Bologna

Lets start with quotes from the "heavenly" Ha'diths and the "ocean of knowledge", Qu'ran.

(Al-Hadis, Vol. 3, p. 137) Abu Sayeed al-Khodri reported that Mohammed was talking to a group of women when he said, "... I see the majority of you will go to Hell." The women asked why, to which Mohammed responded, "You often curse and are ungrateful to your companions." He then told them they had a basic defect in their nature, to which they responded, "How?" Mohammed answered, "Is not the attestation (knowledge and witness) of a women only worth half of a man's? And that is on account of her short intelligence."


This quote really brings out Mohammed's "shining" views on women. He automatically condemns the majority of them to hell. According to him a woman's intellectual capacity is only half that of a man and that is why two women are required as witnesses as compared to one man.

He was so scared of women's intelligence that he said, "a man should not walk between two women"

2007-02-15 21:09:30 · 16 answers · asked by C J 6

In the essay, Minot obviates fear of declining of economy, but it can be true as students now a days gives less effort to studies and more to laborious work, which might results into low standard of living, skill gap or employment instability. Increasing in the number of high skilled immigrants substantiates that we haven’t got skilled people in all the areas of work. If this trend continues, it will give rise to poverty, discrimination and oppression, which eventually affect the economy of our country.

However, working is an “unavoidable” necessity for most of the students in the higher education today and this is unlikely to be change in future. I agree with Minot’s perception regarding out academic future and I hope that more students focus on their studies instead of working and possibly ruining their future career.

2007-02-14 00:13:21 · 6 answers · asked by inks p 1

The "service sector" is about 80% of the economy, by GDP, and it includes all white collar workers. Most of the growth of this sector in the last five and the last twenty five years has been in technology and healthcare with some growth in legal and accounting/finance, mostly as a byproduct of the growth in technology.

We're not replacing manufacturing jobs with burger-flipper jobs. On the contrary we're financing manufacturing jobs with white collar jobs - the very "good, high paying jobs" that everyone says they want created. The problem - for some - is that ex-blue-collar types aren't qualified for the white collar jobs. They're also not concentrated in the rust belt. As a result, SOME laid off factory workers settle for 'McJobs' - but that's not where the growth is.

The Left take data that shows the "service sector" growing and from that spin this baseless myth that that means "McJobs."

Are they that stupid or do they think their audience is that stupid?

2007-02-12 07:23:44 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19658 Consider the following propositions:

There is no truth, only competing agendas.
All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West's history of racism and colonialism.
There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable. [the origin of the left's anti-white Nazism]
Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal.
Poor criminals are entitled to what they take.
Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are vir....

2007-02-11 03:02:21 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Scientists have done numerous studies proving that homosexuality is genetic. How can people still believe that it is an illness? I guess they just enjoy living in the past.

2007-02-08 14:59:39 · 34 answers · asked by Hmmm... 3

2007-02-08 10:46:32 · 20 answers · asked by boardingace 4

2007-01-25 12:01:42 · 4 answers · asked by memphis77 1

I don't like people that drink but man it's hard to find girls that don't.

2007-01-20 16:25:09 · 26 answers · asked by Nick S 2

Find out the real Barrack Hussein Obama http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/articl... the monster behind the man

2007-01-20 00:45:51 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

why are all terrorist muslim? how can u say islam is a religion of peace when they beat women and cut off heads on web cams, and blow themselves up and kill women and children? where is the peace in that?

2007-01-18 18:01:50 · 14 answers · asked by james h 2

2007-01-18 08:16:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm not sure witch one. I know the main syptom is intellectual laziness and the inability to see reality and thier surroundings. If its an illness than it should be able to be cured. If its a deficiancy than its genetic and cannot be cured without gene therapy. What do you think.

2007-01-16 22:33:42 · 9 answers · asked by Tropical Weasel 3

convicted and sentenced to 11 and 12 year prison terms for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who had crossed our border illegally and physically assaulted one of the agents.

I'm upset confused somebody explain me why
our judicial system punish who was doing the job????

please Sign the petition in order to ask the president
to pardon these two agents

http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp

what is going on in this country???????????/

2007-01-12 19:06:30 · 6 answers · asked by Arizona A 2

I have sit and read daily how bad President Bush is...but ya know what....most will get picked by the draft when it rolls around and they gonna be so busy serving the country or runnin cuz they scared...... politics will be less important and they will see there's a fine line in the fine art of survival....Has anyone considered how seriously this attitude is bothering our soldiers our hero's

Our Country's security is at risk..they walked in here not once but twice and did their damage and seems all some think is we should ignore the families who hurt the most over it and pretend it didn't happen while bashing the President cuz some don't understand or really care.....

Do they really think if we bowed down to Hussien that.... Sept 11th wouldn't have happened? And if we don't stop or try to control now...hey they'll just invade us here and all these crybabies liberals who think they know whats best will be saying HOLY CRAP! Maybe there was something to all the hoohaaa over Iraq

2007-01-12 16:32:51 · 19 answers · asked by snickers 3

What makes them think that they can discriminate against someone carrying some wine from getting in a cab and getting somewhere? How is a bottle of wine so offensive?
In New Orleans and Cincinnati, what about the blind citizens of this country who have every right to take ANY cab they please to get them where they need to go?
These cab drivers won't allow dogs in their cabs either.
See links:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1762158/posts

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013158.php

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/538

2007-01-06 13:06:03 · 8 answers · asked by Tiberias 2

What do Lebanese think of this expression (originally in Arabic):

"First comes Saturday, later comes Sunday"

And what hidden meaning does it hold?

2007-01-03 02:53:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Communistic, anti-American ex-hippies and druggies have infiltrated and almost completely overrun our educational institutions, as detailed painstakingly by David Horowitz, John Stossel, Bill O'Rielly, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Sen. Tom Tancredo, Sen. Rick Santorum, Larry Elder, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Michael Graham, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Michael S. Adams, Michelle Malkin, and countless other articulate and fierce patriots who are determined to save our Republic from the clutches of Islamofriendly dhimmitude and outright socialist dystopian transgender thought-police.

America is the best thing that has happened to the world, period.

Do you see ANYONE fleeing America to seek a better life in, say, Botswana, or Canada, or Mauritania, or France, or Namibia, or Bhutan, or Russia, or Cuba, or anywhere?

No, people invariably flee other places to seek a better life HERE.

So why are liberals intent on bashing the United States, instead of defending her?

2007-01-02 03:06:02 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-29 10:45:28 · 6 answers · asked by Tropical Weasel 3

How can we have a real discussion about Mideast peace if speaking honestly about "Israel" is out of bounds?




Ever wonder what it's like to be a pariah?
Publish something sharply critical of "Israeli" government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.

This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth - whose father fled Nazi Germany - is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the "Israeli" offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by either side.

It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned Hizbullah rocket strikes on "Israel", calling the strikes "serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So far, so good. You can't lose when you criticize a (so-called) 'terrorist' organization.
But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death toll spiraled - with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians - Human Rights Watch also criticized "Israel" for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the "Israeli" military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants constitutes a war crime.

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to (so-called) 'terrorists' and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hizbullah and anti-'Israel' bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive 'Israel'-basher ... who, in his zest to pillory 'Israel' at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make "Israel" look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch - or with Roth - knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan - it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.
But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize "Israel" can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about "Israel", because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism.

Think "Israel's" tactics against Hizbullah were too heavy-handed, or that "Israel" hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for "Israel"? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite - and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.
How did adopting a reflexively pro-"Israel" stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism - a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma - has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in "Israel", where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.

In a climate in which good-faith criticism of "Israel" is automatically denounced as anti-Semitic, everyone loses. "Israeli" policies are a major source of discord in the Islamic world, and anger at "Israel" usually spills over into anger at the U.S., "Israel's" biggest backer.
With resentment of "Israeli" policies fueling terrorism and instability both in the Middle East and around the globe, it's past time for Americans to have a serious national debate about how to bring a just peace to the Middle East. But if criticism of "Israel" is out of bounds, that debate can't occur - and we'll all pay the price.


Back to Human Rights Watch's critics. Why waste time denouncing imaginary anti-Semitism when there's no shortage of the real thing? From politically motivated arrests of Jews in Iran to assaults on Jewish children in Ukraine, there's plenty of genuine anti-Semitism out there - and Human Rights Watch is usually taking the lead in condemning it. So if you're bothered by anti-Semitism - if you're bothered by ideologies that insist that some human lives have less value than others - you could do a whole lot worse than send a check to Human Rights Watch.

2006-12-25 09:30:26 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-12-07 14:07:32 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

It's for my speech, and I already googled and yahooed for all the links I can find. I was wondering if there was any current links that I missed for banning or replacing the S.A.T.'s.

2006-12-07 03:28:20 · 3 answers · asked by Sazziable 6

Why was Ham, curse for not covering his father when he found him drunk and slewed. And why is it that his entire legacy must be condenmed? Unless someone has been toying with history hmmmm!

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,

25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

2006-12-03 20:49:53 · 11 answers · asked by Pr Messu Ankh Ta Aten Anpu 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/nyregion/28shoot.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164776400&en=20a135cccb2bda67&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

2006-12-03 07:02:52 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

ok tomorrow i have an essay to do as a test writing a paragraph on Noah from the bible telling who he was what he did why he was important the chapter Genisis and i think where this took place can you please help anybody i need to know ASAP!

2006-11-29 12:01:55 · 2 answers · asked by gurl_balla14 2

First: Iraq under Saddam's regime trained and harbored terror fighters.
Second: He Gassed the Kurds. Granted In 1988. (America dropped two Atomic bomb in 1945. America did not stop making atomic/nuclear bombs.)
So, why would Saddam quit making Serin, Mustard Gas??

The Proof is out there. Let me show you. I am not asking anyone to agree. Just take a moment. Too look at what I believe are facts that the Media does not want us to know.
Saddam Terrorists Ties
http://www.nysun.com/article/3413
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060408-102504-6559r.htm
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8453
Saddam's WMD's:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22055
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21209

Granted, Everyone can cast doubt on the sources I selected as Left Wing/Right Wing Political Outcasts. But the question is:Why is this??

2006-11-29 05:31:44 · 5 answers · asked by devilduck74 3

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25616

All of you who voted democrat this election, is this what you wanted in a change of direction with regard to national security issues? Pelosi giving the most sensitive of sensitive national security posts to someone with a proven track record of being bribed by organized crime? How long before this person is selling our national security secrets to al queda? Wasn't corruption a reason you voted against the republicans? Here we have as an immediate consequence (it is only the tip of the iceburg) of extreme corruption putting all of our lives in incredible jeapardy because of how you voted. This and the democrats plans to reinstate the draft.

Is this what you wanted, when you voted democrat? Because you are going to have to live with that decision. We all are.

2006-11-22 03:33:23 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-21 11:10:02 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some time in the 1970's, America's Mental Health professionals removed it as a mental illness from their manuals (DSM), Was that politically motivated? because I disagree.

2006-11-02 12:05:44 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have a friend, he's a smart guy when it comes to most things, but he took me by surprise when he said illnesses of the mind are the work of demons. I believe he has the right to his beliefs, but I fear that mindset might hurt someone. What if a family member becomes psycotic, and he chooses not to give them proper meds?

2006-11-01 06:39:41 · 28 answers · asked by pinacoladasundae 3

There are 3 questions here asking the same exact question. Why are liberals trying to ban Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz?
Funny when you do a search a lot of Unholy Alliances come up but not one about banning it. I

2006-10-25 16:05:03 · 2 answers · asked by . 4