Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

You are a big dunce.  Can't even write basic, primary school English. 

woman...no one checks grammar or spelling here. Most of us catch it sometimes  but more often than not we miss word substitutions by the built in auto correction algorithm as well as typos. As long as you get the gist of what is said that is all that matters. It is about conveying a message not highlighting proper english.

No sir.  We are not dealing with the gist of anything here.  You are here tearing down good people and you should present yourself clearly and factually. Some of you can barely spell and write and are here blaspheming all day.

Interpreting from your statement,the poor,downtrodden,uneducated voices shouldn't be heard by the deceitful politicians,my dear lady you should wake up and smell the coffee.

Gone are the days when people are led like sheep.

How soon you forget that you were and still one of those people.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Dem PNC boys lil slow on the uptake.  BTW, suntax is a tax you pay for using the beach to get your tan on while wearing your **kini!!

How bright you are is what has us in awe! You are a confused knuckle head and a pretentious biddy who assumes class means being coiffured and perfumed and given to contemptible  sententiousness.

Moses truly destroyed his political legacy by associating with the Granjer-greene gang.

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

You are a big dunce.  Can't even write basic, primary school English. 

woman...no one checks grammar or spelling here. Most of us catch it sometimes  but more often than not we miss word substitutions by the built in auto correction algorithm as well as typos. As long as you get the gist of what is said that is all that matters. It is about conveying a message not highlighting proper english.

No sir.  We are not dealing with the gist of anything here.  You are here tearing down good people and you should present yourself clearly and factually. Some of you can barely spell and write and are here blaspheming all day.

Interpreting from your statement,the poor,downtrodden,uneducated voices shouldn't be heard by the deceitful politicians,my dear lady you should wake up and smell the coffee.

Gone are the days when people are led like sheep.

How soon you forget that you were and still one of those people.

I am awoken bhai, realized how my older generation was fooled,I pity the people who have not awoken some day it will be revealed.

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

You are a big dunce.  Can't even write basic, primary school English. 

woman...no one checks grammar or spelling here. Most of us catch it sometimes  but more often than not we miss word substitutions by the built in auto correction algorithm as well as typos. As long as you get the gist of what is said that is all that matters. It is about conveying a message not highlighting proper english.

No sir.  We are not dealing with the gist of anything here.  You are here tearing down good people and you should present yourself clearly and factually. Some of you can barely spell and write and are here blaspheming all day.

Interpreting from your statement,the poor,downtrodden,uneducated voices shouldn't be heard by the deceitful politicians,my dear lady you should wake up and smell the coffee.

Gone are the days when people are led like sheep.

How soon you forget that you were and still one of those people.

He overdose on PNC Kool Aid and bleating like sheep here all day.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

You are a big dunce.  Can't even write basic, primary school English. 

woman...no one checks grammar or spelling here. Most of us catch it sometimes  but more often than not we miss word substitutions by the built in auto correction algorithm as well as typos. As long as you get the gist of what is said that is all that matters. It is about conveying a message not highlighting proper english.

No sir.  We are not dealing with the gist of anything here.  You are here tearing down good people and you should present yourself clearly and factually. Some of you can barely spell and write and are here blaspheming all day.

Interpreting from your statement,the poor,downtrodden,uneducated voices shouldn't be heard by the deceitful politicians,my dear lady you should wake up and smell the coffee.

Gone are the days when people are led like sheep.

How soon you forget that you were and still one of those people.

He overdose on PNC Kool Aid and bleating like sheep here all day.

Independent thinking individuals don't drink Kool Aid.

Sounds like someone ...or two, has their knickers in one gawd awful twist.

This is one of those threads where you go ....yaaawwwnnnnn.

I would think that US diplomatic protocol for a visit by a Prime Minister is to provide secret service protection at no cost to the visiting dignitary. So questions about Guyanese taxpayers spending is .......frankly spurious.

I would be embarrassed to post pictures of a major protest with a dozen people or so.

You may not know these two Organizations - International Center for Democracy (ICD), and Guyana Solidarity Movement (GSM) - but I do. If these are the protesters Guyana's Prime Minister does not have a thing to worry about.

Kari posted:

This is one of those threads where you go ....yaaawwwnnnnn.

I would think that US diplomatic protocol for a visit by a Prime Minister is to provide secret service protection at no cost to the visiting dignitary. So questions about Guyanese taxpayers spending is .......frankly spurious.

I would be embarrassed to post pictures of a major protest with a dozen people or so.

You may not know these two Organizations - International Center for Democracy (ICD), and Guyana Solidarity Movement (GSM) - but I do. If these are the protesters Guyana's Prime Minister does not have a thing to worry about.

1. Secret service protection is paid for by the visiting country.  Not the US taxpayers.
2. You boi Haji was the one who posted this thread with the named subject heading.  Call 'im and tell 'im.

Django posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

You are a big dunce.  Can't even write basic, primary school English. 

Expected when someone can't comprehend the gist.

Educated individuals don't behave like little children.

Hey yu, get um strait. Learn from Miss Haniffa. She is university trained and saturated with maturity. And she is de only poster hey who can spell rass correctly.

Ra$$

I think we should put Stormy in a spelling contest with some of these Indian-American kids to see just how smart he is. 

Perhaps, Alex Trebeck can have him on Jeopardy. He would be the first Guyanese on this show. Time for the Daily Double!!!!!!!!

Nah.  I already see "FINAL Jeopardy" in his future!

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056 outlining the Secret Service powers states that subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secret Service is authorized to protect the person of a visiting head of a foreign state or foreign government and, at the direction of the President, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad. Thus, the Secret Service routinely provides protective services to every visiting Chief of State or Head of Government unless that person declines the services in writing. The only other officials protected by the Secret Service are those whom the President specifically directs the Service to protect. Therefore, when the Department of State began receiving protective requests from foreign governments for a number of officials such as Presidents-elect, former Presidents and Prime Ministers, Cabinet level ministers, opposition leaders and other important dignitaries, the Secret Service pointed out its lack of authority for protecting these officials whom it was not Presidentially directed to protect and it refused to assume the additional responsibilities. Therefore, commencing in the mid 1970's, the Office of Security again was tasked with providing protective security to all dignitaries other than current Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

.................................................................................................

The Panel recognizes that until the basic responsibility for protection of foreign missions and resident diplomats is clarified and streamlined, the Department must seek the assistance of local police agencies and contract guard companies. The Department of State now has authorization and funds under the Foreign Missions Act to reimburse local or state authorities nationwide for "extraordinary". protective services performed at the behest and under the supervision of the Department of State. The Department has not yet issued formal guidelines for reimbursement. This extraordinary protection" constitutes both personal and facility protection. In those instances in which state and local authorities cannot provide the protection required, this authorization permits the Department to employ the services of licensed and responsible private security firms to perform the duties. However, Congress limited the amount of the funds available to any one state to 20% of the allotted total. Yet, some states have no diplomatic representation while other states, such as New York and California, have an extraordinary number of foreign missions. Many local police agencies cannot or will not provide continuous, extraordinary protective services for a resident diplomat either because of resource drain or because this is not a function typically performed by municipal police.

The Department should seek an amendment to the existing legislation contained in the Foreign Missions Act. The modifications should permit full payment to those agencies requested by the Department to provide more extraordinary protective services to foreign missions or resident diplomats than is currently stipulated by the 20% limitation. Further, the Department should immediately issue uniform guidelines for reimbursement.

=============================================

I don't see where the foreign dignitary's government is asked to pay for secret service protection while in US territory.

This is from the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas security. I'm subject to correction if Bibibski can point me to where it is thus stated.

Well, if the gov't. claims they paid money for his security in the US then we should call on Goolsarran to do an audit.

Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

I think we should put Stormy in a spelling contest with some of these Indian-American kids to see just how smart he is. 

I am a functional speller not a competitive speller. I am not interested in lexical flotsam; I am interested in useful communication. Excellent spellers or mathematical wizkids who can square instantly 30 digit numbers or calculate the number of primes therein are not necessarily genius. They are either savants or trained on the process and got singularly good. Genius are elusive sparks and only occur sometimes in one person in a lifetime. Most of us are grunts

Kari posted:

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056 outlining the Secret Service powers states that subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secret Service is authorized to protect the person of a visiting head of a foreign state or foreign government and, at the direction of the President, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad. Thus, the Secret Service routinely provides protective services to every visiting Chief of State or Head of Government unless that person declines the services in writing. The only other officials protected by the Secret Service are those whom the President specifically directs the Service to protect. Therefore, when the Department of State began receiving protective requests from foreign governments for a number of officials such as Presidents-elect, former Presidents and Prime Ministers, Cabinet level ministers, opposition leaders and other important dignitaries, the Secret Service pointed out its lack of authority for protecting these officials whom it was not Presidentially directed to protect and it refused to assume the additional responsibilities. Therefore, commencing in the mid 1970's, the Office of Security again was tasked with providing protective security to all dignitaries other than current Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

.................................................................................................

The Panel recognizes that until the basic responsibility for protection of foreign missions and resident diplomats is clarified and streamlined, the Department must seek the assistance of local police agencies and contract guard companies. The Department of State now has authorization and funds under the Foreign Missions Act to reimburse local or state authorities nationwide for "extraordinary". protective services performed at the behest and under the supervision of the Department of State. The Department has not yet issued formal guidelines for reimbursement. This extraordinary protection" constitutes both personal and facility protection. In those instances in which state and local authorities cannot provide the protection required, this authorization permits the Department to employ the services of licensed and responsible private security firms to perform the duties. However, Congress limited the amount of the funds available to any one state to 20% of the allotted total. Yet, some states have no diplomatic representation while other states, such as New York and California, have an extraordinary number of foreign missions. Many local police agencies cannot or will not provide continuous, extraordinary protective services for a resident diplomat either because of resource drain or because this is not a function typically performed by municipal police.

The Department should seek an amendment to the existing legislation contained in the Foreign Missions Act. The modifications should permit full payment to those agencies requested by the Department to provide more extraordinary protective services to foreign missions or resident diplomats than is currently stipulated by the 20% limitation. Further, the Department should immediately issue uniform guidelines for reimbursement.

=============================================

I don't see where the foreign dignitary's government is asked to pay for secret service protection while in US territory.

 

This is from the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas security. I'm subject to correction if Bibibski can point me to where it is thus stated.

 

 

Kari - read my beautiful red lips.  When officials from other countries request Secret Service Protection, they MUST pay for it.

Do you know what it would cost the American taxpayers for all the dignitaries from other countries to get free Secret Service Protection every time they show up there?

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The United States has the responsibility under international law to protect visiting foreign dignitaries and resident foreign diplomats in this country.

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Kari - read my beautiful red lips.  When officials from other countries request Secret Service Protection, they MUST pay for it.

Do you know what it would cost the American taxpayers for all the dignitaries from other countries to get free Secret Service Protection every time they show up there?

Well...show me.....not the lips (and I know you have beautiful lips) but the statements showing that the US charges foreign governments for the security of their dignitaries.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Kari posted:

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056 outlining the Secret Service powers states that subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secret Service is authorized to protect the person of a visiting head of a foreign state or foreign government and, at the direction of the President, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad. Thus, the Secret Service routinely provides protective services to every visiting Chief of State or Head of Government unless that person declines the services in writing. The only other officials protected by the Secret Service are those whom the President specifically directs the Service to protect. Therefore, when the Department of State began receiving protective requests from foreign governments for a number of officials such as Presidents-elect, former Presidents and Prime Ministers, Cabinet level ministers, opposition leaders and other important dignitaries, the Secret Service pointed out its lack of authority for protecting these officials whom it was not Presidentially directed to protect and it refused to assume the additional responsibilities. Therefore, commencing in the mid 1970's, the Office of Security again was tasked with providing protective security to all dignitaries other than current Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

.................................................................................................

The Panel recognizes that until the basic responsibility for protection of foreign missions and resident diplomats is clarified and streamlined, the Department must seek the assistance of local police agencies and contract guard companies. The Department of State now has authorization and funds under the Foreign Missions Act to reimburse local or state authorities nationwide for "extraordinary". protective services performed at the behest and under the supervision of the Department of State. The Department has not yet issued formal guidelines for reimbursement. This extraordinary protection" constitutes both personal and facility protection. In those instances in which state and local authorities cannot provide the protection required, this authorization permits the Department to employ the services of licensed and responsible private security firms to perform the duties. However, Congress limited the amount of the funds available to any one state to 20% of the allotted total. Yet, some states have no diplomatic representation while other states, such as New York and California, have an extraordinary number of foreign missions. Many local police agencies cannot or will not provide continuous, extraordinary protective services for a resident diplomat either because of resource drain or because this is not a function typically performed by municipal police.

The Department should seek an amendment to the existing legislation contained in the Foreign Missions Act. The modifications should permit full payment to those agencies requested by the Department to provide more extraordinary protective services to foreign missions or resident diplomats than is currently stipulated by the 20% limitation. Further, the Department should immediately issue uniform guidelines for reimbursement.

=============================================

I don't see where the foreign dignitary's government is asked to pay for secret service protection while in US territory.

 

This is from the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas security. I'm subject to correction if Bibibski can point me to where it is thus stated.

 

 

Kari - read my beautiful red lips.  When officials from other countries request Secret Service Protection, they MUST pay for it.

Do you know what it would cost the American taxpayers for all the dignitaries from other countries to get free Secret Service Protection every time they show up there?

The US Government pays for security for all foreign heads of state. 

Django posted:

 

I am awoken bhai, realized how my older generation was fooled,I pity the people who have not awoken some day it will be revealed.

Nothing changed bia. Guyanese are still being fooled. Same game by different players.

Mars posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Kari posted:

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056 outlining the Secret Service powers states that subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secret Service is authorized to protect the person of a visiting head of a foreign state or foreign government and, at the direction of the President, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad. Thus, the Secret Service routinely provides protective services to every visiting Chief of State or Head of Government unless that person declines the services in writing. The only other officials protected by the Secret Service are those whom the President specifically directs the Service to protect. Therefore, when the Department of State began receiving protective requests from foreign governments for a number of officials such as Presidents-elect, former Presidents and Prime Ministers, Cabinet level ministers, opposition leaders and other important dignitaries, the Secret Service pointed out its lack of authority for protecting these officials whom it was not Presidentially directed to protect and it refused to assume the additional responsibilities. Therefore, commencing in the mid 1970's, the Office of Security again was tasked with providing protective security to all dignitaries other than current Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

.................................................................................................

The Panel recognizes that until the basic responsibility for protection of foreign missions and resident diplomats is clarified and streamlined, the Department must seek the assistance of local police agencies and contract guard companies. The Department of State now has authorization and funds under the Foreign Missions Act to reimburse local or state authorities nationwide for "extraordinary". protective services performed at the behest and under the supervision of the Department of State. The Department has not yet issued formal guidelines for reimbursement. This extraordinary protection" constitutes both personal and facility protection. In those instances in which state and local authorities cannot provide the protection required, this authorization permits the Department to employ the services of licensed and responsible private security firms to perform the duties. However, Congress limited the amount of the funds available to any one state to 20% of the allotted total. Yet, some states have no diplomatic representation while other states, such as New York and California, have an extraordinary number of foreign missions. Many local police agencies cannot or will not provide continuous, extraordinary protective services for a resident diplomat either because of resource drain or because this is not a function typically performed by municipal police.

The Department should seek an amendment to the existing legislation contained in the Foreign Missions Act. The modifications should permit full payment to those agencies requested by the Department to provide more extraordinary protective services to foreign missions or resident diplomats than is currently stipulated by the 20% limitation. Further, the Department should immediately issue uniform guidelines for reimbursement.

=============================================

I don't see where the foreign dignitary's government is asked to pay for secret service protection while in US territory.

 

This is from the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas security. I'm subject to correction if Bibibski can point me to where it is thus stated.

 

 

Kari - read my beautiful red lips.  When officials from other countries request Secret Service Protection, they MUST pay for it.

Do you know what it would cost the American taxpayers for all the dignitaries from other countries to get free Secret Service Protection every time they show up there?

The US Government pays for security for all foreign heads of state. 

No they don't. And Nagamootoo is not a head of state.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Mars posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Kari posted:

Protection of Visiting Foreign Officials

The authority for the protection of visiting foreign dignitaries is currently divided between the Department of State's Office of Security and the United States Secret Service, and to a much lesser extent, other federal agencies (including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense). Both the Secret Service and the Office of Security have legal authority for the protection of Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

The legislation contained in 18 United States Code 3056 outlining the Secret Service powers states that subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secret Service is authorized to protect the person of a visiting head of a foreign state or foreign government and, at the direction of the President, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad. Thus, the Secret Service routinely provides protective services to every visiting Chief of State or Head of Government unless that person declines the services in writing. The only other officials protected by the Secret Service are those whom the President specifically directs the Service to protect. Therefore, when the Department of State began receiving protective requests from foreign governments for a number of officials such as Presidents-elect, former Presidents and Prime Ministers, Cabinet level ministers, opposition leaders and other important dignitaries, the Secret Service pointed out its lack of authority for protecting these officials whom it was not Presidentially directed to protect and it refused to assume the additional responsibilities. Therefore, commencing in the mid 1970's, the Office of Security again was tasked with providing protective security to all dignitaries other than current Chiefs of State or Heads of Government.

.................................................................................................

The Panel recognizes that until the basic responsibility for protection of foreign missions and resident diplomats is clarified and streamlined, the Department must seek the assistance of local police agencies and contract guard companies. The Department of State now has authorization and funds under the Foreign Missions Act to reimburse local or state authorities nationwide for "extraordinary". protective services performed at the behest and under the supervision of the Department of State. The Department has not yet issued formal guidelines for reimbursement. This extraordinary protection" constitutes both personal and facility protection. In those instances in which state and local authorities cannot provide the protection required, this authorization permits the Department to employ the services of licensed and responsible private security firms to perform the duties. However, Congress limited the amount of the funds available to any one state to 20% of the allotted total. Yet, some states have no diplomatic representation while other states, such as New York and California, have an extraordinary number of foreign missions. Many local police agencies cannot or will not provide continuous, extraordinary protective services for a resident diplomat either because of resource drain or because this is not a function typically performed by municipal police.

The Department should seek an amendment to the existing legislation contained in the Foreign Missions Act. The modifications should permit full payment to those agencies requested by the Department to provide more extraordinary protective services to foreign missions or resident diplomats than is currently stipulated by the 20% limitation. Further, the Department should immediately issue uniform guidelines for reimbursement.

=============================================

I don't see where the foreign dignitary's government is asked to pay for secret service protection while in US territory.

 

This is from the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas security. I'm subject to correction if Bibibski can point me to where it is thus stated.

 

 

Kari - read my beautiful red lips.  When officials from other countries request Secret Service Protection, they MUST pay for it.

Do you know what it would cost the American taxpayers for all the dignitaries from other countries to get free Secret Service Protection every time they show up there?

The US Government pays for security for all foreign heads of state. 

No they don't. And Nagamootoo is not a head of state.

Heads of state and dignitaries. And yes, they have always done so and they still do. The same is done in foreign countries such as the UK. They pick up the tab even though the POTUS takes a few SS men.

I was at a friend's place a few years ago when Jagdeo was making an appearance at his restaurant. The Secret Service came the morning before the event and cased out the joint. Came back at night when the event started. 

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Aren't you supposed to be doing dua right now instead of instigating a useless political fight?

What are those people doing there on the street if not instigating a useless political fight? On another thread  you could not offer an opinion if a mixed girl can perform an indian dance and you failed to grasp that indians can be ostracized but here you have before your face a bunch of morons pretending to be the gate keepers of the culture. They alone know who is an indian or not.

I am an Indian.  YOU are not.

What makes me not indian, your indictment? That is not worth the air your lungs expelled. It is moronic utterances like this that reveals the pondlike shallowness in the understanding of culture, cultural identity and cultural labels you idiots use.

You do not get to tag me. I am what I am from the loins of my parents and the inculcation in a social ethos that seeped from their being into my emergence as a whole person. Pretentious huffing and puffing from air heads like you do not make me who I am.

That is written in the breath, blood  and the foot prints of my ancestors across time from the far reaches of the Punjab in Amritsar, the highlands of Argyle and the black waters of the Cuyuni. No you play no part in who I am.

And I get to call my self a son of all of these places and their cultures!

What a load of Bull Crap, practice your ABC somewhere else.

How come they (US) never paid for Sam Hinds' security? 

skeldon_man posted:

Danyael posted:

Nehru posted:

THE NEEMAKARAM UNCLE TOM WAS HOLLERING LIKE A HO WHEN THE PPP GOVT OFFICIALS USED TO TRAVEL ABROAD, GO CHECK FOR AL YUH STUPID SELF, NOW THIS SAME BATTY WASHER DOING WORST. WHICH TELLS ME HIS SUPPORTERS ALL BRAIN DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

such sensible prose...bibi is surely soaking up its erudition and eloquence. No wonder she is on Django for grammar and suntax!

What's a suntax? Is this a new tax for using the internet?

syntax

kp posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Danyael posted:

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Aren't you supposed to be doing dua right now instead of instigating a useless political fight?

What are those people doing there on the street if not instigating a useless political fight? On another thread  you could not offer an opinion if a mixed girl can perform an indian dance and you failed to grasp that indians can be ostracized but here you have before your face a bunch of morons pretending to be the gate keepers of the culture. They alone know who is an indian or not.

I am an Indian.  YOU are not.

What makes me not indian, your indictment? That is not worth the air your lungs expelled. It is moronic utterances like this that reveals the pondlike shallowness in the understanding of culture, cultural identity and cultural labels you idiots use.

You do not get to tag me. I am what I am from the loins of my parents and the inculcation in a social ethos that seeped from their being into my emergence as a whole person. Pretentious huffing and puffing from air heads like you do not make me who I am.

That is written in the breath, blood  and the foot prints of my ancestors across time from the far reaches of the Punjab in Amritsar, the highlands of Argyle and the black waters of the Cuyuni. No you play no part in who I am.

And I get to call my self a son of all of these places and their cultures!

What a load of Bull Crap, practice your ABC somewhere else.

Does that look like practicing abc's? I might add try practice thinking.

gogo posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Danyael posted:

Nehru posted:

THE NEEMAKARAM UNCLE TOM WAS HOLLERING LIKE A HO WHEN THE PPP GOVT OFFICIALS USED TO TRAVEL ABROAD, GO CHECK FOR AL YUH STUPID SELF, NOW THIS SAME BATTY WASHER DOING WORST. WHICH TELLS ME HIS SUPPORTERS ALL BRAIN DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!

such sensible prose...bibi is surely soaking up its erudition and eloquence. No wonder she is on Django for grammar and suntax!

What's a suntax? Is this a new tax for using the internet?

syntax

He knows but as usual he is being a nit picker. He can search the site and I am sure he will find many occasions where I used the phrase.