Extremist Religious Newspaper Edits Hillary Clinton out of Picture!

Ok, I'll say it.

I bet this thread would look very different if this was an Islamic publication.

On the other hand, I'm actually glad there aren't people over-reacting to this story as if it's a huge deal.

 

The only good thing about this is that if they think that picture is sexually charged, they are doing something wrong and will probably not reproduce that much, and we will not have their offspring make stupid comments.

My only other comment is that some people are just pathetic.

 

I'm against sexism, but anytime I don't have to look at Hilary's ass ugly face, I'm happy.

 

First time I have. I just wish she'd quit pu$$yfooting around and show some kitty

 

excellent observation

 

So how would it look different, according to you?

Are you trying to play the hypothetical self-victimization card again?

The only way it would look different is that probably some people would have called me a Nazi for calling this silly.

 

Come on, admit it. You would have a lot more to say than "LOL that's so silly".

 

Maybe in your mind.

What else is there to say about this?

 

fixed.

 

I guess nothing from you. Just wish you were against extremism as much as you are against Islam.

 

Either it's silly or it isn't.

When these Hasidic or whatever they are called people start stoning people, forcing people into mobile jails, bombing subway trains in London and Madrid, flying planes into buildings, killing people because of cartoons, sentencing people to death because they supposedly said something bad about whatever they think is holy...then I'll start being more concerned about them.

All that is extremism, though, and not Islam. I am against extremism of any kind, not against Islam per se.

Editing a woman out of a picture is what I said it is, it is silly. It is not anywhere near the acts of extremism I described above, though. So "silly" is exactly the right word to describe this.

[As a sidenote, the idea of anything being "sexually charged" in connection to a photo of Hillary Clinton is so silly, it's almost..."extremistly" silly .]

 

I love how you are so knowledgeable and specific when it comes to picking out non-Muslim bigots/terrorists. You specifically refer to Hasidics, a group which doesn't have more than a couple of million followers, if even that.

When it comes to Islam, you can't narrow down beyond "Islam/Muslim", a group of 1 billion people, with many well known sects, and many well known branches, each with millions of followers.

You're able to isolate the problem in Judaism, but not in Islam, even though Judaism is far smaller in numbers and diversity.

On top of that, you're in total denial that Jewish terrorism was strong pre-israel, continues today on a smaller scale (settlers) and extremist Jews have rules for their women almost identical to those in Islam. I would even venture to say there is a higher proportion of extremist Jews than there is of extremist Muslims. Settlers alone make up around 4% of Jews in the world or 8% of Jews in Israel. That's 1 out of every 12 or 13 Israeli Jews. How many houses, businesses, farms do these settlers have to burn down for you to consider them terrorists?

Don't bother bringing out your bookmarked polls about Muslim opinion, there are just as many I can bring out from extremist Jews. You won't go anywhere with it. Plus we all know that polls are highly controlled/monitored by the government in Muslim-dominant countries.

More importantly, we all know there are more terrorists who claim to be of the Muslim faith. That's not in dispute. That's not what I'm highlighting. I'm highlighting your selective attention to detail. 1 billion Muslims and 17 million Jews. Do you realize 17 million Muslims would only constitute 1.7% of Muslims? Do you think that it is fair to compare terrorist activity by disregarding proportional numbers, disregarding sects/branches for one side but not the other, and limiting the time frame to 20 years? That's like me saying "Do you know there are WAY more moderate Muslims in the world than moderate Jews?" It's idiotic.

What's more silly than the newspaper is your little act, claiming that your tone wouldn't change for Islam. What happened to the ATW who was dying to get rid of Burqas in France because of what they symbolize? Doesn't editing Hillary out of this picture symbolize something very similar but on a slightly smaller scale in you opinion? Leaving women out of media based on religious beliefs is just "silly" to you?

What happened to your ability to gracefully jump to conclusions? Remember when you were hinting on and on about problems associated with the behavior of wearing a burqa? What about behavior associated with censoring women out of media? Doesn't that sound a lot like the countries whose values you viciously attack on a daily basis? I don't recall you calling them silly.

Do you really think anyone here believes that you are dead set against burqas regardless of whether some women CHOOSE to wear... while at the same time you think this is silly? What are your principles? Are you pro treating women with dignity/respect or against?

We all know your response, no need for it. A personal attack, a picture, or whining about how you can't process this many words at one time. Bleh.

I just want to make clear that I also think this is silly. But the thing I'm trying to highlight is your radically inconsistent and selective reaction to issues regarding culture/religion.

 

Really strong point on how he says Islam for all these actions that don't apply to all muslims, yet specifies for this group when the differences in numbers are parallel

 

Your whole post was total crap and had absolutely nothing to do with the silly act of this newspaper editing Hillary Clinton out of a picture.

 

1) Where did I "say Islam for all these actions"?
2) I referred to what vlaurelio posted on the first page (that it is a Hasidic paper based in Brooklyn). I did not specify it, it was already specified on the first page.

 

You always refer to Muslims or a religion that promotes this and that for actions of very specific groups and sects within the religion. You use the term islamists(which the media uses as well, doesn't make it right). Majority of the time you don't call it extremists and say they are the parts in islam that is wrong, you usually just talk about the religion that motivates them and blame the religion which puts us all under one light bc we all follow that religion but get something different from it.
Yet in this case, there is a religion, judaiasm that has many sects, and one that has been bought out is this one and there are otehr ones where women have to cover themselves etc, but you specifically point it out that its just a sect and don't call the religion itself backward and paint a broad stroke where you do with islam. Just the mentality, approach, logic is inconsistent

 

What is incorrect about using that term? Is that not what they consider themselves? Especially pious followers of Islam? What do you want me to call them? Chelsea supporters?

This is incorrect. You must have imagined it.

First of all, again, they edited someone out of a photo. If you expect the same reaction from me to that as to putting people into mobile jails, beheading people, flying planes into building full of people, bombing subway trains, killing people for supposedly offending some prophet - then you are delusional.

Secondly, did you even read what I posted before you went on one of your usual rambling-style posts? I was not the one who identified the newspaper and the sect it is apparently associated with. It was already identified on the first page. What difference does it make, anyway? What they did is stupid and silly, no matter whether they are Christian, Muslim, Atheists or whatever.

 

See I told you guys! :grin:

 

Your desperate attempts to fraternize with the rest of the D&D are noted.