Try Samuel: Saul gets into trouble with God for not killing everyone.
Try Samuel: Saul gets into trouble with God for not killing everyone.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Oh, and actually calling for violence, here is PM Harry van Bommel, naturally a member of the socialist party, actually calling for violence.
Come of Frag last time you said he was calling for gassing the jews .
at least this time you actually got him saying something instead of a couple of other muppets shouting at the back of a crowd .
So tell me oh wise one what does intifada mean ?
No I didn't that are the people on the background cheering, he said he didn't hear it. Which is of course a lie it can easily be heard. Do bear in mind that Janmaat was succesfully prosecuted for exactly the same thing, people on the background. Why isn't van Bommel prosecuted for calling for violence? Some imam's call for violence. Aren't prosecuted. Wilders never called for violence. Yet Wilders is prosecuted. Double standard, activist judges screw the law we crave. It's fine really, Wilders absolutely annihilates lefties when they actually have to debate each and every time. People see that. Lefties may have the media and the law but Wilders got the point and this will gain him a lot of additional votes, nobody likes bullies. Goodbye Lenin.
Last edited by Fragony; 01-23-2009 at 09:06.
Some people in The Hague are going to have to come to grips with this freedom of opinion thingy and pass a better law, regardless of their view of mr Wilders.
The Amsterdam court ruling is ridiculous. It is not the court's duty to defend any particular political view on integration. Most ridiculous of all is the passage in the ruling where it says that 'parts of the Muslim creed are at odds with Dutch and European values'. Who the hell are these judges to pass a verdict on an entire religion?
Our blasphemy law (privileged protection from criticism for all religions) should be scrapped, our laws against incitement should be rewritten to focus on incitement to violence and scrap any allusion to incitement in the wider sense.
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
So long as the “lefty judges” (your term not mine) don’t ignore his words and lock him up, a good long time.
It is hard to say you are the rhetorical winner when you loose your liberty.
I do not see either side as being RIGHT.
They both are trying to limit the freedom and liberties of the other to one extent or the other.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right!
But I suppose you will get stupid solutions for stupid problems…
Appeasement will not stop militantisam and stifling free speech will not assure liberty or justice.
Glad I’m not Dutch!
Good luck Fragony…
Last edited by Fisherking; 01-23-2009 at 10:55. Reason: sp
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
Now that is a law I could support!
5 years in the slammer for hair like this seems more than appropriate to me.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
It really doesn't matter. Why?
Because the sane christians focus on "the good parts", ie. the parts that tell you to be nice, and not kill others. Just like the sane muslims focus on the parts that tell them to be kind, and ignore the violent stuff.
The nutters do the opposite though, in both religions.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Sig by Durango
-Oscar WildeNow that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Bookmarks