Saudi prince beat servant to death in London hotel, court hears

and dont forget that it was mostly sick sadistic saudi's that crashed jets into the world trade center buildings

Gee thanks for the information

yeah, more info than i needed to know

Agreed....you have a valid point there

western femenists and liberals in genral defend islam because it mirrors christianity, unless you think christianity has a tolerant view of homosexuality.its just the flip side of the same hatefull coin.

freecrack, i find that statement quite extraordinary..Christianity and Islam are poles apart, Christians are KILLED in muslim countries,and are looked upon as the enemy as dictated by Quran, and Christians are not hanging gays or throwing them from heights as Muslims are directed to do...no, actually the liberal media HATE Christianity, and bag it at every opportunity, but hardly a murmmer passes their lips when Islam commits atrocities, because it puts their favored people group in a bad light.... These are the same liberal media that love to bash Israel about its "aggression" but fail to mention the aggression of the arab states

harvey milk is no less dead as a result of the wording in the ne testament.kill the fag, and thou shalt not lay with another man sadly result in the same human error when hate is tolerated.
the liberal media bash's christianity as a backlash from christianities inability to shut up.it is just that simple.despite judaism,cristianity,and islam being of the same abrahamic tradition, same monothiestic dictates, it is only christianity that gets the bashing.when a free nation such as ours (respectively) has hindus,buddists,siiks,athiests,agnostics,christians,jews,toaists,scientologists, and christianity is the only one getting flack does that not make you wonder what it is about christianity that earns it? i mean judaism is just the old testament version of a vengefull god, yet judaism isnt attacked as a faith.christianity is actualy in a better position as jesus is nothing but peace and love, yet his followers keep earning the wrath of the mass's.

what is it that christianity is doing differently in free societies should be the question you are asking when the liberal media attacks it.you can all defensive if you want about it, and point the finger at liberals and ignore what earns the distain, but wwjd?i remember something about cheek turning.

islam gets away with its atrocities cuz it isnt a matter of religion in reality.kareem abdul jabar isnt attacking gays, muhamed ali as a peacefull muslim refused to fight in vietnam.it isnt a matter of the quran that middle eastern countries vilate human rights, it is a matter of culture.as in germany doing the same once upon a rescent time.same as america's treatment of the native americans and blacks.same as australias treatment of aboriginals.

christianity will be worlds apart from islam, when it stops its impossition on humanity.as it is islam and christianity are in a race to impose thier view on others first.

First of all let me reply about Liberals bashing Christians( verbally that is) Liberals as we understand the majority of them are anti-establishment,left wing,secular, mostly atheist and as such reject all religions as valid, and because Americas government and justice systems being Judeo-Christian in origin have historically referred to God, Creator and such in their Constitution and many other documents, these same liberals have sought to wipe out all references to a God, and over many decades have pushed successfully for the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses , government buildings and schools.. That, sir, is the reason Liberals are so hostile to Christianity in general..America considers itself a Christian country... Liberalism is also hostile to the 78% of Americans who claim Christianity as their faith..And could you please give me the quote from the New testament that says( I quote you) "kill the fag" I can tell you that you won't find any such wording.. Thanks.

liberals as you understand them are not anti-establishment alone.have ya seen the tea partybeing anti-establishment is across the board and not exclusive to one side or party.the idea that liberals are mostly athiests is not only irrelevant, but untrue.by defacto statistics the majority of liberals are christian.the majority of any any group is christian.you gotta ease up on your right wing material, or mix in some left stuff to, cuz you are really seperating from deductive reasoning.

just as the right have a crazy minority of radical christians, the left has its athiests.liberalism is no more shilling for athiesm than conservatism is for the god hates fags folks.not one piece of legeslation has been presented in this effort that has gained any traction.the idea of taking god off the dollar bill or some such nonesense is political hackery at best.according to the right wing bullshit machine these "secular progressives" have been at it so long they trot out black and white video, showing you its origins to highlight how it is growing.yet despite it being that way for so long, literaly nothing has actualy come of it, but that part they conveniently leave out, cuz then you wouldnt know to hate the left if you love god.im sure you enjoy bill oriely's war on christmas, and dont worry you will get to enjoy it every year as it isnt goin any where as no one is trying.literaly this "war" doesnt even have a declaration, no bills,no amendments,no earmarks,no political ads,no movement what so ever.

the removal of the ten commandments was backed up as we are a nation guided by tose principals regardless of what religion you may be.its called tolerance.christianity won,they are the value system upon wich our laws are built, really no need to rub it in, or fight for that recognition.aside from the fact that it is literaly sacraligious to put gods law where we practice our law.how do you think god is gunna like us writing our own codes of conduct, and tagging his name to it too.

in your mind really liberals only make up 22%? you think the other 39 % of people who got obama in the white house were moderates or conservatives?how can liberalism be doing all these horrible things if they are only 22 percent, and we are a majority rules nation?wouldnt 78 percent of the population not stand for it, as opposed to the slim minority who demand prayer in school?you are being lied to by some one majorly.

at the end of the day, it actualy comes back to my original premise.prayer has been removed from school not to punish the christians, but to save the non christians.it isnt so much about the kids who want to pray, but what happens to the kids who dont.and that horrible behavior is doled out by the very proud,religious,moraly upright,non violent christians.the christians who have no call to violence in thier holy book, are the ones who ostrasize the different kid, the 78% majority.by the way do ya really need an alotted time to pray in school? does your god really require you take a special pose in order for him to recieve your prayers? cuz i dont recall that part of the bible, so prayer in school is actualy a non issue.

far less dangerous is a religion that calls for violence against a race, than one that creates a means by wich it can be transfered to whom ever is the flavor of the day.it would have been great, really great of the kkk hadnt been killing jews along with blacks,really it would.but the truth is it was the symbol of christianity ablaze that was used brutaly, not a crescent moon.when a muslim comes to a temple, we know to keep an eye out.it would be nice if christianity could at least extend that much.its really neat how you cater to desperate black communities for congragents and votes, but it would have been much better if you hadnt violated thier human rights first.

First off, we all know the Democrats would not have won the election if not for Obama, who appealed to both Dems and repubs,and most were sick of Bush and wanted a change .also many whites looked at Obama as someone who would bridge the old sins of the past and heal old wounds harking back to Americas slave past...Obama won because of the white vote of many usually staunch Republicans,who were fed up with Bushs policies.. I would venture to say the majority of Americans were euphoric when Obama became POTUS..As for how laws are changed, it doesn't take a majority to set a precedent in Law, but most Laws are challenged by minorities applying through organizations like the ACLU, and it is decided by the Judiciary, nort by public vote or majority opinion.. This is also how minorities change Laws here in Australia, Prayer in School etc, I happen to agree with you, its a non issue, but can be used as an example of how minorities push to change laws..the minority in this case was an atheist if my memory serves me correctly.... Can I just say that I think you apply a double standard condemning Christianity en masse for the KKK and its burning emblem of the Cross, for which there is NO justification in Christian writings, but you don't apply the same condemnation en masse to Islam for its persecution of Jews, Christians and Non Muslims, which you seem to infer is cultural and nothing to do with its teachings...that to me is applying a double standard

Also I think you need to remember from where the abolition of slavery first came from...Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who fought to free slaves, and it behoves Democrats to remember WHY Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican!! it was the Democrats who vilified King and fought against civil liberties and equality for African Americans, in fact serving in the Democratic Party today are the sons of those violent racists who fought against freedom for blacks, One was a Grand Wizard of the KKK...

you really arent living in reality.
im not trying to be mean, but you ought to know.you can choose to believe what ever you like, but you cant expect everyone else to play along with your fantasy.obama was elected president because bush was the worst president we ever had, so much so even nixon left the white house with more supporters than w.mccain ran on a platform of "more of the same" wich we as a nation werent happy with.a broom handle could have won the election if it was a democrat broom handle.

if you think america was in a state of euphoria after obama won, you sure missed alot of goings on.the accuation that he wasnt president based on technicalities like the bible he swore the oath on didnt count, or some birth certificatebullshit all the way to the tea party who are still at it.watch the episode of south park relating to obama winning if you want to see a balanced view of our response to obamas winning.the notion that whitey elected the black guy to absolve slavery guilt is just so far beyond retarded, im not even gunna play along with that one.

our laws are created by majority rule.you can read what ever you would like on the matter, and listen to what ever bullshit you care to assault your ears with, but at the end of the day our laws are a result of concensus.so much so our laws vary from state to state in accordance with the majorities of those states.try getting a beer in utah for instance.

if you are offended at my characterization of christianity, good.now you have an inkling of what it is like to be a jew or a muslim.is christianity more evil than islam, no.but islam is no more evil than christianity.it doesnt matter if your book says love, or hate, it is what you do with it.never noticed the ten commandments arent so much concerned with what you think, as what you do? even the idol worship is about the act, not the idea or words, just the act of worshiping another god above him.christianity has just as much,if not more blood on its hands as islam making it no better or worse.the kkk no more represents the teachings of christianity than al-queda represents the teachings of islam.to suppose otherwise is an uneaqual bias evaluation.religiously we all hav blood on our hands, no one is more dangerous than the other, as history and present day prove.

when you insult islam, you insult the very tradition by wich you live, that of abraham.value a man on his actions. not what you think he will do, but what he actualy does.otherwise it is just plain prejudice.

I never said that Bush was not the worst president, I agree that even a drovers dog could have won the election from the Bush Administration, but to deny that the majority of Americans were over the moon about Obama winning Presidency is to say that the majority didn't vote him in, and they did, so that point is moot..To quote anything from South Park and call it a balanced view is a bit of a stretch, seeing as they push all views to the limit to the point of absurdity...they are a comedy show and thats their function, so no, I won't be forming my opinions upon their world view...As for me being offended by your characterization of Christianity, no , I'm not...you're entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine...and yes, i judge Islam by its actions,, good point...

yes the majority of americans elected obama, but the majority werent really all that passionate about it.you state america was in a euphoric state, not the majority that voted for him.being as it was a fairly close race, it was pretty close in mood.for every enthused democrat was a scared shittless republican.
if you cant see the genius in south parks ability to present the depth of humor they bring, i really feel for ya.you are missing out on some really great social analysis.the only balance in the south park episode was that both sides of that race had a bunch of over the top nuts, happy and angry alike.in fact that was the moral of that episode how retarded that behavior was, hence its value in depicting our state of affairs at that time.if they had created that episode and the republicans werent being psycho bitch's about it, it wouldnt have been funny just wierd and incomprehensable.a big bowl of wtf, wich it was not.it was very well recieved.

no you judge islam by a few peoples actions.let me know when you have successfully evaluted the other billion muslims you have never met.id be delighted to see just how evil islam is when the entire field is open for evaluation.

can i do the same and be conidred reasonable? can i look to the westbourough baptist(god hates fags people) church as representative of christianity?is that how reasonable perspective is reached, all of christianity is evil cuz they are pedicated on hate?

Wikipedia is well known as a source that is not reliable, so i suggest a more indepth study from other sources, lots of them, on the history of African Americans, from slavery to the present day.. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but histry never changes, its all there if you want to dig for details.. Historically Democrats have been the Party who have fought to keep blacks in slavery, passed Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws, started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch/terrorize Blacks. Democrats fought passage of every Civil Rights law, beginning with Civil Rights laws of the 1860's continuing with Civil Rights Laws of the 1950's and 1960's. In the 1960's during the Civil Rights era, Dr Martin Luther King Jnr was fighting Democrats who stood as one to block school house doors, turned skin burning fire hoses on Blacks and let loose savage dogs. . This was under the Presidency of John F Kennedy, who actually voted AGAINST the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a Senator, as did Democrat Al Gore Senior..After Kennedy became President. he opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King, a march organized by Black Republican A. Phillip Randolph. In March 1968 Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, former member of the Ku Klux Klan, referred to King as "a troublemaker who starts trouble and runs like a coward after trouble is ignited"( referring to the Memphis riots) A few weeks later when King returned to Memphis he was assassinated on April 4 1968... Once you check political facts you will find HISTORICALLY that Republicans are the party that pushed for Civil Rights .. Republican President Eisenhower pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Us Supreme Court, resulting in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation( not voted for by majority Americans btw) Eisenhower also took action to end segregation in the military.. Republicans also founded the Historically Black Colleges, and Universities. Republican Senator Everett Dirkson from Illinois was key to passage of the Civil Rights legislation of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965.. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have acheived passage of Civil Rights leislation without support of Republicans. In 1970's President Nixon launched his "Southern Strategy " , an effort by Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats, who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who just happened to be black.. Blacks have historically voted Democrats since King Snr. switched his vote to support Dems in a guesture of appreciation , after his son Dr King Jnr, incarcerated by Democratic President Kennedy, appealed for his sons release, to Robert Kennedy, who intervened on his behalf. In gratitude King Snr voted Democrats thereafter, and supported Carter in the 1976 elections.. Dr Martin Luther King was a staunch Republican and remained so until his assassination... I suggest you get your facts from the people who lived through those times,the National Black Republican Association, and other historic sources.. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as most entries are posted by the public and are not sourced, just opinion.. BTW, I am very interested in Black American History as my husband is African American..hence my interest in America also..

hey im with ya, wikipedia is not a valid source of anything, but this is so basic even they havent fucked it up.i dont care about the depth of the info, just the slant.research from as many sources as you can, cuz what ever you are working off of right now is severly lacking from broad perspectives.

the fact that al gore senior needs to be envoked just shows how rediculously pointed your material must be.aside from martin luther kings house cat, no figure could really be less important or representative of anything than al gore senior.do me a favor, prove me wrong.go into the public lexicon of the internet, and find me that footage of al gore senior mattering to anyone.really please validate how that piece f information is germain, and not a means of stylized branding for political purposes.are you being paid by the repubs, cuz you are toting thier party line like it is a life line.

you have taken random bits of information out of context to create a picture, much like fox does.give you a chalk board and it is right from glenn beck.(tell me you think he is legit).remember the republicans are all about individual freedoms and less government, but forget that it wasnt nixon who got civil rights done.remember king was a republican, but dont notice his complaints that the republicans wont come out on behalf of african americans in his opinion as much as the democrats had.just keep that left eye closed.

just for your information, the majority of information i have comes from first hand accounts.not that im that old, but the generation that preceeded me.like my parents and family as well as thier friends.people i have worked with, from both sides of the intergration arguement.i live in the south so it is unavoidable

Over 16,000 attacks by islamists world wide since 9/11, this is counting attacks on minorities in muslim countries worldwide, attacks on individuals for religious reasons, not domestic violence such as honour killing or crimes of passion, only those attacks that have been claimed for religious reasons such as the Mumbai bombing, Bali, Madrid, etc and those reported through Human Rights organizations, persecution of minorities, etc, not those killed in wars either... this is just the normal activity of jihadists doing their thing...can you point to any other religion systematically killing and persecuting those of other faiths? forget about the nutters in one baptist radical church....I'm talking about actual DEATHS in the thousands committed in the name of a religion.

out of curiousity if the republicans are so not racist, and so pro african american, why is it that the only state that still has segragation institutionalized in it is a completely republican state.i mean why with an overwhelming republican majority does segregation still exist?

LOL..No, i'm not being paid by republicans but history records what actually happened, and if history shows Republicans voted for the majority of Civil Rights before Democrats found it politically expedient , thats just history... historical facts can't be taken out of context because actual history as in LEGISLATION on the Public records is FACT therefore it is TRUTH!!! As for facts about Dems like Gore and Kennedy, well I guess they don't matter now but they sure did then, when the Civil Rights of African Americans were being fought for..and that is what we have been discussing...the foundation of the Civil Rights movement and which Party supported it....

over 16,000 attacks carried out by people of wich how many gave thier reasons? every ied attack for mohamed, or maybe just cuz they want the western assholes who have been bombing them to go home? im so lad you brought up mumbia,cuz the one terrorist who survived told his story right after he was captured.he wasnt inspired by islam to just up and one day pick up a gun and go on jihad.he was sold by his peasant family (of wich muslim world has no shortage of) to terrorists who exploited his faith to make him a warrior.hmmmm sounds really familiar, ah yes the crusades.ya know that time (a few actualy) men where sent to kill non christians in the name of god.christian men who had thier faith, just like terrorists of today, exploited in order to validate killing.

yeah i can think of one religion in particular that has a repeated habit of systematicaly killing those who are not of thier faith.christianity.christiantiy is 2000 years old, and has spent the majority of it slaying non christians.a few hundred years of pagans here, and few hundred years of crusades there, and 400 years of torturing people into christianity.so if islam follows the christian method we have that to look forward to.thanks for righting that playbook by the way.yeah we suck for creating the whole prophecy shit to begin with, but damn you guys stepped in it.hell so much so that even after the supposed enlightenment the kkk were still at it.no other religion, just christianity.when no one else was around you killed each other.unless you think witch burnings werent christian but pagan.

yes thier are jihadists who will kill for allah, and thier are christians sharpening thier blades in uganda as we speak to kill gays.yes some idiot from the middle east will be convinced he must avenge how he has been victimized by us, just as the holocaust shooter shot up the holocaust museum cuz the jews own everything.

i dont know when christianity thinks it got a do over, and its previous missdeeds in gods name no longer count as indicitive of the religious effect on the mass's.the same new testament, same god,same jesus,same everything resulted in peace now as much as war before.islams teaching has resulted in peace aswell as war, and im sure judaism has the same pre roman history.

ok... so youre a Christian hater and no other religion is as evil,degraded, or hatefilled as Christianity and you have all those verses from the Christians New Testament writings to prove it ....fire away.....I will hate Christianity too if you can show me verses equal to verses from Quran that bid muslims execute Gods judgement upon jews christians and non believers..

im saying if they mattered then, just as i provided video of speech's given by others who mattered then, you could provide me gores.i mean nixon mattered,king mattered,hoover mattered, enough to warrent taking a record of wht they had to offer, so if gore matters enough to be mentioned im just asking you to show me.show me that in some world al gre seniors feelings on the issue mattered enough for anyone to care at a substative level.

you want to see the fact game from the other side.here ya go
facts:
the south is overhwelmingly republican, at the most resistant to intergration.
it was in arkansas that the national guard needed to be called in for black students to attend a white school.not new york,or chicago, but arkansas.
the kkk flourished in republican state more so than democrat states.
the gravest elements of the civil rights movement all occured in the republican south.allright ill give you the watts riots, but the brutality of the south really trumped it both in level of sadism as well as in frequency.

but ultimately why if johnson was a democrat, did he have to force the civil rights act.if the republians are so not racist, so pro-intergration wouldnt it not have been an issue.if the democrats of our country are for intergration, and the republicans are for intergration then why all the mess at the time? why doesnt history show not only the democrat president making it happen, but both parties not fighting?

you dont think it is a tad odd that right after obama becomes the first black president, that micheal steele becomes appointed the first blackrnc chair.i mean the guy is grossly unqualified, and palin was scorching hot at the time.it dosnt smack of uncle tom house n@#%er racism to you?just a really wierd coincidence?

not at all.my wife is catholic.i find fault and see imperfections in all three religions, and all human beings regardless of religion.if anything i have the biggest bone to pick with judaism as it is the source of it all, as well as the religion i am most aquainted with.

my whole point, yet again is the writings have nothing to do with it.religion is a spiritual tool, and every tool can be a weapon if held right.despite the new testament not having explicit writings declaring violence upon others, it still ends up that way.words are just words.alone they cant do anything, but as we use them they become dangerous.you can obsess over the parts of the quran that call for killing of jews and christians, and overlook the parts that demand exemption from violence for us.i mean that is how jihadist view it too, so you are in real good company viewing scripture in this manor.it kind of explains how christianity despite not having a call to spill blood, repeatedly does.

while we are at it, lets classify anyone who reads the quran as a threat, as well as mien kampf, the anarchist cookbook too.ya know what lets just view every person who reads anything about chemistry a danger to us good people.

just words.it doesnt matter what those words are if you have love in your heart.despite middle eastern culture going ape shit on jews in 47, muslims followed thier hearts and helped save jews.despite christian standards validating slavery, white christians were abolitionists.enough so to fight a civil war for it.doesnt really matter what the book says in the end compared to what we do.

LOL. must have hit the wrong button, don't know how the monkey hurricane forecast got posted...geeez

Thanks for your thoughtful opinion, I guess we can agree to differ though... if I thought words did not matter then I would not consider the words of Jesus teachings relevant, but they are to me, and seeing as how humans are the only species where words are powerful enough to have consequences, I believe they do matter, especially where they call for violence......

how can you both prove my points, and claim them to be wrong.maybe im not expressing them clearly enough i guess.my contention is that al gore senior in reality doesnt matter when talking about the civil rights movement, unless one is trying to make a strained relationship between the fathers political views and his sons.
civil rights wasnt hampered, or helped by him.his role in the civil rights movement is beyond minimal, as well as any number of other senators or congressmen.envoking his name in this subject matter is more about attacking the left, then anything else.

"the only reason Al Gore Senior is relevant to this discussion is because he was a racist and a bigot who fought a 1964 Civil Rights Bill , and his son Al Gore Jnr, a Democrat also, has lied in an attempt to whitewash his fathers past which would adversely affect him, and the Democrats politically" is your defense, but it is the example of my premise.it is political mudslinging more than relevant to anything that happened.if we were talking about the gores, it would be a great example.if we were talking about how different one generation could be from the previous it would be super incitefull, but in the civil rights discussion it is beyond insignificant a point.

you still claim the republicans are the party that were for civil rights, while to then and to this very day now, it is them who are being dragged kicking and screaming forward.
it wasnt the democrat states who gave us the kkk, but republican ones.
it wasnt in democrat states that refused to allow intergration, but republican ones.
the only state to this day that still has any remanents of segregation is mississippi, a staunchly republican state.
segregation now, and segregation tomorrow was the official policy of the republican party, when they finaly bothered to even acknowledge it.

as it is right now you can go to stormfront.org wich is a white supremecy website (not characterization on my part, but how they refer to themselves) and on thier holocaust arguements page is a banner advertisement for david duke speech's.david duke, a republican representative, endorsed by the republican party while also being aligned with the kkk.this isnt even history, but as we speak.

im sorry you think reverse racism exists, you are really confused as to what racism means.reverse racism would mean not racist actualy.a black guy valuing black people over white people is just racism, not a reverse of any sort.racism isnt an exclusive white behavior.i think what you are going for with obama is nepotism, cuz he doesnt have any racial criteria for appointments.in fact he has a massively white staff, and appointed mostly white people to positions.shit his supreme court picks were two woman, one white jew, the other a spanish chick.

just for clarification, texas doesnt count as the south.proud texans will argue i know.when we are refering to the south we are refering to the southern colony states like alabama,georgia,arkansas,mississippi,tennesse, and such.florida ironicaly isnt considered the south so much despite being more southern literaly.

one think i just picked up and noticed is i think to you it seems like in your perspective the republican party has some bad redneck elements, but like any groups radicals doesnt represent the whole.im sorry to dissapoint you, but that isnt the case.sure thier are tons of non redneck conservatives who vote republican, but the hillbilly redneck cultures are the ones that as states keep the republicans going.it is thier base.
just as the left when appealing to its base they run to new york and placate the unions, republicans go to the south and do the same to the bible thumping rednecks.it isnt a pretty catagorization, but it is what it is.despite california being a republican state,generation after generation, the right doesnt pander to them.it is the redneck south.
i was raised on new york, and have been living in fla (the south-lite) and it is just how it is.they love thier republicans to a fault.

you miss that unlike when religion has its radical few, in our (and im guessing yours) electoral system it doesnt work that way.when a klansman is elected to office it means that region that elected him/her are ok with the klan.when they vote for a racist bastard, that means as a collective they are racist bastards.unlike religion wich isnt a matter of representing the people, but the people representing the faith, our politicians do represent the culture from wich they came as a matter of function.

it isnt small pockets of nimble minded republicans sullying conservatism's good name.it is representative of that party.not entirely, but to a majority degree.

i hope no one ever harms you, without writing down that they had done so before hand if that is the only criteria that matters when issuing judgement

Points taken...also as you say, it wasn't the democrat states who gave America the KKK but let me add that historically it was the Democrats IN the republican states who formed the KKK in an effort to terrorize blacks...As for mississipi what laws of segregation are still in place? I doubt very much that that is still the case, if it is why arent the Democrats who have the numbers in both houses, vote to change the Laws there? what are these laws of segregation? can you refer me to a site? your statement that segregation was the official policy of the Republican party is absolutely not true, it was the Democrats who fought desegregation as I just quoted you the facts of in my previous post

I agree with your reply..well put...I will look up about David Duke

fuck laws when it comes to racism, as it isnt beholden to them.the democrats as u claim that resided in the south, who created the kkk in is rediculous.the kkk reached from politicians all the way down to local cops.how do you imagine these were republican states with a democratic majority.the party who wield the power in state, are represet through elected leaders.we know how powerfull the kkk was, and how far its reach was.the first movie ever shown in the white house was the kkk's birth of a nation.how would a democrat group with such reach and power not be able to get elected the office?especially in the south where segregation by the mass's was especialy prolific.not the government, but the citizenry were beyond abusive and still viewed the black man as less than human.if the democrats where the racist party, wouldnt it be the democratic south, not the opposite?
no laws exist, yet mississippi is the only state shameless enough to still employ it.no other state in the union would allow functions to be knowingly segregated, while mississippi turns a blind eye to it being practiced.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKhKj6R5OBY&feature=related.im sorry i missed stated it as i just saw georgia does this too.

i dont care what dates and stats you want to throw about it, and im sure the democrats have a wicked history with racism, as if not lincoln couldnt have created the emancipation proclimation.but the civil rights movement was a century later, and completely different.historical accounts unanymously have black people fleeing from republican states (south) to democrat states (north).yet again except for california, odd to the bitter end they are.the klu klux klan had only been able to successfully supercede the law under republican governance, not democratic governance.the republicans turned a blind eye to it.the kkk being made up of the citizenry, and that citizenry being the people who vote for republican representatives damn near exclusively, it was the very base of the republican party that made up the force of the kkk.it was in republican states that the freedom writers had to travel to, as that was ground zero for combat in that conflict.it wasnt in new york, or new hampshire that blacks and jews were being killed in secret.it was in the southern states, who were openly proudly racist, and the republicans are who they elected to represent them.it isnt really difficult to understand this as many of those same people are still voting republican to this day.those states are still republican.they are still the most actively racist element of our country, and still voting republican.it wasnt northern schools the national guard was sent to because intergration was refused by the local government.it was the republican governments that refused to accept civil rights for blacks.
plain and simple

In the past, you guys down there were all shackle draggers.

arabism? really?
are we white-ism?

the problem isn't islam, it's privilege. To the royal families of the world preaching morality to the public while indulging in depravity is natural.

I do not agree with the Islamic definition of morality, nor their preaching of it to the world. If their definition of morality requires that women walk around in the equivalent of a pup tent, or with their faces hidden behind ridiculous veils, while only men are allowed to fully participate as free human beings in society, then I categorically reject their entire system of belief, and that's all it is, a system of belief, that far too often brutalizes women, children, and anyone who doesn't fit their hyper-masculine definition of what it means to be devout.

"The Kite Runner" is an excellent expose of this practice, and unfortunately, said practice is rife, even today, in Afghanistan. Their attitudes towards women and sexuality are completely barbaric and they try to compensate for the sexual desires they attempt to repress, by sexually exploiting young boys, and we won't even talk about the 7 year old girls married off to old men. No one is safe in a society that cannot come to terms with the fact that human sexuality is a good thing, and the female body was made to be admired.

isnt that the same though of all religion?

You have a point there....Sounds like every other culture/religious views on human sexuality(let alone homosexuality).....still unconsciously living in the last millenium

In my opinion, this is not a beneficial contribution to the discussion. Burning the Quran is going to do nothing but further enrage people who already seem to believe that the world has and is going to give them license to rage. It is time for the governments of the free world to stand up to Islamic rage and make it clear to them that their religious beliefs are NOT going to be tolerated or pandered to in free societies. My tolerance for other systems of belief does not go far enough to tolerate their right to abuse or restrict the rights of another human being, and that includes a rejection of Saudi Arabia, their sharia law, their spoiled princes and their oil.

i dont think burning the quran really enrages anyone.those who want our heads on pikes do so regardless of what we do, and the rest are just as busy with thier day as we are with ours.how much does bible or torah burning matter to us, really?

I tend to agree with you that the Burn Koran video is possibly not beneficial to the discussion, but I guess its no worse than "The Pissed Christ" a piece of "artwork " that offended the sensibilities of Christians , who unlike the perpetually enraged muslims, did not go on a rioting rampage, and there was crickets from the media, unlike the furore over Quran burning......."The Pissed Christ" was a photo in an art exhibition of a crucifix with Christ fully submerged in a jar of urine... this video seems to be on a par.. its called "freedom of expression " even if that expression offends someone..thats the great thing about our western society, not something that muslims are used to

voted up

I'm not here to defend Islam. I agree a lot with what you're saying, but this piece of shit is not a religious leader. He's a part of a privileged family that I loath. The Saudi Royal Family is actually condemned by most of the Muslim world in the middle east because of their close ties to Israel and the U.S. They actually allowed to U.S. to set bases up in Arabia during both Desert Storm and the Iraqi war. The Muslim world seldom supports the Royal Saudi family.

Close ties to Israel? LMAO. When did you land on earth? Israelis can't even enter Saudi Arabia.

It is the hyper-masculinity associated with the Muslim faith that angers me the most, and seems to produce this type of behavior towards women, children, and the weakest members of their society. The prince, not unlike several high-ranking priests, does not represent the whole, but the fact remains that there is something stinking wrong with both of these systems of belief when they produce an inordinate amount of this type of behavior. Point taken though.

This was death by MMM.....Muslim Male with Money

by local middle eastern standards, not real human ones.
ya see the saudis ban jews, as the other nations invite them in to be killed.

you're quite a smart ass. Got any friends?

I know he has at least one.

She?

That's what I heard too.

No they're not they are friends with our goverment. So long as we are buying their oil.

he was for eight years.

we were the ones being beaten on, like female dogs, by bush and "his people".

you know what they call female dogs Baily?

Um yea biaaatch

(excuse me) Alleged sicko.

Oh! You had it right the first time.

I know brother, just a little ''cya''.

defend yourself MAN! smdh

Fucking spoiled pussy bitch, probably makes him feel good to beat up on the poor guy.
And his servant can't defend himself because he'll probably get his hand cut off.

Castrate this disgrace to humanity.

Make him drink a glass of pigs blood in public. Then the "religious Police" will execute his sorry ass.

Yeah, that'll work. Or force feed him bacon til he can't breathe, then set them loose on him.

Your right dude. He would probably have gotten both hands chopped off for defending himself.

There's nothing funny about this story, but I read your comment again this morning, and I could help but to snicker.

Defend yourself MAN !!

YOU ARE HILARIOUS..

the motivated dropout .....What a name.

Its definitely no laughing matter I really hated to see this but those were my thoughts he may have thought if he took it then it would be ok we see that is not true and this lesson applies on a grander scale we can say that we are being mistreated but we are still alive, failing to realize, You are a human being and your life has value and if they can cause you any harm then they don't value your life so is it far fetched to believe they will not kill you or destroy what you need to survive. I believe my life is at risk and I live my life accordingly. Common sense is self defense.

do you really think that guy gives a shit about eating pork? someone that does what he did? I don't think so...