Posted on 09/12/2015 8:26:20 AM PDT by pabianice
He should be grateful that it was only her feet on the seat. If he was in NY City, who knows what he’d find. Hopefully bed bugs. There’s multiple empty seats in that car, but he had to bitch to her. A normal person would have sat in one of the other seats and said nothing, but this antagonizing muzzie had to pick on a woman of course.
Reading Theodore Dalrymple, I gather this is quite a problem on the UK’s commuter lines.
Yes. It’s repulsive to do that on public transportation - zero class.
He claims to have been born in England, but his speech sounds like he’s a foreign-born muzzie. What a bull$hit artist.
“Like manspreading?”
If she’s guilty of manspreading, I’d punish her.
Or, maybe I’d let her punish me...
Apparently this goatdaddy has a problem with women as anything other than personal property, so was creating a public disturbance, and any number of other misdemeanors.
Good for the Brits. If the baggy ones start this chit in my hometown, my fellow citizens and I will be happy to invite guys like this one to go back to the 3rd world hell holes that shat them out.
In fact I did have some young proselytisers from the local mosque stand on my doorstop and try to give me—of all things—a can of air freshener, apparently in exchange for allowing them in to discuss Mohamhead.
I declined and they became exercised. So I invited them to get the hell off my property before I called the town police.
(And Obammy wants to import even more.)
Your doubts are confirmed by the wuss telling the mooselimb that he agrees with him.
Who cares if the objection was religious? What she did was improper.
Let’s say she was on the phone talking loudly,cussing, and swearing, and taking the name of the Lord in vain. If someone said anything, would you object to their objection because it was based on religious grounds?
Now if she was eating a ham sandwich on the train, assuming that it is permissible to do so, and he objected to the ham, yes, you would be correct to take exception to that.
I know of Muslims who object to helicopters because you can see the pilot’s or passenger’s feet. That is ridiculous. If he objected because someone crossed their legs and the bottom of the foot was facing him, that is silly, unless it was really close or touching him. But you do not put your feet where people sit or close to their person. That is just rude.
Yes he was Muslim. No, I do not care for many of them or for anyone attempting to force their faith on others, but when you advocate removing certain faiths from the face of the earth, as some do on this site, you are getting in to some dangerous territory. Just ask the Jews.
At least you recognize just how sick Western Man has become. May be there are others? A people must recognize that they are ill before they can even seek treatment. Failure to recognize illness prevents a cure.
That’s ok, Mr Muslim - you should be dead.
I would have put my foot in his groin.
I wonder if London has people giving away free newspapers like NYC does. You can use those for sitting on stairways, or in this case, on the seats themselves.
It makes a difference! The offended party did not object on cleanliness grounds or on civility grounds, both of which would have been proper objections. The offended party objected on religious grounds.
As an analogy, suppose a black person is littering. He is reported by a person who admits he reported the litterer because he just doesn't like black people. Who's the really bad guy here, the litterer, or the racist?
IMHO, the reasoning matters as much as the results. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
when you advocate removing certain faiths from the face of the earth, as some do on this site, you are getting in to some dangerous territory
That is, to say the least, a very odd thing to say when directing a reply to one of my posts. I never said that, and would never say that. So please do not try to draw me into any kind of straw man argument.
I’ve got a place for her shoes...under my bed.
If feet on the seat is all that it takes get these barbarians to move on, then it is “feet on the seat!”
I would have said “oh yeah??” and wiped my feet on this muslim guy. Yes, I would have.
This makes sense. In many of the countries they come from you leave your shoes at the door before entering a house ... because the streets and marketplaces are so filthy. It is a health hazard to put your shoes where someone else might come into contact with them.
That said, I think it’s rude to put your feet on public seats or public transportation that others might sit on. Not illegal but very rude and shows contempt for others.
I’ve seen people but their bare (filthy) feet on bus seats. I’ve seen parents let their sick kids wipe their runny noses on the backs of plane seats ... etc etc. When you go out in public you have to assume all surfaces are suspect germ wise. Still, people could TRY to be more courteous and thoughtful of others. There was probably a brief time in our history when people were courteous and polite and had some decorum in public, but that time seems to have passed.
The West Line is really crowded weekdays. If the Conductor doesn’t do something other passengers will.
“But the objection here was purely a religious objection! Evidently, no muslim can sit on a seat where a shoe has been.”
Cool. That opens up a whole new world of possibilities to mess with their f-ed-up heads. Stop by Goodwill, buy out their entire stock of shoes, and put them on every chair, bench, seat, etc., on God’s green earth.
Towelheads can slit throats and get more welfare money in return. Normal people who exist around towelheads are $h!t upon and arrested if they say anything about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.