Banner Advertiser

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Re: [mukto-mona] Interesting debate in Jaipur literature gathering

Farida Majid is known to attempt to divert attention from one thing to the other. Even that attempt is almost always flawed. Here is another example.
What a bunch of rubbish, these women are presenting, against the executive order, which, among other things, highlights the violation of women's rights in the predominantly Muslim countries.

Notice, who are complaining about an executive order that barely highlights the women's right issues? It's these women. They don't like that a man has executed the order.  This is the sexist feminism, which is ruining legitimate women's right movement.  

Think about - who violate women's right. Must be men, right? So, it is men, who need to change attitudes towards women. So, if a man signs such an order, it should be welcome by women. Then, what are these ladies complaining about?  

They are also complaining about that, a man who once talked trash about some women in the past should not sign such an order. You tend to forget, just talking about something is not a crime, and, allegation is not a conviction of a crime in the USA.

Ladies, the most appropriate person to sign such an order should be the one, who you are accusing of being a violator of women's right. So, get your thoughts in order. You are not making sense here.


On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Shah Deeldar [mukto-mona] <> wrote:

Not sure whether you got a schizophrenic brain or not.... but you love to change the topic without writing any opinion of your own. Did you watch the video? Or, it was a conscious intention to change the subject and get onto another of your pet subject? Even then, you do not write anything substantive of your own but borrow other white men' articles and opinions to advance your own opinion. But then, you foul mouth others to be followers of white men' lines? Do you understand your grand hypocrisy? Can you put forward a simple opinion about the subject? I guess not!

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:39 AM, "Farida Majid [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

May be our mukto-mona fans of Donald Trump, who are the all-knowing  সবজান্তা  -- and "Oh what a good 'white' Male I am inside my brown skin!" should take note how some of the other citizens think ........

hen President Trump signed his first executive order in January to temporarily ban refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations, he said it was needed, in part, to protect women. A little-noticed part of the executive order reads, "The United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred, including 'honor' killings, other forms of violence against women." Some observers have noticed the irony in the executive order. Both the man who signed the order, Donald Trump, and the man who drafted the order, his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, have in the past been accused of committing violence against women. During the presidential campaign, Trump famously boasted about sexually assaulting women and grabbing them "by the pussy," in a leaked video recorded by NBC's "Access Hollywood." Eight women have now come forward and accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and harassment. And Trump is not alone. Stephen Bannon was charged with domestic violence and battery in 1996. Trump's first pick to be labor secretary, fast-food giant CEO Andrew Puzder, was accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, who even went on "Oprah" in disguise to speak about domestic violence. For more, we turn to a recent Democracy Now! interview with Eve Ensler, playwright, author of "The Vagina Monologues," and Christine Schuler Deschryver, director of V-Day Congo.
Excerpt: How is it possible that a nation of people felt OK with electing a self-confessed sexual assaulter?

From: <> on behalf of Dristy Pat [mukto-mona] <>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Interesting debate in Jaipur literature gathering
These people really know how to waste time on something that is, simply, not so important in a political success. They are trying to figure out why Donald Trump has been elected by the people in the USA in spite of his many false statements in the past. They are asking - if truth matter, at all, in a political election. They seem to be scratching heads to solve this dilema.

First, we must recognize, political leaders are not spiritual leaders. As a result, the success or failure of a politician does not depend on how much truthful he/she has been in the past.  Political success solely depends on politicians stand on policies that matter in the life of ordinary people. If policies are good, people will not hesitate to vote for someone with many personal flaws. That's exactly what happened to the success of Donald Trump.

Associating truthfulness to a political success is a misguided notion. It will only divert attention away from what really matter in the political success. I am sure, listeners will go home with a misguided take home message from this debate. All in all, it's a biased an anti-Trump debating platform.

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM, DeEldar [mukto-mona] <> wrote:
Established media, social media, truth, half truth and post truth! It covers all! Enjoy!


Posted by: Dristy Pat <>

Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:




"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190