Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
thugger

Sikh Americans Fight For Civil Rights In Donald Trump’s America

58 posts in this topic

We're not in Donald Trump's America(yet). Trump hasn't said or done anything against us either. When he said "one of those hats", he was referring to his "Make America Great Again" hat.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not in Donald Trump's America(yet). Trump hasn't said or done anything against us either. When he said "one of those hats", he was referring to his "Make America Great Again" hat.

Trump has said from time to time that he'd like to beat up his protesters, and has told his supporters that he will pay for any legal fees. Just look at what happened in Chicago recently, (the violence doesn't necessarily have to be with Sikhs to understand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has said from time to time that he'd like to beat up his protesters, and has told his supporters that he will pay for any legal fees. Just look at what happened in Chicago recently, (the violence doesn't necessarily have to be with Sikhs to understand).

you got idiots coming to his event with the sole purpose of disrupting his 1st amendment right. These so called thugs come with payment from leftist George soros moveon.org

Trumps been nice at his rallies but he got fed up after every 5 minutes protesters (thugs) interrupted his speech.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you got idiots coming to his event with the sole purpose of disrupting his 1st amendment right. These so called thugs come with payment from leftist George soros moveon.org

Trumps been nice at his rallies but he got fed up after every 5 minutes protesters (thugs) interrupted his speech.

Trump is the guy destroying the party of Lincoln, the only thug here is him. (He insulted many people and has promoted violence,) also in case you're a mentally r*tarded supporter of Trump, he's not even a true conservative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pure moslum propaganda. Are you saying sikhs have not been attacked under obama administration of 8 years? This article is written by murtaza hussain.... would you trust them who are allowed to lie (taqiyya) to disbelievers?

Many many sikhs have been attacked throughout america since 9/11 and under the obama administration. This has nothing to do with Trump, but propoganda from a moslum to put fear in the eyes of sikhs and turn them anti-trump. Trump has NEVER been anti-sikh. Trump has many many minority people working for his many companies.

moslums hate trump because saudi oil money cannot buy out Trump. Trump is going after radical izlam. As far as i am aware sikhs are not radical islamists so ignore this nobody called hussain

Edited by thesoldier
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is the guy destroying the party of Lincoln, the only thug here is him. (He insulted many people and has promoted violence,) also in case you're a mentally r*tarded supporter of Trump, he's not even a true conservative!

IF trump was really a thug he would NOT have cancelled his rallies in chicago. He didnt want violence at his rallies by the mainly black thugs of the BLM movement. That why he cancelled the event.

HE could have easily let the event happen. so his followers could beat the crap out of the protesters.

Trump 2016

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF trump was really a thug he would NOT have cancelled his rallies in chicago. He didnt want violence at his rallies by the mainly black thugs of the BLM movement. That why he cancelled the event.

HE could have easily let the event happen. so his followers could beat the crap out of the protesters.

Trump 2016

Let me guess, you're not really intelligent are you, (nor are you even Sikh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess, you're not really intelligent are you, (nor are you even Sikh).

Paji i am sikh and I am intelligent enough to know Trump will most likely get the nomination

Donald J. Trump
4 hrs ·

Great news! THANK YOU! A great way to start of SUPER TUESDAY! Northern Mariana Islands GOP caucus results:

TRUMP: 343 (72.8%)

CRUZ: 113 (24.0%)

KASICH: 10 (2.1%)

RUBIO: 5 (1.1%)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paji i am sikh and I am intelligent enough to know Trump will most likely get the nomination

Donald J. Trump

4 hrs ·

Great news! THANK YOU! A great way to start of SUPER TUESDAY! Northern Mariana Islands GOP caucus results:

TRUMP: 343 (72.8%)

CRUZ: 113 (24.0%)

KASICH: 10 (2.1%)

RUBIO: 5 (1.1%)

Do you have any proof that you are either intelligent or Sikh? (Lots of non-Sikhs come on this forum, as well as many i*diots, like yourself). It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination, he will destroy the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Not only that, but also destroy the Conservative Movement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheSoldier, you're not even American, why do you care about the future of conservatives? (From a previous Trump topic, I remember you saying you're English?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF trump was really a thug he would NOT have cancelled his rallies in chicago. He didnt want violence at his rallies by the mainly black thugs of the BLM movement. That why he cancelled the event.

HE could have easily let the event happen. so his followers could beat the crap out of the protesters.

Trump 2016

Do you have any proof that you are either intelligent or Sikh? (Lots of non-Sikhs come on this forum, as well as many i*diots, like yourself). It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination, he will destroy the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Not only that, but also destroy the Conservative Movement!

You couldnt answer my above quote, so like a typical leftist you resort to calling me unintelligent and a non-sikh.

Edited by thesoldier
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldnt answer my above quote, so like a typical leftist you resort to calling me unintelligent and a non-sikh.

I'm a conservative, (also you're a British person, so you should focus on you're country's problem). Also I already know 100% that you don't believe Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji is Vaheguru. Trump has proven time and time again that he's been extremely rude and hateful. Just kiss other Christian/Atheist a*s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done with you dum*a*s! You are filled with you're own Haunai! (Admin and Mods get yourself to finally care about this site and stop some hate going on this website!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sikh is not a sikh also, he must be a white racist that put on turban and fake beard and colored his skin brown right Jacfsingh2MuslimsforTrump.png

http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/muslims-sikhs-rally-in-support-of-trump/

Nope, he's not a Sikh in my view, (I really want to know where this guy Chacked Amrit). I believe in the Gurbani version of who a Sikh is! "ਮਃ ੪ ॥ मः ४ ॥ Mėhlā 4. Fourth Mehl:

ਗੁਰ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਕਾ ਜੋ ਸਿਖੁ ਅਖਾਏ ਸੁ ਭਲਕੇ ਉਠਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ गुर सतिगुर का जो सिखु अखाए सु भलके उठि हरि नामु धिआवै ॥ Gur saṯgur kā jo sikẖ akẖā▫e so bẖalke uṯẖ har nām ḏẖi▫āvai. One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name.

ਉਦਮੁ ਕਰੇ ਭਲਕੇ ਪਰਭਾਤੀ ਇਸਨਾਨੁ ਕਰੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰਿ ਨਾਵੈ ॥ उदमु करे भलके परभाती इसनानु करे अम्रित सरि नावै ॥ Uḏam kare bẖalke parbẖāṯī isnān kare amriṯ sar nāvai. Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar.

ਉਪਦੇਸਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਜਪੁ ਜਾਪੈ ਸਭਿ ਕਿਲਵਿਖ ਪਾਪ ਦੋਖ ਲਹਿ ਜਾਵੈ ॥ उपदेसि गुरू हरि हरि जपु जापै सभि किलविख पाप दोख लहि जावै ॥ Upḏes gurū har har jap jāpai sabẖ kilvikẖ pāp ḏokẖ lėh jāvai. Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased.

ਫਿਰਿ ਚੜੈ ਦਿਵਸੁ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਗਾਵੈ ਬਹਦਿਆ ਉਠਦਿਆ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਧਿਆਵੈ ॥ फिरि चड़ै दिवसु गुरबाणी गावै बहदिआ उठदिआ हरि नामु धिआवै ॥ Fir cẖaṛai ḏivas gurbāṇī gāvai bahḏi▫ā uṯẖ▫ḏi▫ā har nām ḏẖi▫āvai. Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name." (Ang 305 of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji). If you ask me if Badal is a Sikh the answer is still No! Wearing a turban and having a beard doesn't make you a Sikh.

@TheSoldier we know you don't believe in Gurbani, just be a troll on some Christian or Atheist forum because we both know you don't really believe that Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji is the only truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not in Donald Trump's America(yet). Trump hasn't said or done anything against us either. When he said "one of those hats", he was referring to his "Make America Great Again" hat.

This was already discussed on this site and it was proven through Trump's own words that he was referring to the turban as a dirty hat, which a Muslim would wear (Trump didn't know the person was a Sikh). In a different thread this was all presented by me. I will present the proof here as well:

Word for word is what Trump said:

"He wasn't wearing one of those hats. was he? Was he wearing one of those? And he never will...and he never will....and he never will....and that's okay, but you know we gotta do something folks, cuz its not working. And all over the world they are talking about it. And people..frankly I have friends who are Muslims and they call me up. Not all of them!! But some of them and they say you are doing a great service because there is tremendous hatred"

Here is the whole speech, where Trump calls the dastar a hat and mistakes the Sikh for a Muslim. Start watching from 17:00 minutes and watch up to 22:00 minutes. Closer to 20:20 minutes Trump refers to the hat again and says, "they would not be looking for the dirty hat, believe me, they would not be looking for the guy with the dirty hat, they would not be looking for long" Then he goes and says dirty hat couple of more times.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get this straight. This happened in Fresno, California which is 'lib central' and somehow this is Trump's fault? Wow! Are lunatics running the asylum? Are you aware that California is largely a liberal bastion and conservatives are a minority there?

This was already discussed on this site and it was proven through Trump's own words that he was referring to the turban as a dirty hat, which a Muslim would wear (Trump didn't know the person was a Sikh). In a different thread this was all presented by me. I will present the proof here as well:

Word for word is what Trump said:

"He wasn't wearing one of those hats. was he? Was he wearing one of those? And he never will...and he never will....and he never will....and that's okay, but you know we gotta do something folks, cuz its not working. And all over the world they are talking about it. And people..frankly I have friends who are Muslims and they call me up. Not all of them!! But some of them and they say you are doing a great service because there is tremendous hatred"

Here is the whole speech, where Trump calls the dastar a hat and mistakes the Sikh for a Muslim. Start watching from 17:00 minutes and watch up to 22:00 minutes. Closer to 20:20 minutes Trump refers to the hat again and says, "they would not be looking for the dirty hat, believe me, they would not be looking for the guy with the dirty hat, they would not be looking for long" Then he goes and says dirty hat couple of more times.

Please also educate us all and tell us this Sikhs 'stellar' behavior at Trumps rally.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was already discussed on this site and it was proven through Trump's own words that he was referring to the turban as a dirty hat, which a Muslim would wear (Trump didn't know the person was a Sikh). In a different thread this was all presented by me. I will present the proof here as well:

Word for word is what Trump said:

"He wasn't wearing one of those hats. was he? Was he wearing one of those? And he never will...and he never will....and he never will....and that's okay, but you know we gotta do something folks, cuz its not working. And all over the world they are talking about it. And people..frankly I have friends who are Muslims and they call me up. Not all of them!! But some of them and they say you are doing a great service because there is tremendous hatred"

Here is the whole speech, where Trump calls the dastar a hat and mistakes the Sikh for a Muslim. Start watching from 17:00 minutes and watch up to 22:00 minutes. Closer to 20:20 minutes Trump refers to the hat again and says, "they would not be looking for the dirty hat, believe me, they would not be looking for the guy with the dirty hat, they would not be looking for long" Then he goes and says dirty hat couple of more times.

I Just saw the speech by Sir Donald Trump and guess what you are wrong

He was refering to the paris mastermind with the dirty hat. Dont try to mix what Trump said about the sikh guy with an islamist terrorist with the dirty hat.

Start listening to the video from here, where he is talking about the islamist terroist of paris https://youtu.be/ilXemS3cwL0?t=20m3s

Images of the islamist terrorist that Trump is referring to the dirty hat. Not to be confused with the sikh protester. Trump said regarding the sikh protestor that he would never wear one of his hats, the ones with "make america great again". Trump is not anti-sikh,

picture links, of trump referring to the islamist with the dirty hat

http://goo.gl/n36byh

http://goo.gl/q2cDdU

Edited by thesoldier
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Muslim folk sure know how to rile up Punjabis for their agenda to use.

I'm not buying it for a second.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Muslim folk sure know how to rile up Punjabis for their agenda to use.I'm not buying it for a second.

This has less to do with Muslims than it has to do with the serious problems facing America and some British folks being trolls on the negative perspective for America. Also it has to do with the new really really mentally r*tarded false Sikhs supporting a man like Trump, (again they aren't American).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Just saw the speech by Sir Donald Trump and guess what you are wrong

He was refering to the paris mastermind with the dirty hat. Dont try to mix what Trump said about the sikh guy with an islamist terrorist with the dirty hat.

Start listening to the video from here, where he is talking about the islamist terroist of paris https://youtu.be/ilXemS3cwL0?t=20m3s

Images of the islamist terrorist that Trump is referring to the dirty hat. Not to be confused with the sikh protester. Trump said regarding the sikh protestor that he would never wear one of his hats, the ones with "make america great again". Trump is not anti-sikh,

picture links, of trump referring to the islamist with the dirty hat

http://goo.gl/n36byh

http://goo.gl/q2cDdU

It's very clear from the whole speech Trump confused the Sikh man protesting for a Muslim. Trump was speaking about 9/11 at the time of the Sikh man started protesting. Here is a clip showing the Sikh man protesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WelUUU9VcZg

After the protest Trump makes the comment of the man never wearing the "hat" again and they need to do something about them (Muslims). It is very clear from the video the Sikh man was wearing a turban and not a hat for Trumps campaign. And trump calls it a hat to disrespect the man, which he thought was a Muslim.

Let's look at his other comments. A Sikh will never support a person who says kill the terrorist family, but here is a clip of Trump saying to kill the terrorist family. And listen to his response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1WCLk1AY-k

Trump could not justify killing the families of terrorist, maybe the campaigners of his here can give him a hand.

Here is another video where he says the military can't refuse his order to kill terrorist families. This guy is Hitlers, there is no if, ands, and buts about it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has less to do with Muslims than it has to do with the serious problems facing America and some British folks being trolls on the negative perspective for America. Also it has to do with the new really really mentally r*tarded false Sikhs supporting a man like Trump, (again they aren't American).

You appealed to the mods to stop the hate on this forum, but its you being hateful and insulting others. I personally think the other brothers have made valid points while you just go on emotional insulting rants.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appealed to the mods to stop the hate on this forum, but its you being hateful and insulting others. I personally think the other brothers have made valid points while you just go on emotional insulting rants.

They are the ones supporting someone with hatred towards many groups, I don't see Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji saying Donald Trump is a good man, remember what he told Babbar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very clear from the whole speech Trump confused the Sikh man protesting for a Muslim. Trump was speaking about 9/11 at the time of the Sikh man started protesting. Here is a clip showing the Sikh man protesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WelUUU9VcZg

After the protest Trump makes the comment of the man never wearing the "hat" again and they need to do something about them (Muslims). It is very clear from the video the Sikh man was wearing a turban and not a hat for Trumps campaign. And trump calls it a hat to disrespect the man, which he thought was a Muslim.

Let's look at his other comments. A Sikh will never support a person who says kill the terrorist family, but here is a clip of Trump saying to kill the terrorist family. And listen to his response.

Trump could not justify killing the families of terrorist, maybe the campaigners of his here can give him a hand.

Here is another video where he says the military can't refuse his order to kill terrorist families. This guy is Hitlers, there is no if, ands, and buts about it.

I have seen that video countless times. Trump is not anti-sikh, he has not disrespected the distaar.

Trump is brash, he is a new yorker, he has a thing called sense of humour. He said "ahhh he wasnt wearing one of those hats was he? and he never will" I actually laughed with him when he said that. Because that sikh guy is not one of his supporters, so he will never wear the "MakeAmericaGreatAgain" hat/ This protestor sikh has every right to protest but do so in the right way outside the event.Go start a blog, make a youtube video, go on radio but dont try and stop a presidential candidate from having his first amendment disrupted.

People say Trump is hateful. But wait there are people chopping off heads, burning people in cages, tying people up in cars and launching rockets at them and then saying allah akbar. What trump says towards islam I agree with. Apart from what he said about the family. But then again in war sometimes you have to use extreme measures to win against terrorists. If trump wants to kill the terrorists families as a warning to other potential jihadi terrorists of what would happen to his/her family I will not be offended by such move. Also trump has backtracked from this comment,

So many protesters especially the BLM thugs have been violent that now Sir Trump has stated publicly that he will press charges against them and told police to arrest them from now on. Now these protestors seem to dwindle away :biggrin2:

Edited by thesoldier
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just been listening to this shabad to help with some stress:  
    • Whether you’re a confident but controlling first-born or a resourceful yet restless middle child, your positioning in the family can affect everything from your choice of career to how successful your marriage is.   The order we’re born in – first, middle or youngest child – is outside our control. So it can make us uncomfortable to think that our birth order can play a significant part in our success, our personality – the direction of our life. Surely, these things are not set before we even get started? And yet, we all know a ‘typical middle child’, we recognise ‘classic only-child behaviour’. And the over-achievement of the first-born is one of the most consistent findings in child psychology. So how big a role does birth order play? I’m coming from a vulnerable, emotionally charged and pregnant perspective. I have two daughters, aged five and six, and am about to add a third baby to the mix. At the moment, Ruby, our eldest, has life sussed. She’s independent, educationally gifted and sometimes I think I could leave her in Sainsbury’s and she’d probably look after herself. Tara, her younger sister, is the one who wants the cuddles, who frets if I’m not first at the door when school finishes. The idea that she’ll soon be shoved out of her space as the baby of the family and squashed into the middle fills me with guilt. Is it downhill for her from now on? The importance of birth order was first set out by the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler. Michael Grose, an Adlerian-trained parenting expert and author of Why First-borns Rule The World And Last-borns Want To Change It (Random House, £12.99), explains the basics. ‘We’re in a Darwinian struggle from the moment we’re born, fighting for scarce resources within a family – our parents’ time, love and affection,’ he says. Through human evolution, birth order has determined who inherits power (the first-born) and who is sent to war (the youngest as he was the ‘spare’). First born Historically, first-borns have been less likely to die in infancy, are less susceptible to disease and, as adults, are more likely to reproduce. They are their parents’ ‘blue-chip security’, whose birth is most eagerly anticipated, whose first steps, first words, first everythings are celebrated. ‘Typical first-borns are appro-val-seeking missiles,’ says Grose. ‘They’ve been showered with attention and identify strongly with power.’ First-borns are thought to be conscientious and achievement-oriented. A study of Norwegians born between 1912 and 1975 found that educational achievement was highest in first-borns and diminished the further down the birth order you got, despite little difference in IQ. The legal profession is, says Grose, filled with first-borns. World leaders are also overwhelmingly first-born children. On the negative side, first-borns are the only ones who experience having their parents all to themselves, then having to share them. For this reason, they’re thought to be anxious, emotionally intense, defensive and prone to jealous rages. These are all characteristics that fit Sarah Ruskell, 43. The eldest of three, she’s a successful academic, married with three children. As a child, she was serious, bookish and mature. ‘I had a younger sister and brother who were much naughtier on a daily basis,’ she says. ‘But if I was pushed, if they messed up my room or touched my records, I’d rage. Any threat to my power, I suppose.’ Another characteristic of first-borns, according to Frank Sulloway, author of Born to Rebel (Abacus), is caution and aversion to risk. They’re the least likely to travel or be physically daring. Again, this fits Sarah. While her middle brother took up hang-gliding and both siblings backpacked round the world, Sarah’s biggest adventure to date is a thunderstorm in France. Many theorists group only children among first-borns ­– although they never experience having to share their parents, nor the frictions, fights or fondness that comes with siblings. For this reason, they feel like outsiders, distanced from much of life. The only child is thought to be extremely mature, aloof, someone who expects a special standing. Middle child So what about the middle child? According to Darwinian theory, they lose out as they are neither the precious, able, oldest,­ nor the vulnerable youngest. Their strength is that they learn to be more flexible and sociable, to compromise and build coalitions. ‘Middle children tend to be more relaxed,’ says Grose. James, 39, is a typical case. Born between his sister and brother, he has always been easy-going, and loves to be surrounded by friends. Yet his affability comes at a price. ‘I turned my back on becoming a pro rugby player because I lacked competitive drive,’ he says. As the first-born boy, James didn’t struggle to establish his own identity as some middle-borns do, but, he says, ‘if I wanted something I definitely had to shout the loudest to make myself heard’. Gemma, 33, the middle of three sisters, found it harder to carve out her niche. ‘I lived in my older sister’s shadow, and was overlooked in favour of my younger sister,’ she says. ‘I felt left out, and overcompensated by forging friendships outside the family.’ She also became a skilled negotiator. ‘As a “middle” I was the peacemaker. I still use those skills now, and I’m good at seeing everyone’s point of view.’ Last born The youngest children are more likely to question the order of things, and develop a ‘revolutionary personality’. Many last-borns choose a completely different path to their older siblings to avoid direct competition. They are the babies of the family, and may grow up expecting others to take responsibility. ‘They’re not life’s volunteers,’ says Grose. ‘They’re more likely to put others in service.’ As the youngest of three, I can recognise myself in that. Growing up, I was the most likely to have blazing rows with my dad, I sympathised with the underdog and I’m not a volunteer. (At family get-togethers, I’m still the least helpful.) But a lonely outsider, struggling with an inferiority complex? It seems harsh to condemn anyone to this description simply on the basis of where they stand in the family. Grose admits the effects of birth order can vary according to different factors, including temperament, gender and age gap. Lucy McDonald is the third of five children, but was the first girl. ‘I’ve got a mix of middle and oldest child traits,’ she says. ‘You can have an easy-going first-born, which will ease the competition all the way down,’ says Grose. ‘If the children are the same sex, the competition is more extreme –­ two boys close together produces the most rivalry, and, generally, the closer the age gap, the more dramatic the birth-order effect. When the gap is more than five years, it’s greatly diminished.’ Grose has found birth order a useful tool when dealing with adult clients. ‘Recently, I was approached by a professional in her forties who was basically worn out,’ he says. ‘She admitted that, as a child, she was always playing catch-up with her sister, who was two years older than her. She had always tried to run as fast and be as clever, and the pattern had played out her whole life. As an adult, she was competitive in everything ­– she’d replaced her older sister with her colleagues, her boss, her friends. Despite career success, she was never happy with herself. Helping her see the problem through the context of birth order put her on the path to understanding and modifying her behaviour patterns.’ Cliff Isaacson, author of Birth Order Effect for Couples (Fair Winds, £9.99), believes birth order can even help you find a partner. ‘Two third-borns make the best couples,’ he says. ‘They relate without conflict, there’s a lot of humour and they make a protective environment for their children. Two first-borns rarely connect, there’s no compromise, it’s not a happy relationship.’ According to Isaacson, however, birth order is not a fixed state. ‘It’s a set of strategies developed in childhood to cope with your siblings (or lack of them), parents and the family situation,’ he says. ‘As you get older, you may learn other ways of interacting with your peers. The best reason for studying your birth order is to understand yourself or your children a little better – then overcome it.’ Are you a born leader? More than half the US Presidents, every US astronaut and most Nobel prize-winners have been either first born or an only child. Typical professions are law, politics, science and accountancy. First-borns: Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler (actually his mother’s first surviving child), Kylie Minogue, Cherie Blair. Only children: Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt, Jean Paul Sartre, Burt Bacharach, Frank Sinatra, Tiger Woods. Middle children: many middle children work in retail, sales, fashion, advertising or the caring professions. Stella McCartney, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jacqueline du Pré, Princess Diana, Cindy Crawford, Cate Blanchett, Emily Brontë. Last children: thought to be rebels, non-conformists, also drawn to creative professions and performing arts. Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, Charles Darwin, Leon Trotsky, Charlie Chaplin, Hugh Grant, Johnny Depp. Source - https://www.psychologies.co.uk/birth-order-effect
    • https://www.thequint.com/women/2017/03/15/sexual-harassment-at-the-time-of-sita-draupadi-mandodari-ahalya-ramayana-mahabharata
    • Yeah, but as a condition for marriage if everything else was excellent; that's an overperfection. Though he's got to be happy, instead of starting a marriage on a bad foot.
    • Massands were proven to be Anti-Gurmat, for this very reason? Only Guru Sahib can give Amrit; this is proven in Gurbani 24/7 when imperfect humans start putting their feet in water, and calling it Amrit then we have problems. Guru Sahib is allowed to give Amrit because he is God's form. Nihangs also don't believe in female Punj Pyare; the only groups that do believe in it are man-made Jathas and not Jathas made by Vaheguru; Taksali and Nihangs; (note, not all Nihangs were formed by Guru Sahib). +1, nobody should be changing the topic, but O.P. really got to stop msking threads like this; he has not even bothered to post anything in this topic he knew would lead into a fight. (I'd give him 9000 troll points for this).