the burkah is actually imposed on women both by a misunderstanding of religion and folk like you, y’know men that are right, well, you transcend yourself every time you comment here."

hilarious -Muslim ulema from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) have misunderstood our religion but you have understood it. The arrogance of ignorant non-Muslims (and some Muslims) who cant even recite fatiha correctly -something a 5 year old Muslim child can- in teaching us our deen is astonishing.

and incidentally one of the evidence for the niqab comes from a hadith from Aisha - a woman and one of the mothers of the believers Muslim women try and emulate

and BTW I dont agree with imposing the burkha on women- you have taken my words and run with them

"You stand up for Muslim womens’ ‘right to wear the Burka’, as if that was the only game in town. It is pretty transparent that an obligation imposed by tits like you – a male Muslim I’d assume – is not a freedom. It is you expressing your stupidity through your women."

The stupidity is yours - Muslim women who wear hijab and niqab wear it because they believe it is a command of God not man - a Muslim who believes for example the Quran was written by a man is a non Muslim

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:18:59 -0000

douglas clark
"It is through a childlike sentiment – that men are unable to control their lust – that munir claims the right to institute his control freakery. And claims religious justification for it too!"

No that is what you believe and you are imposing it on me.

Women wear (or rather should wear) the hijab and niqab because it is a religious act. The reaction of men to it is irrelevant- some men may even exist who find a woman in hijab MORE attractive than one without - this doesnt change the fact that they have to wear hijab

The verses PRECEDING the verses of hijab in the Quran order men to lower their gaze and guard their modesty - this is whether a woman is wearing a burkha or a bikini. And of course men have to dress modestly too (and women lower their gaze)

"24:30. Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

31. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty"

And BTW before you try interpreting the Quran using translation is impossible

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:54:40 -0000

platinum786 that was out of order

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:26:25 -0000

cjcjc
"I have noticed that there is a very strict dress code for men (in London anyway) accompanying burka-clad women: the men must be as scruffy as possible and (ideally) overweight."

Likewise for Orthodox Jews - the men have to wear fetching black and wizard hats while the scruffy women look like they been in a fight in a charity shop

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:24:17 -0000

damon
" found your excuse of women havinmg to be more modest in public (like not going bare chested when in a swimming enviroment) to be a bit weak"

No Damon its everywhere. In the UK a man can legally walk around bare chested ; a woman doing so would be arrested. thats why i find your criticising Muslim practice a bit hypocritical

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:01:25 -0000

Amrit
"I read a transcript of a roundtable discussion between various French journalists/sociologist-types and the journalist Naima Bouteldja pointed out that politicians in France have been appropriating the language of human rights and twisting it to talk about the rights of women specifically, as a Trojan horse way to impart their Islamophobia."

Yes western feminism isnt being used as a tool for imperialism "we have to invade their lands to liberate their women". It was ever thus: lord Cromer said he was invading Egypt to liberate the women - while stringly opposing female voting in the UK

It also ignores far worse rights abuses against women such as mass female infancticde in India and China

Never mind that many Muslim women cover precisely because they feel it empowering and as a a rejection of the obejctification of womens bodies.

This can actually be to detriment of womens rights because it allows men who want to restrict womens rights to identify calls for womens rights with "western imperialism"

The whole thing is essentially fascism- you must look western or else

Re: The burkha should not be banned

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:54:50 -0000

Bartholomew

Extremist: “You dress your women like whores”

Dawkins: “I don’t dress women, they dress themselves”

Imply the frankly racist notion that Muslim women are automons who wear whatever their husbands tell them rather than making a choice based on their understanding of the religion - leaving aside the fact that many niqabi women wear it against great opposition from their families and ignoring that many women who wear it are converts

Re: Why you should be boycotting L’Oréal

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:09:58 -0000

Kulvinder
"The interesting point about all this is whereas a minority of ‘blacks’ objected to ‘non-black’ sales staff/assistants; L’Oréal’s executives were apparently of the opinion the majority of ‘white’ people would object to ‘non-white’ sales staff."

This is after all France not the UK. Where neo-Nazis ont win two european seats - they win 12% of the vote and run off for the presidency. I know many people from ethnic minorities in France who cant get jobs because the employers say while they are not prejudiced, the customers wont accept them. Its even worse if they wear a headscarf.

Thank God for British tolerance

Re: Israel: still dedicated to peace…

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:02:09 -0000

Ravi Naik
"Do you think this is an ambitious goal, Munir? "

Its not ambitious but its just. Or are you sugegsting international law be put aside? If this is the case what law should the world operate by?

"What I think most Palestinians aspire is a developed Palestine state with jobs, education, decent healthcare, etc."

Of course- but zionist theft of their land
(see http://ideafix7.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/pal...) and illegal settlemenst in East Jeruslam and the West Bank
makes a viable Palestinian state virtually impossible

The only viable long term solution is two states based on pre-1967 borders. By agreeing to this the Palestinains have agreed to forfeit forever 78% of their homeland. Yet the zionists will never agree even to this.

Re: Israel: still dedicated to peace…

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:10:05 -0000

"Are modern day Palestinians descendants of the Jews living in that region thousands of years ago?"

They are descendants of the ancient Canaanites who predated the Israelites

Even early zionist idealogues recognised this

"Ber Borochov "the fellahin are considered in this context as the descendants of the ancient Hebrew and Canaanite residents 'together with a small admixture of Arab blood'".[76] Ahad Ha'am also shared the belief that: "the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land ... who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam."[76] David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi wrote in 1918 that Palestinian peasants and their mode of life were living historical testimonies to Israelite practices in the biblical period.[77]"

In any case this is a pointless argument - should all land be returned to how it was 3000 years ago?

The issues is the Palestinians have been expelled from their land and refugees have a right to return to their land under international law . this is enacted in every land- except for Palestinians

Or dont you believe in International law?

How many European Jews are descdnants of the Israelities?

Re: Israel: still dedicated to peace…

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:04:18 -0000

Boyo
"Their religion is irrelevant…” That’s funny. I thought Islamophobia = anti-Muslim racism."

yes it does
but the Palestinian issue is a national one not a religious one

Re: Israel: still dedicated to peace…

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:52:33 -0000

marvin
"I think much of it is that the Islamists and their defenders have adopted the language of the left. Hence the cross over, where Osama Bin Laden will big up books by Western liberals such as Chomsky and Pilger, and vice versa Guardian liberals will invite Hamas and other Islamists to write essays and speak at their organic free-range don’t hurt the hay hay festival events…"

Who on here has defended Osama Bin laden?
And comparing Hamas to him is sophistry

Re: Israel: still dedicated to peace…

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:50:30 -0000

marvin
"You’d expect liberals to be challenging them constantly. But not so. "

Liberals like yourself you mean. Who opposed a person being appointed head of BBC religion... because he is a Muslim.

"I think much of it is that the Islamists and their defenders have adopted the language of the left. Hence the cross over, where Osama Bin Laden will big up books by Western liberals such as Chomsky and Pilger, and vice versa Guardian liberals will invite Hamas and other Islamists to write essays and speak at their organic free-range don’t hurt the hay hay festival events…"

Much like Zionists and the far right and that stuff about "eurabia" and "Islamization". Reading HP isnt that different from visiting the BNP's website.

Re: Regine Watch – Pinoy Pop Superstar

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:54:35 -0000

galing ni aicelle :)

Re: AnonNewsWire - Titsorgtfo pwnd theraged

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:08:13 -0000

This is true, the website was never down for me. I have been on it every day for the last few months. Nice job not knowing what the difference between you getting IP banned is, and what a database leak is faggot. LOL.

Re: Fail Dogs

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:54:23 -0000

I saw that happen in real time... it was scary, and the biker did not see the dog. He was riding at 35-40mph in the Tour de France peloton, and did not see the dog before he hit the ground. This video is slowed down to half speed. How the dog got almost across the road before being hit was a wonder.

Fortunately, neither the dog nor the rider were seriously hurt, but both could easily have been.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:23:18 -0000

asdfas's comments sounds too close to the bone of ACL.

Re: Why Do Hotels Still Charge for Internet?

Tue, 08 May 2007 05:10:28 -0000

You are CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.
You want everything for free.
Your saving already with Priceline
how much more do you have to save?
Because of people like you business cant
make a buck.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Trustees could require high schoolers to volunteer

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:45:05 -0000

Oh my gosh there is no way Flores will ever be able to enforce this because Lisa and Ed Foster will bully there way into complain and then they will threaten to sue the district and Flores will back down just like she did with the coaching situation at GHS. Flores you can no longer make rules for this district because the parents own you now. You did this. By the way the Foster kid is the only one who nevers volunteers for anything unless it helps her out. Her and her parents heart is black. Fosters get out of dodge losers

Re: MorganHillTimes.com | Let true dialogue begin on affordable housing policy

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:54:56 -0000

I think its great that the city is "willing to talk" about its affordable housing policies. Unfortunately I highly doubt it will resolve ANY of the issues I looked into and raised in a letter to the council a few months back. The cities affordable home ownership program works by allowing people to essentially lease homes from the city for 40 years. I use the term lease over ownership because these homes can not be sold at market value with out the city agreeing to pass on reselling the home to another low income individual/family (which when I asked the housing department for the city I was told rarely if ever happened). The problem with this is that the lower income individual "owning" the home makes little to no profit if they want to sell. At the same time, the city continues to expand at set percentages per year for additional affordable or low income housing. Yet it maintains a balanced community?

The main focus of the cities campaign was in individual salaries per household(meaning one worker per household). So If either my husband or myself stopped working, we would qualify for this type of housing, and then be stuck in it if we made no more money or littl emore money than at the time of buying the home. Is that what the city is wanting; 1 worker households? I'm asking this question because I hear so much within Morgan Hill on how it wants to attract people in order to generate more revenue within the city itself. I don't feel advocating people to stop or not work is any better than advising someone on welfare to have more children simply to get more money. It doesn't make sense and its not healthy for the economy.

Housing is a privelage. Most of us work extremely hard for it. If the city wants to advocate helping lower income individuals to obtain housing more than the average resident than why not implement a city subsidized loan for down payments where the same percentage of the loan is applied to the sale of the home (at real market values) and comes back to the city. When people are discussing lower income families, what they are really comparing are 1 and 2 earner families. One of my closest friends is a supervisor for one of the cities police departments. Alone, she would qualify for one of these homes, but add in her husbands salary (which is much less) and they no longer quaklify. To me, that says that the city really isn't looking toput families into homes. They are looking to put single people into homes (which is fine if they say it), people who have unreported income, or people who are already being supported by others. Now if what they really want to say is these homes are being set aside for police officers, teachers, and other people (whcih is what they campaigned), then maybe that should be a qualification...

Re: happiness only real when shared.

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:14:15 -0000

i love this show!!!

Re: StopIranWar.com Intro

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:53:04 -0000

guys,
you know iran has not nuclear boom. do not mistake all of the world. lets be freind to each other lets have a peace.
i belive if anybody attack iran that would be another mistake which has not any good futhure for no one.

Re: AutoLock (keypad locker) | SymbianV3.com

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:36:22 -0000

good job!!

Re: Scientist writes 'ideal' David Bowie Song - Odd News | newslite.tv

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:59:25 -0000

Even at his worst, Bowie would never write lyrics as awful and clunky as this.

Re: 8 Great AJAX Tutorials

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:36:24 -0000

where is ajax projects ??

www.ajaxprojects.com .. it has a very great ajax tutorial for beginners
http://www.ajaxprojects.com/ajax/tutorialdetail...

Re: Chem Sucks

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:06:01 -0000

I sorry chem sucks, but I love your poems.

Re: Din mening: Burka-forbud eller ej? - Debat

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:52:43 -0000

Lad os i stedet få et Nasser Khader og Lene Espersen forbud. Så kan det måske være, at der en progressiv fremtid for de konservative.

Re: Kristen Stewart and the “Retarded” Quote

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:30:00 -0000

should have chosen a different career you self righteous child. quit if you cant handle it.

Re: Kristen Stewart and the “Retarded” Quote

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:30:00 -0000

should have chosen a different career you self righteous child. quit if you cant handle it.

Re: 2006/08/22/meez-avatars-for-myspace-xanga-and-im/

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:13:36 -0000

ima beast on my meez so when you want to talk then i will win so bag off ima girl boo

Re: StopIranWar.com Intro

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:53:04 -0000