Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

[danielpalos]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

it should be about equality and equal rights; not merely being a "right winger".

 

[Faun]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

 

[Faun]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

What do you mean, “our ways?” They’re not “our ways,” they’re House ways and we are not members of the House. They make up their own rules and it’s customary for the House to change some rules at the start of a new session.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........

Don't flatter yourself, twinkie. Your posts aren't exactly "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in the original Old English.

Contemplate the possibility that I'm not criticizing you because "your brilliance is too much for me", but because you made a jackass out of yourself by not bothering to learn how the board functions work, or how board etiquette works, AND you didn't read the thread before you started shooting off your flapping facehole.

As far as literacy and reading comprehension goes, you appear to be the one who hasn't understood anything that's been. I didn't dispute that liberals complain about "separation of church and state", newbie shitforbrains; I pointed out that it's not the liberals objecting to the hijab.

You're not just an asshole, you're a DUMB asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

What does "Congress can restrict the second amendment " have to do with congress restricting the first amendment?

God damn you really are stupid, aren't you? Good day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

What does "Congress can restrict the second amendment " have to do with congress restricting the first amendment?

God damn you really are stupid, aren't you? Good day.

Well, I'm not the one who brought up the Second Amendment in a thread involving the First Amendment, so it's not really my place to address this question.

So I assume this means you're not only an illiterate, ill-mannered boor, but also a coward. Run in, make an ass of yourself by posting without reading first, and then run away with your tail between your legs the instant it's pointed out to you.

If you had bothered to read some of the board before you started babbling, you would know that everyone here recognizes "You're stupid, good day" as universal surrender.

Tiny penises and big mouths seem to be the order of the day for ignorant newbies around here.

 

[Faun]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Great to see you’re on board with the new rule change.

 

[Montrovant]

This I don't know. But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat. Not really clear on that.

Regardless, it's an insignificant rule that appears not to have mattered all that much at the time, and matters not at all now. I doubt any of the people screeching that it's "the coming end of the Republic!" even knew this rule existed five minutes before they heard that it was going to be changed.

But you did...right?
What matters is not the rule itself, which was instituted to prevent people from wearing wigs and hats in Congress which were considered an English custom showing allegiance to the crown (US House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim) but how democrats are eager to yield and serve Muslim interests wherever possible.

No, this single incident of collusion will not cause the union to collapse but it is illustrative of how someone like Roy Moore lost his office over his religious identification while Ilhan Omar is being catered to, praised and has idiots defending her "rights" while denying and vilifying Moore for his very same wish to keep his religious identity.

We should come out and declare Islam a protected class. And by "we" I mean the leftist dolts who bow and scrape to serve them.

To be clear, Roy Moore was removed from office for defying the order of a federal judge who ordered that a 2 and a half ton granite 10 commandments monument be removed from the courthouse. It wasn't simply some personal item Moore kept with him or brought into his office or anything like that. It certainly was a far cry from a hijab.

Short History of the Battle Over the Ten Commandments in Alabama

 

[Faun]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........

No, not at every turn. But absolutely when it’s the government establishing religion, which violates the First Amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Great to see you’re on board with the new rule change.

Now if he were only on board with making some kind of sense and knowing who's saying what.

 

[Faun]

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........

No, not at every turn. But absolutely when it’s the government establishing religion, which violates the First Amendment.

Well, I don't know about "establishing religion". It's not like the rule was put in place for a reason that had anything to do with religion. The effect on Ms. Omar's religious observances was an unintended consequence in a future that couldn't possibly be foreseen.

But yeah, when we discover that a citizen's First Amendment rights are being violated with no compelling reason - or no real reason at all, in this case - the obvious action is to put a stop to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.

Also, I don't know of any member of Congress, or any employee of the Capitol building, who is objecting to the rule about guns. They all seem pretty okay with it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.

Also, I don't know of any member of Congress, or any employee of the Capitol building, who is objecting to the rule about guns. They all seem pretty okay with it.

what does that have to do with anything dipshit? If Congress can restrict rights, they can restrict rights , whether people object or not.

Damn you are a simple minded moron.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........

No, not at every turn. But absolutely when it’s the government establishing religion, which violates the First Amendment.

Well, I don't know about "establishing religion". It's not like the rule was put in place for a reason that had anything to do with religion. The effect on Ms. Omar's religious observances was an unintended consequence in a future that couldn't possibly be foreseen.

But yeah, when we discover that a citizen's First Amendment rights are being violated with no compelling reason - or no real reason at all, in this case - the obvious action is to put a stop to it.

I’m not saying this rule establishes religion. I’m saying it doesn’t. It’s allowing religious members to practice their faiths. As opposed to Moore setting up a monument of the Ten Commandments, which does establish religion and is not a case of an individual practicing their religion. That’s why it was unconstitutional for Moore to do what he did while it’s not unconstitutional to allow House members to wear religious headwear. Which is also why this issue is not hypocritical on the part of Democrats.

I also can’t help but notice how no one against this is pushing for the Senate to ban such headwear, where their rules already allow for it.

 

[OldLady]

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.

Also, I don't know of any member of Congress, or any employee of the Capitol building, who is objecting to the rule about guns. They all seem pretty okay with it.

what does that have to do with anything dipshit? If Congress can restrict rights, they can restrict rights , whether people object or not.

Damn you are a simple minded moron.

Donovan, when you are going to answer a poster, hit "reply" in the bottom right corner of the post you are responding to, so the rest of us know who in hell you're talking to (or about). If you like, practice on this one.

Thank you.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.

Also, I don't know of any member of Congress, or any employee of the Capitol building, who is objecting to the rule about guns. They all seem pretty okay with it.

what does that have to do with anything dipshit? If Congress can restrict rights, they can restrict rights , whether people object or not.

Damn you are a simple minded moron.

Donovan, when you are going to answer a poster, hit "reply" in the bottom right corner of the post you are responding to, so the rest of us know who in hell you're talking to (or about). If you like, practice on this one.

Thank you.

That's what I've been doing?