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

[OldLady]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state.

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state.

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.

we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office.
You make two mistakes there: First, you cannot "reasonably" imagine how liberals would react if a Muslim mayor decided to put up a Muslim monument (I'm not sure there is such a thing) in front of City Hall. You are not a liberal and you like to play fast and loose with what you "think" a liberal would say or do. Second, Roy Moore didn't have a "sign of his faith" in his office. He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion. That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm curious, are you also as upset or offended by the fact that the Senate changed their rules about family members on the floor to accommodate a representative (Tammy Duckworth) with a newborn she needed to breast feed?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth Can Now Breastfeed on Senate Floor Due to Rule Change

Well, as a native born American, she is not an immigrant demanding that we adapt to her, so not really relevant to the point I made.


But well I am not "upset" about it, I do disagree with it. Hand the kid off to someone for Christ's sake.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state.

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.

we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office.
You make two mistakes there: First, you cannot "reasonably" imagine how liberals would react if a Muslim mayor decided to put up a Muslim monument (I'm not sure there is such a thing) in front of City Hall. You are not a liberal and you like to play fast and loose with what you "think" a liberal would say or do. Second, Roy Moore didn't have a "sign of his faith" in his office. He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion. That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.

Are you really going to argue that a vast majority of liberals wouldn't defend a Muslim under similar circumstances? That's hogwash and you know it. I would contend that a great many of them would defend the Muslim simply because they are assholes, but many of them would defend the Muslim because they have no actual principles.

Let me give a clear example of liberals having no principles and so they defend one group for doing exactly what they condemned another group for doing and explain the difference between them and me. And I'll even stipulate that there are some liberals out there who actually have principles but they are few and far between.

Do you know of ANY liberals who defend say a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Me either.

But I know quite a few liberals who defend a restaraunt owner's right to ask a Trump supporter to leave.

Those two positions are completely in congruent and frankly you'd have to be retarded and or completely dishonest to hold both positions, yet most liberals have no problem doing so and will twist themselves up into the most pretzel like positions trying to defend their "logic"

Meanwhile, the reality is in this country if you own a business you damn well should be able to serve whomever you want, and no one should be able to force you to do business with them.

Now, perhaps you are naive to think that when it came to putting up religious statues liberals would suddenly become logical and principled , but I'm more jaded and tend to believe most would put politics above principles, based on the fact that I've watched them do it over and over and over again for many many years.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here rather than assuming you know I'm right and are simply being dishonest.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Sorry--You are apparently replying to someone I have on ignore.

I can definitely see why you would have said poster on ignore.

Leave her alone..

You **** with her liberal views you going to have to **** with me and my conservative views..


.


.

 

[Correll]

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?

Newcomers? Damn those Germans who came here and brought those stupid trees for Christmas time! Why didn't they adapt to our non-christmas celebrating ways? If it was good enough for the Puritans, why wasn't it good enough for them?

Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

 

[Correll]

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.

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

Sorry--You are apparently replying to someone I have on ignore.

I can definitely see why you would have said poster on ignore.

Leave her alone..

You **** with her liberal views you going to have to **** with me and my conservative views..


.


.

What on Earth are you going on about?

 

[Correll]

The Constitution you lefties consider an "living document". ie toilet paper.

What a pity you think the Constitution is toilet paper.

And now we have a leftie pretending to be too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "you".


ON some level, doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

You don’t speak for lefties, you speak only for yourself. And you called the Constitution, “toilet paper.” I always knew you hate America.

It is one thing to disagree with what I say, as I spoke for lefties.


It is another to take in another step and pretend that thought I was speaking for myself.


Specifically it is the act of lying. YOu are a liar. Nothing you say, should ever be trusted or given any credibility other than it's own internal logic. Which it generally has none.

I repeat my question. Doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

Of course you were speaking for yourself, you don’t speak for lefties.

But I did. You can challenge me on that, or dispute my claim about what lefties say,


but pretending I said it speaking for myself, is just you being a dishonest asshole.


You lost this one, Move on, you are just making a fool of yourself, and everyone already knows that, so wasting time.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state.

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.

we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office.
You make two mistakes there: First, you cannot "reasonably" imagine how liberals would react if a Muslim mayor decided to put up a Muslim monument (I'm not sure there is such a thing) in front of City Hall. You are not a liberal and you like to play fast and loose with what you "think" a liberal would say or do. Second, Roy Moore didn't have a "sign of his faith" in his office. He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion. That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.

Are you really going to argue that a vast majority of liberals wouldn't defend a Muslim under similar circumstances? That's hogwash and you know it. I would contend that a great many of them would defend the Muslim simply because they are assholes, but many of them would defend the Muslim because they have no actual principles.

Let me give a clear example of liberals having no principles and so they defend one group for doing exactly what they condemned another group for doing and explain the difference between them and me. And I'll even stipulate that there are some liberals out there who actually have principles but they are few and far between.

Do you know of ANY liberals who defend say a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Me either.

But I know quite a few liberals who defend a restaraunt owner's right to ask a Trump supporter to leave.

Those two positions are completely in congruent and frankly you'd have to be retarded and or completely dishonest to hold both positions, yet most liberals have no problem doing so and will twist themselves up into the most pretzel like positions trying to defend their "logic"

Meanwhile, the reality is in this country if you own a business you damn well should be able to serve whomever you want, and no one should be able to force you to do business with them.

Now, perhaps you are naive to think that when it came to putting up religious statues liberals would suddenly become logical and principled , but I'm more jaded and tend to believe most would put politics above principles, based on the fact that I've watched them do it over and over and over again for many many years.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here rather than assuming you know I'm right and are simply being dishonest.

Okay, you've sunk into the Swamp of Stereotypes and are doing nothing but flinging worthless balls of poo.
It is an utter waste of time to argue a hypothetical with someone who has no intentions but to make liberals look dishonest, hypocritical, hateful, etc. etc.
So I won't.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state.

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.

we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office.
You make two mistakes there: First, you cannot "reasonably" imagine how liberals would react if a Muslim mayor decided to put up a Muslim monument (I'm not sure there is such a thing) in front of City Hall. You are not a liberal and you like to play fast and loose with what you "think" a liberal would say or do. Second, Roy Moore didn't have a "sign of his faith" in his office. He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion. That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.

Are you really going to argue that a vast majority of liberals wouldn't defend a Muslim under similar circumstances? That's hogwash and you know it. I would contend that a great many of them would defend the Muslim simply because they are assholes, but many of them would defend the Muslim because they have no actual principles.

Let me give a clear example of liberals having no principles and so they defend one group for doing exactly what they condemned another group for doing and explain the difference between them and me. And I'll even stipulate that there are some liberals out there who actually have principles but they are few and far between.

Do you know of ANY liberals who defend say a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Me either.

But I know quite a few liberals who defend a restaraunt owner's right to ask a Trump supporter to leave.

Those two positions are completely in congruent and frankly you'd have to be retarded and or completely dishonest to hold both positions, yet most liberals have no problem doing so and will twist themselves up into the most pretzel like positions trying to defend their "logic"

Meanwhile, the reality is in this country if you own a business you damn well should be able to serve whomever you want, and no one should be able to force you to do business with them.

Now, perhaps you are naive to think that when it came to putting up religious statues liberals would suddenly become logical and principled , but I'm more jaded and tend to believe most would put politics above principles, based on the fact that I've watched them do it over and over and over again for many many years.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here rather than assuming you know I'm right and are simply being dishonest.

Okay, you've sunk into the Swamp of Stereotypes and are doing nothing but flinging worthless balls of poo.
It is an utter waste of time to argue a hypothetical with someone who has no intentions but to make liberals look dishonest, hypocritical, hateful, etc. etc.
So I won't.

I dont make liberals look dishonest , hypocritical, hateful, etc etc. Their own actions do. Notice you posted that but you didn't even bother to try to deny that I am right.

And of course I'm talking about a stereotype and as with all stereotypes A) they exist for a reason and B) their existence doesnt mean EVERYONE in that group fits that mold. But most do.

I'll make it easier

how do you personally feel about bakers refusing service to gays?

how do you personally feel about restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters?

There are three opinions. Two I could respect, one I can't.

 

[OldLady]

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?

Sorry--You are apparently replying to someone I have on ignore.

I can definitely see why you would have said poster on ignore.

Leave her alone..

You **** with her liberal views you going to have to **** with me and my conservative views..


.


.

It's okay, bear. I think I've got this, for now, anyway. I appreciate the thought though.

 

[OldLady]

Why can't some of these newbies be a LIBERAL for once?

 

[Correll]

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.

Deciding which rules we want to change and who we want to accommodate and why IS a privilege that Americans have. And the Americans whose rule this is and who are actually affected by it have exercised this privilege. The only people pissed off about it are people who, noticeably, are butting into something that really doesn't concern them.

Remember what you were saying earlier about "defining our community"? The fact still applies that the two Muslim women in question are actually members of the community in question, having been duly elected to Congress, and you and I are NOT members of that community, having not even run for office. Which means THEY have far more legitimate right to have input into the rules of that community than either of us do.

You put forth a scenario where the community was able to discuss this rule and have input freely and seriously and honestly.


I doubt that.


I don't know it the dems held a vote or not, but any input opposing this would have been demagogued to the Nth degree, thus your claim of "input" is, imo, NOT TRUE.


These changes are not something we as a community are choosing to do, it is being forced on us.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

Sorry--You are apparently replying to someone I have on ignore.

I can definitely see why you would have said poster on ignore.

Leave her alone..

You **** with her liberal views you going to have to **** with me and my conservative views..


.


.

It's okay, bear. I think I've got this, for now, anyway. I appreciate the thought though.
View attachment 233082

Oh, it's YOU he's talking about. I thought it was the poster you had on ignore he was talking about LOL

Well bear513 I actually have been in a couple of threads with OldLady and I thought we have had some good discussions. I've no problems whatsoever with her and so not sure why you feel the ned to white knight, but okay.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Why can't some of these newbies be a LIBERAL for once?

Because liberals are too busy burning down their own neighborhood to protest Trump eating two scoops of ice cream to join a message board

LOL

 

[Correll]

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?

Pretty damned hypocritical, when there's not a chance in Hell we would make a similar adoption if the roles were reversed.

Also, insignificant conduct rules that affect nothing of importance to most people and are based on fashion styles and etiquette that fell out of fashion over fifty years ago are hardly "our ways" that we need to demand conformity to.

Please remember that we're talking about an article of personal dress, not animal sacrifice on the steps of the Capitol.

If I joined a group that had a rule that all members had to wear hats, during meetings, I would buy a hat and freaking wear it at meetings.


I might grumble about the expense, complain about how stupid it is, or ***** about it.


But I would not expect an institution and people who have been doing things one way for generations to change for me, just because I don't normally wear a hat.

 

[mdk]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

 

[Correll]

Newcomers should expect to have to conform to the standards of the community they are joining.


THe other way around, is going to cause US great harm. Is already causing US great harm.

They DO have to conform to standards of the community they are joining. However, there is no world in which I would consider it reasonable to be expected to conform to the point of violating my religious beliefs, so I do not expect that from others.

And I'm sorry, but a frigging hat is doing no one any harm. You need to take a freaking breath and get a sense of perspective. The United States has always been about accommodating the personal freedoms of a variety of individuals, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. I'd be interested to have you tell me what conflict with the rights of others is involved regarded a woman's headwear. It's HER head, after all. What's it to you?

It's amusing to watch you try to put on airs, when your primary debating tactic is to call people you don't like, monkeys.

"try to put on airs" Oh? And I call no one a monkey. Why do you lie so glibly?

Your sophist word games are noted and dismissed.

Sophist word games? You mean, using words according to their actual meaning in order to communicate ideas? Would those be the games you mean?

If you don't like being told that what you said is a load of shit, maybe you should put more thought into what you say.

Bodecea's style of debate IS to call people names. It seems to be all she has. What are you talking about?

Oh? And what name have I called YOU?

"deplorable trumpanzees", right above, for one example, why do you ask? Did you forget?


I certainly don't recall you making anything resembling a point, any time recently.