ptown_trojans_1;1799537 wrote:Good Lord, you are freaking assuming. You have no evidence to back up your insane claim. You are just talking out your ass as you usually do to fit your narrow point of view.

QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

Belly35;1799408 wrote:From my cold dead hand with the government take my weapons. I have my rights and earned the freedom to carry, and own weapons and continue to protect myself, family, others from criminals, terroist and a government.

QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

QuakerOats;1799535 wrote:Again you are completely off base. First, I did not label anyone, much less "every single person who follows a particular faith as an extremist". Second, I pointed out that the muslim mayor of London was banning advertising (that many/most westerners would not object to) obviously because of his religious beliefs. Many on here, including you, abhor a politician inflicting his religious views upon the governed, so it was worth mentioning.

Unfortunately you are so quick to pounce you completely miss the point, not to mention the facts. Amazing.

raiderbuck;1799528 wrote:His religious beliefs allow him to vote for same-sex marriages too?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/06/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-muslim/84016822/

And what "game" are you pertaining to?

QuakerOats;1799539 wrote:Please tell me, knowing what most know about muslims requiring women to be covered up, why it is "insane" to hypothesize that the mayor is banning certain advertising that includes scantily clad women because of his muslim beliefs. Frankly, to think otherwise, would be more than likely considered insane. But you are the expert and you know what everyone thinks.

majorspark;1799560 wrote:Quaker think of Kahn like Chuck Schumer, a Jew who is a flaming liberal who worships at the alter of big government not Jehovah. Kahn is doing this because he believes little girls need big government to intervene to care for their emotional well being. Body shaming is what feminists call it. He's ok with scantily clad women just need to be less attractive and have some healthy "curves". In other words big government determines what a "healthy" body looks like.

salto;1799547 wrote:Even if it was because of religious beliefs, so what? He was elected because in some parts of London almost half the population are now Islamic.

friendfromlowry;1799452 wrote:There are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent her from doing it.

QuakerOats;1799566 wrote:Oh my, you just trampled on the almighty belief held among all the libs on here; you can't govern based on your religious beliefs ---- wow, what kind of wing nut would try to do that; any such religious zealot should be run out of office and then jailed for such acts .............................. yada yada yada.

QuakerOats;1799566 wrote:Oh my, you just trampled on the almighty belief held among all the libs on here; you can't govern based on your religious beliefs ---- wow, what kind of wing nut would try to do that; any such religious zealot should be run out of office and then jailed for such acts .............................. yada yada yada.

like_that;1799577 wrote:WTF happened to this thread?

like_that;1799577 wrote:WTF happened to this thread?

CenterBHSFan;1799645 wrote:The shooters wife needs to be behind bars. Now. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Jail the bitch.

salto;1799668 wrote:I'm sure she's going away for a long time, if it's proven she knew he was an ISIS supporter and had premeditated plans of a mass killing.