UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

[TheReal_ND]

...anti-Muslim rhetoric ...

"criticism"

No. When you repeat the lies of bigots that's rhetoric not fair criticism.
Kahn is the first to speak out against Islamic terrorist attacks where as Trump not so much when white supremacists drive cars into crowds or shoot up Mosques.

That's really disengenuos. First of all the kid has a name. James A. Fields Jr was attending a sanctioned protest and drove his car into counter protestors in the heat of a riot. He got buried with 400 years of hard time for that. Poor kid.

[Montegriffo]

''in the heat of a riot'' does not provide immunity from prosecution.

[Montegriffo]

"criticism"

No. When you repeat the lies of bigots that's rhetoric not fair criticism.
Kahn is the first to speak out against Islamic terrorist attacks where as Trump not so much when white supremacists drive cars into crowds or shoot up Mosques.

Clearly, hate speech but even without hate speech laws, threatening to cut peoples heads off is an incitement to violence.
In the UK you can be sure that posting a video like that would have resulted in the prosecution of those responsible for posting it.
Evidence, if evidence was needed, that indoctrinating children into a religion is a bad idea.

Are you arguing that it is their first amendment right to post such vile videos?
What if they had sung that they were going to fly planes into buildings? Grossly offensive or not?
Or are you still trying to argue that one bad Muslim means all Muslims are bad?

[pineapplemike]

[Montegriffo]

Exactly why William and Harry both married commoners. That gene pool really needs enlarging.

[Speaker to Animals]

No. When you repeat the lies of bigots that's rhetoric not fair criticism.
Kahn is the first to speak out against Islamic terrorist attacks where as Trump not so much when white supremacists drive cars into crowds or shoot up Mosques.

Clearly, hate speech but even without hate speech laws, threatening to cut peoples heads off is an incitement to violence.
In the UK you can be sure that posting a video like that would have resulted in the prosecution of those responsible for posting it.
Evidence, if evidence was needed, that indoctrinating children into a religion is a bad idea.

Are you arguing that it is their first amendment right to post such vile videos?
What if they had sung that they were going to fly planes into buildings? Grossly offensive or not?
Or are you still trying to argue that one bad Muslim means all Muslims are bad?

The people behind the organization responsible for that terror school are the same people the mayor of London associates with..

[Ph64]

We really should focus on more important things.... Like banning crossbows.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-48244823

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47990900

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-48119092

[C-Mag]

Exactly why William and Harry both married commoners. That gene pool really needs enlarging.

Lulz

[clubgop]

Are you arguing that it is their first amendment right to post such vile videos?
What if they had sung that they were going to fly planes into buildings? Grossly offensive or not?
Or are you still trying to argue that one bad Muslim means all Muslims are bad?

1.Yes, there is no specific or eminent threat. Well within the bounds of the first amendment.

2. What planes? What buildings? The threat has to be specific.

3. In my judgment yes, but your judgment should be meaningless in terms of prosecution. You just want power like the bitch that you are.

4. No, same question for you but instead of muslim go with UKIP.

[PartyOf5]

Evidence, if evidence was needed, that indoctrinating children into a religion is a bad idea.

Here you go again. This reads like you are saying that any religion is bad. I'm going to give you a chance to clarify this statement before I go any further with it. Unless you remain silent on it. Then I'll take that as confirmation you meant exactly what is written.