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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It has to do with the fact that we're not talking about a law here, Gomer. On either point. We're talking about rules of behavior in the Capitol building, their workplace. If they all agree that they're okay with not exercising their Second Amendment rights in that place, then there's not actually anything to discuss.

Ms. Omar is obviously NOT okay with not exercising her First Amendment rights.

Also, as Faun pointed out, there is absolutely no compelling reason to restrict or violate her First Amendment rights. As far as anyone can tell, there's no reason for it at all, compelling or otherwise. And Congress DEFINITELY cannot restrict or violate any rights without a reason, just for the Hell of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started off by saying you didn't see a reason for her not to wear a hijab, and casting aspersions at the liberals for opposing it, even though they aren't. And NOW you're arguing against her wearing it, simply because you're pissed off that I pointed out how much you had stepped on your own johnson.

SOMEONE is certainly simple-minded, anyway.

 

[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.

It has to do with the fact that we're not talking about a law here, Gomer. On either point. We're talking about rules of behavior in the Capitol building, their workplace. If they all agree that they're okay with not exercising their Second Amendment rights in that place, then there's not actually anything to discuss.

Ms. Omar is obviously NOT okay with not exercising her First Amendment rights.

Also, as Faun pointed out, there is absolutely no compelling reason to restrict or violate her First Amendment rights. As far as anyone can tell, there's no reason for it at all, compelling or otherwise. And Congress DEFINITELY cannot restrict or violate any rights without a reason, just for the Hell of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started off by saying you didn't see a reason for her not to wear a hijab, and casting aspersions at the liberals for opposing it, even though they aren't. And NOW you're arguing against her wearing it, simply because you're pissed off that I pointed out how much you had stepped on your own johnson.

SOMEONE is certainly simple-minded, anyway.

You are stupid.

The claim was made that preventing her from wearing her hijjab would violate her first amendment right, I rightfully pointed out that no it wouldn't just as not allowing a person to carry a gun doesn't violate that person's second amendment right.

I've NO doubt that you would not be on here making the argument that its okay to change the rules because she has a right if she wanted to carry a gun.

You truly are a simpleton, a drink of bleach is what you need.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Mind you, I didn't have any particular problem with the monument, and didn't consider it the business of anyone who didn't actually live in that community.

But it's undeniable that a personal article of clothing and a big-ass monument erected in a public building aren't even remotely similar.

I can only assume none of these doofuses (doofi?) are mentioning the Senate because A) they have no idea what the rules of conduct are for either chamber of Congress unless and until it hits the news, and B) there aren't actually any Muslim women in the Senate to ***** about at the moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, I tried that already.

Be expecting him to attack you as though you just pointed at his tiny penis and laughed.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.

You throw around the word "racist" here as if it has any meaning when you use it. It does not.
Let me repeat for the hard of hearing (looking back at you) that, yes, the rule changed was insignificant. But no, as long as Roy Moore (someone I have no investment in outside of this principled issue) gets removed from office for expression of his religious conviction but Ihhan Omar has doors opened for and is able to ignore long standing rules (the rules must change for her...she doesn't have to yield to them) so she can express her religious convictions, you'll remain as ignorant and biased as any back woods red neck.
And of course massively hypocritical, but that's a given for your type.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It has to do with the fact that we're not talking about a law here, Gomer. On either point. We're talking about rules of behavior in the Capitol building, their workplace. If they all agree that they're okay with not exercising their Second Amendment rights in that place, then there's not actually anything to discuss.

Ms. Omar is obviously NOT okay with not exercising her First Amendment rights.

Also, as Faun pointed out, there is absolutely no compelling reason to restrict or violate her First Amendment rights. As far as anyone can tell, there's no reason for it at all, compelling or otherwise. And Congress DEFINITELY cannot restrict or violate any rights without a reason, just for the Hell of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started off by saying you didn't see a reason for her not to wear a hijab, and casting aspersions at the liberals for opposing it, even though they aren't. And NOW you're arguing against her wearing it, simply because you're pissed off that I pointed out how much you had stepped on your own johnson.

SOMEONE is certainly simple-minded, anyway.

You are stupid.

The claim was made that preventing her from wearing her hijjab would violate her first amendment right, I rightfully pointed out that no it wouldn't just as not allowing a person to carry a gun doesn't violate that person's second amendment right.

I've NO doubt that you would not be on here making the argument that its okay to change the rules because she has a right if she wanted to carry a gun.

You truly are a simpleton, a drink of bleach is what you need.

Preventing her from wearing her hijab IS violating her First Amendment right. She wants to exercise her religion by wearing it; the rule told her she couldn't.

You ignorantly tried to draw a parallel between carrying weapons in a federal building and wearing a head scarf. It's not quite as ridiculous as your long-lost-twin's attempt to draw a parallel between a multi-ton monument and a head scarf, but you're still in the competition.

I've NO doubt you have no ******* clue what I would or wouldn't say about a gun, because as I've pointed out multiple times, you are too much of an arrogant, obnoxious ass to bother reading the message board and finding out what's going on before barging in and sounding off as though you're God's personal messenger boy. In your eyes, I'm a liberal, the people opposing the hijab are liberals, anyone and everyone who says something you don't agree with is automatically a liberal, simply because you mistakenly believe every half-assed thought that wanders through your diseased head MUST be the paramount representation of conservatism.

How you even manage to notice that other people are talking at all over the racket of all the voices in your head telling you who we are, what we think, and how brilliantly "conservative" you are is a mystery.

And all that's really happening here is that you made a fool out of yourself, you got called on it, and now you're trying to go on the offensive to cover for it because you're too immature and chickenshit to admit that you screwed up.

A dose of maturity and masculinity is what you need.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

To be even more clear the object of Moore's religious expression is absolutely immaterial. So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what? The point is Ilhan Omar has her religious convictions validated and the House of Representatives yields to her while Roy Moore has his outlawed and forbidden.
Where is equal application of the law here? It simply doesn't exist and if Moore had a hat made with the Ten Commandments written on it would that make any difference to the hypocrites who think one object of religious significance for a protected religion is okay but not another for Judeo-Christian ethics?
No fcking way!

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.

You throw around the word "racist" here as if it has any meaning when you use it. It does not.
Let me repeat for the hard of hearing (looking back at you) that, yes, the rule changed was insignificant. But no, as long as Roy Moore (someone I have no investment in outside of this principled issue) gets removed from office for expression of his religious conviction but Ihhan Omar has doors opened for and is able to ignore long standing rules (the rules must change for her...she doesn't have to yield to them) so she can express her religious convictions, you'll remain as ignorant and biased as any back woods red neck.
And of course massively hypocritical, but that's a given for your type.

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one. That's the point--no religion gets top billing. Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.

But all religions are NOT embraced and Roy Moore was removed from office for daring to express his Christian beliefs.
So for you say that yielding to this one Muslim member of congress, when Moore is kicked to the curb, is not giving one protected religion top billing is simply idiotic babble. It's bullshit. It's nonsense.
It's stupefying in it's ignorance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

To be even more clear the object of Moore's religious expression is absolutely immaterial. So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what? The point is Ilhan Omar has her religious convictions validated and the House of Representatives yields to her while Roy Moore has his outlawed and forbidden.
Where is equal application of the law here? It simply doesn't exist and if Moore had a hat made with the Ten Commandments written on it would that make any difference to the hypocrites who think one object of religious significance for a protected religion is okay but not another for Judeo-Christian ethics?
No fcking way!

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

To be even more clear the object of Moore's religious expression is absolutely immaterial. So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what? The point is Ilhan Omar has her religious convictions validated and the House of Representatives yields to her while Roy Moore has his outlawed and forbidden.
Where is equal application of the law here? It simply doesn't exist and if Moore had a hat made with the Ten Commandments written on it would that make any difference to the hypocrites who think one object of religious significance for a protected religion is okay but not another for Judeo-Christian ethics?
No fcking way!

"So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up. So what?"

The point is that there's nothing wrong with her having her personal religious convictions validated, if by "validated" you mean "not interfered with".

And there is literally no sense to be found in the sentence, "So you can't compare Roy Moore to Ilhan Omar. The point is, compare the two anyway!" WTF, mouthbreather? In the English language, "not comparable" actually means "so stop trying to compare them, you ******* moron". Just to clarify.

Equal application of the law here would be in APPLYING IT TO THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL, you driveling ancephalic twit. In other words, things that are not a headscarf and a big-ass ******* monument built in a public building.

If Roy Moore had wanted to wear a jacket with the Ten Commandments embroidered on it, THAT would have been comparable. But the monument isn't comparable; it wasn't comparable when you started yammering inanely about it; it will not be comparable the 321658498 time you continue to try to talk about it despite being told that you're talking out of your ass and making a fool of yourself.

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.

 

[Montrovant]

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.

Ignoring the obvious physical differences between the monument and the hijab; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore defied a judge's order (one which was upheld on appeal) while Ilhan Omar has not defied any order; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore was almost certainly allowed to express his religious belief through worn apparel while in office, just as Omar has asked to do; do you truly not see the difference between a personal item of clothing as a form of religious expression and a multi-ton monument made part of a state building? The hijab is a personal expression which is limited to Ms. Omar's person. The monument, even if you wish to describe it as a personal expression of Moore's faith, was made a part of a public courthouse. It was not limited to Mr. Moore's person, could not be moved or removed without great effort and the use of equipment, and in effect became an expression of faith of the courthouse, thereby an expression of faith by an organization of the US government.

I can't tell if you're suffering from cognitive dissonance, willfully ignoring the obvious differences, incapable of understanding those obvious differences, or just trolling.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up. So what?"

The point is that there's nothing wrong with her having her personal religious convictions validated, if by "validated" you mean "not interfered with".

Ilhan Omar shouldn't have her personal religious convictions interfered with
but not Roy Moore. Why not?
That's okay. I know your stance is ignorant and hypocritical and you can't justify it. Just want to let you know
others see your red ass glowing brightly like a siren of stupidity.

And there is literally no sense to be found in the sentence, "So you can't compare Roy Moore to Ilhan Omar. The point is, compare the two anyway!" WTF, mouthbreather? In the English language, "not comparable" actually means "so stop trying to compare them, you ******* moron". Just to clarify.

Your foulmouthed anger is simply
an indicator of your inability to to justify your hypocrisy. I feel for the ignorant dilemma you find yourself in that causes you to lose your little mind.

Equal application of the law here would be in APPLYING IT TO THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL, you driveling ancephalic twit. In other words, things that are not a headscarf and a big-ass ******* monument built in a public building.

They are both symbols of religious expression. I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to compare two things that are not exactly alike but are the same (i.e. a monkey and a giraffe...two animals that are otherwise dissimilar).
What is your IQ anyway? Most smart people can think conceptually. I'm sorry you can't, and it makes you angry.

If Roy Moore had wanted to wear a jacket with the Ten Commandments embroidered on it, THAT would have been comparable. But the monument isn't comparable; it wasn't comparable when you started yammering inanely about it; it will not be comparable the 321658498 time you continue to try to talk about it despite being told that you're talking out of your ass and making a fool of yourself.

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

Keep ranting and revealing what a light weight you are.
It amuses me.

 

[Montrovant]

"So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up. So what?"

The point is that there's nothing wrong with her having her personal religious convictions validated, if by "validated" you mean "not interfered with".

Ilhan Omar shouldn't have her personal religious convictions interfered with
but not Roy Moore. Why not?
That's okay. I know your stance is ignorant and hypocritical and you can't justify it. Just want to let you know
others see your red ass glowing brightly like a siren of stupidity.

And there is literally no sense to be found in the sentence, "So you can't compare Roy Moore to Ilhan Omar. The point is, compare the two anyway!" WTF, mouthbreather? In the English language, "not comparable" actually means "so stop trying to compare them, you ******* moron". Just to clarify.

Your foulmouthed anger is simply
an indicator of your inability to to justify your hypocrisy. I feel for the ignorant dilemma you find yourself in that causes you to lose your little mind.

Equal application of the law here would be in APPLYING IT TO THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL, you driveling ancephalic twit. In other words, things that are not a headscarf and a big-ass ******* monument built in a public building.

They are both symbols of religious expression. I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to compare two things that are not exactly alike but are the same (i.e. a monkey and a giraffe...two animals that are otherwise dissimilar).
What is your IQ anyway? Most smart people can think conceptually. I'm sorry you can't, and it makes you angry.

If Roy Moore had wanted to wear a jacket with the Ten Commandments embroidered on it, THAT would have been comparable. But the monument isn't comparable; it wasn't comparable when you started yammering inanely about it; it will not be comparable the 321658498 time you continue to try to talk about it despite being told that you're talking out of your ass and making a fool of yourself.

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

Keep ranting and revealing what a light weight you are.
It amuses me.

You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?

It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed. Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!

 

[RealDave]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one. That's the point--no religion gets top billing. Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.

So you are for discriminating against certain religions?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?

No. What makes you think you do?
The comparison is very valid in the context I compared the two: two things that are not similar in appearance yet very similar in another sense.

It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed. Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!

That's incredibly obtuse and absurd.
I think you have baffled yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.

"So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.

Ignoring the obvious physical differences between the monument and the hijab; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore defied a judge's order (one which was upheld on appeal) while Ilhan Omar has not defied any order; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore was almost certainly allowed to express his religious belief through worn apparel while in office, just as Omar has asked to do; do you truly not see the difference between a personal item of clothing as a form of religious expression and a multi-ton monument made part of a state building? The hijab is a personal expression which is limited to Ms. Omar's person. The monument, even if you wish to describe it as a personal expression of Moore's faith, was made a part of a public courthouse. It was not limited to Mr. Moore's person, could not be moved or removed without great effort and the use of equipment, and in effect became an expression of faith of the courthouse, thereby an expression of faith by an organization of the US government.

I can't tell if you're suffering from cognitive dissonance, willfully ignoring the obvious differences, incapable of understanding those obvious differences, or just trolling.

I can at least answer your confusion at the end: he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.