cul

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926180.ece what the actual shit from that picture it looks like he's wrapped his wife's chuni around his head...not even tucked in at the back

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-manliest-images-on-the-internet/ guess who's no/ 1 haha

I'm sure as hell not Indian, dunno about you, just 'cuz half of the Punjab is in India now doesn't make you Indian or of Indian origin. We had our own kingdom, remember? Again, he can deny whatever the hell he wants doesn't make him a bigot, it just makes him stupid, almost as stupid as dalsingh here. BTW he doesn't deny the famine, he denies that it was orchestrated, which is a fair argument. My argument is semantic, dalsingh, but you're too stupid to see that. This thread is about 'bigots' and what to do about them, all we have here is an idiot that is ill informed - that does not make him a bigot. Typical minority knee jerk OMFG HE'S A RACIST reaction that only results in the loss of respect to any point we try to make publicly. Of the issue of colonialism - British rule would be a hell of a lot preferable to either Nazi or Soviet rule. Post colonialism, what have the Indians done for the Sikhs other than oppress them? I don't see either of you complaining about Indian bigotry or abuse towards the Sikhs, the thing I hate most about people is their willingness to subscribe to revisionism or blind subscription to one view. You don't know what 'discussion' is, dalsingh, seeing as you expect everyone to sit on the same side of the fence. But of course it's ok for you to make baseless claims about people over the internet, right? Yes, the good ol' empire days, the good ol' Sikh empire days, you retarded baboon.

I don't see any bigotry on his part. None of his opinions are racially biased, on the first page at least. It's PC nowadays to blindly accept certain interpretations of history, one of them being that imperialism or colonialism was inherently evil, which is overly simlpistic. He is simply adding a balancing argument using his own, contrary opinions - this doesn't make him a bigot.

I'd prefer it orange, but I agree with getting rid of the green.

If she wants a human teacher explain to her about the existence of Mahapursh.

Naam destroys it.

It's bloody ugly, for one.

He told you this is an open forum for any opinion so untwist your panties, sit down and stop hyperventilating.

Wow you sure have a knack for accidentally-on-purpose quoting out of context don't you. That comment was not directed at you.

Really? And other than your wild imagination where is your source for the idea that the govt was involved in this? I'm not defending anything other than the cause against stupidity. It's illegal to export non recyclable waste - who do you think made those laws? You really think the govt is sitting around sniggering about how theyre going to send TWO WHOLE containers of trash to Brazil? BTW Bush and Blair aren't in power any more, in case you hadn't noticed. BTW pt deux, It's not my govt, congratulations on making even more retarded assumptions. I should've known better than to expect anything but redundant dogma from here.

np pat pat

The difference between sex motivated by love and that by lust is intention. Only you can answer for yourself your motives.

I apologise for any offience and my tone, however the article is selectively quoted out of context so no, not a knee jerk reaction =p. Maybe don't quote it all? or mention what it's about... BTW Mithar, Brazil and India are hardly poor as developing states go.

bullshit It wasn't the UK government that shipped it over, it was a private company which is being investigated by the UK. If you have nothing better to offer than a retarded, ignorant knee-jerk response without even the decency to read the flipping article then stfu. Same goes for you dalsingh, conveniently quoting the article out of context, good going.

Totally off topic, but how do you find it being a Sikh in Denmark? In terms of local acceptance? What happened with the Gurdwaras? You can PM me if you don't want to go OT on this thread.

These people are the modern equivalent of Peter. They bow to the Guru. They make grand claims of how Sikhism is the most modern religion, the first without caste, the first with gender equality, the only with respect for other ways of life. They make all these boasts about Sikhism is an eveolutionary step forward, yet when the same Guru that revealed the path to us says not to cut our hair they say it is devolution. Why? Because they have no cojones. They like to make the grand claims about their great heritage (usually down the pub), but if the time ever came to stand up for what they apparently believe they would step back. If we were ever hunted as Jesus was, they would deny their relation to us to save their own skins. There's a Greek saying, "the best sailors are always in the dock"/

The Guru says pleasure and pain are the same, unless the dude accepts the 'pain' first he will never understand it. Someone that did little paat has been inspired to do undertake an intense increase in their bhagti and you, idiot that you are, find cause to complain about the number. Until you have the understanding and natural dedication to bhagti working with set goals is a great way to push yourself, just like with any endeavour.

Tell him to resign him/herslef to it. Embrace it. Tera kia meeta lagai etc

So you're saying that because we do one thing badly we should do everything else badly too? GENIUS Speaking of the usual mediocrity with which Sikhs do everything M Duleep Singh did not die in Paris because of 'refusing to step on British soil again' but because none of his grovveling was enough to get Queen Victoria to forgive him for trying to get the Russians to invade the Punjab. Of course, it sounds better their way, and who the hell will notice right? Damn revisionists.

point is, the concept of a 'half sikh' is retarded there is no such thing, you either are or you're not, it's not something genetic that is passed on in part from parent to child

yes Who said only sandals? No one is worshipping sandals, the point everyone is trying to make is that these specific sandals that you brought up are poojneek because they belonged to Guru Sahib. It's not about the bloody sandals, and even if wearing sandals in bed annoyed him this doesn't imply a lack of love. If she were dead, her sandals would remind him of her i.e. they will start simran of her in his mind - being reminded of Guru Sahib by his sandals is also simran, this is what makes them poojneek.

Nothing beats fresh sliced potato fries...

wth is a half sikh