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

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, this isn't "joining a group" like signing up for the Kiwanis. This is the federal legislature, which makes laws for the entire country. And you're suggesting that it is reasonable to expect citizens of the United States to forego their Constitutional right to run for elected office and participate in political policy-making because of an obscure, obsolete dress code rule? It is so damned important that no one ever wear a hat in the House chamber that it should supersede multiple Constitutional rights? That is actually the position you want to stake out here?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

So basically, that whole concept of universal Constitutional rights for all citizens is now bullshit if the citizens in question insist on being different from what you, in your almighty wisdom, have determined is "the only right way to be American"?

Never mind that centuries-long history of America accommodating a wide variety of cultures and religions, so long as there is no violation of other people's rights and the individuals abide by our laws and give the same respect to other people.

The new America is apparently "If your religion makes you look funny to me, no rights for you!"

"It is on them to figure out how to live in our society" = "You'd better change to be exactly like us"

That is not what I said.

That is EXACTLY what you said. You just don't like having it pointed out to you.

Your refusal to listen to what I am actually saying, is part of the problem.

The problem is not that I don't understand your "brilliance". The problem is that you refuse to consider that you aren't brilliant, and I am understanding far more about you than you are.

Most narrow-minded, xenophobic bigots are convinced that they're just stating rational, obvious sense. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.

NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.

No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.

Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?

Nowhere. Are you disputing the hijab is a Muslim sign of women's second place status under the religion of Mohammad? That says plenty about the hijab, I would say.

This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
   
2. You shall not make idols.
   
   
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   
   
5. Honor your father and your mother.
   
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
   
10. You shall not covet.

We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.

You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?

I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?

 

[Montrovant]

******* hat bans on the ******* House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

btw. your race baiting really, really undermines that claim.

As far as I can tell, this change to the rules has not actually been applied yet. The articles about the subject all talk about it as a proposed rule change. What makes you say that due consideration is not taking place? What constitutes due consideration?

Can you support the claim you seem to be making that due consideration is not taking place?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is what the hijab represents. What it does not represent is what rights women have fought for and gained here in the US. The hijab is to a throw back era, and to think American women would see it as anything but, just astounds me.
Woman 'faces calls to be executed after going out without a hijab in Saudi Arabia' | Daily Mail Online

Well, considering that this isn't Saudi Arabia and our laws don't allow for women to be executed for not wearing a hijab, I'm going to call this utterly irrelevant.

No one's forcing Ms. Omar to wear a hijab, that I'm aware of. She's choosing it of her own free will, which is the point at which my agreement and approval - and YOUR agreement and approval - end. Not to put too fine a point on it, but whatever you think of her traditions and what they represent is, and always will be, irrelevant.

We didn't fight for the "right" of all women to go out with their heads uncovered no matter what they want to do because YOU think they should, any more than we fought for them to be forced to cover their heads. The actual right for women that was fought for was for every individual woman to do as she personally chose, regardless of what anyone else thought of it.

What YOU are talking about is just a shift of oppression and oppressor, from "You must cover your head" to "You must uncover your head", based on the wishes of someone other than the woman in question.

 

[depotoo]

So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them? Wow.
I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality. I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.

It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.

NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.

No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.

Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?

Nowhere. Are you disputing the hijab is a Muslim sign of women's second place status under the religion of Mohammad? That says plenty about the hijab, I would say.

This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
   
2. You shall not make idols.
   
   
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   
   
5. Honor your father and your mother.
   
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
   
10. You shall not covet.

We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.

You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?

I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.

Democrat rules: Muslims trump women.

American rules: universal freedom trumps prejudice.

Ms. Omar is a woman; you are not. Explain to me why you think it's okay for YOU to decide what her "rights" as a woman should be, rather than her deciding for herself.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?

Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

American rules: universal freedom trumps prejudice.

Ms. Omar is a woman; you are not. Explain to me why you think it's okay for YOU to decide what her "rights" as a woman should be, rather than her deciding for herself.

There are no Constitutional exceptions based on gender. Being a woman doesn't make you magically immune from our secular national values.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Completely reasonable" in what sense? Because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House? Or because you're going to put that damned Muslim in her place and show her that she has to be just like you?

How many times have you joined an organization or community, and before you even join, they changed the rules for your convenience?

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your *****-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

 

[Montrovant]

Not at all. Expressing one's religious self is the same regardless of the means of expression. Only an inferior mind would
get distracted and confused by the visual difference between a slab or rock and a hijab.Religious expression is religious expression....period! I'm disappointed I still have to keep making this point.

Once again: what do you base this assertion on? Why do you think that "religious expression is religious expression....period!"? Is there something in the Constitution or in relevant case law that states that any type of religious expression is the same as any other? And, if it is true that religious expression should all be treated the same, why did you earlier indicate that religious jewelry should not be treated the same as other forms of religious expression because it is not as easily visible? That seems like a contradiction.

Further, as I've pointed out multiple times, the monument is not the same as a hijab because the monument is more than a personal expression. It becomes a part of the courthouse. The monument remained part of the courthouse after Roy Moore left. It was not just Roy Moore's personal expression of religion, he made it part of a government building, made it a government expression of religion. Ilhan Omar's hijab never becomes part of the House of Representatives; it is always connected to and limited to her.

Moore had the monument introduced when a court said he could not post the Ten Commandments on his courthouse wall. It helps to know the facts before arguing an issue.

How is that relevant?
I don't know if it's true. I recall you saying something about Moore having a poster of the commandments put up, and I've been able to find nothing to confirm that. He did apparently have a plaque while he was a circuit judge and had to take it down.
Did you know that the other 8 members of the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously voted against Moore regarding the monument, and that the USSC refused to hear Moore's case?

And you continue to make a flawed argument this is not supported by logic and common sense.

What is the essential issue? It is whether a government official can bring his religious views into public life therefore threatening the prohibition against our secular government endorsing one religion over another. In both cases, Moore and Omar, that is what they are doing....promoting one specific religion as a part of their public lives.

Only Roy Moore was slapped down for it and so far Ilhan Omar has received the support of the House of Representatives who apparently don't believe in our founding principles.
This is a matter for the Supreme Court to resolve since democrats are being hypocritically two faced about things (as usual).

Once again, Roy Moore did not just make a personal expression of religious belief. He had a monument placed for public display in a courthouse, making it a part of that government building. The display was not limited to Moore. Ilhan Omar wearing a hijab is limited to her. It is not part of the House of Representatives; it does not remain when Omar leaves. Do you deny the basic truth of these statements, or do you think the fact that the monument became part of the courthouse is irrelevant?

The USSC can decide this issue if the rule change in the House passes, someone brings forth a case against it, it is appealed through the court system, and the USSC decides to hear the case. If I were you, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to occur.

You seem to admit anti Christian bias by the ACLU does exist yet insist the few examples of the ACLU representing Christians disproves the bias?
You need to make up your mind and then admit that the few cases you can cite does not disprove the many others.

Here is something else to help you decide. Pay special attention to the section Censoring God.
ACLU - Conservapedia

You're having a difficult time comprehending what I've said. I said that even if the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, they still get involved in cases fighting to protect the religious rights of Christians. I didn't say taking on such cases disproves their bias. I didn't say that the cases they have taken to protect the religious rights of Christians disprove any other cases.

I have said that, since you didn't even know the ACLU EVER took on cases protecting the religious rights of Christians, your opinion about the organization does not hold much weight.

 

[depotoo]

Honey, I am all woman, and no way is the subjugating of women a plus for us. Ever.

And your pouncing on a man that believes in the rights of women to be treated equally, well, this just confirms to me that you really aren’t for the better treatment of women, at all.

How many times have you joined an organization or community, and before you even join, they changed the rules for your convenience?

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your *****-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

 

[Cecilie1200]

One thing to consider is that of what our culture regards as 'religious symbols', which do we require that women wear? And where would a woman be punished for not wearing it?
This "head gear", this symbol is of repression of our sisters.

The only thing to consider is whether anyone is requiring Ms. Omar to wear the hijab, other than her god.

Beyond that, you have nothing whatsoever to consider about someone else's life choices if they don't affect you. And spare me the lofty claims of "repression for our sisters"; if you're telling her she can't wear it, that's no different from someone else telling her she has to. Both are the desire to decide for women who and what they have to be, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

 

[depotoo]

No one forbids her to wear it, other than within the Congressional chamber. Where laws have been made to uphold the rights of women not to be enslaved.

One thing to consider is that of what our culture regards as 'religious symbols', which do we require that women wear? And where would a woman be punished for not wearing it?
This "head gear", this symbol is of repression of our sisters.

The only thing to consider is whether anyone is requiring Ms. Omar to wear the hijab, other than her god.

Beyond that, you have nothing whatsoever to consider about someone else's life choices if they don't affect you. And spare me the lofty claims of "repression for our sisters"; if you're telling her she can't wear it, that's no different from someone else telling her she has to. Both are the desire to decide for women who and what they have to be, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

 

[Pogo]

This is an expression of religion!

Public officials swearing in on the Holey Babble for two-plus centuries and a "pledge of allegiance" foisted on children invoking a deity, and NOW you're suddenly worried about 'expressions of religion'?

Check your First Amendment, where religious freedom is articulated. Its first five words are "Congress shall make no law".

 

[Montrovant]

I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?

Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.

But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.

The proposed rule change would allow a religious exception to the House hat rule, not a Muslim exception or a hijab exception.

 

[irosie91]

This is an expression of religion!

Public officials swearing in on the Holey Babble for two-plus centuries and a "pledge of allegiance" foisted on children invoking a deity, and NOW you're suddenly worried about 'expressions of religion'?

Check your First Amendment, where religious freedom is articulated. Its first five words are "Congress shall make no law".

Yes POGO-----"no law" and SHOULD MAINTAIN
THE APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE NEUTRALITY
IN MATTERS RELATED TO RELIGION. I support
the ban on overt signs of religions including head
coverings specific and amulet style jewelry etc etc
and white shoes after labor day

 

[irosie91]

I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?

Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.

But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.

The proposed rule change would allow a religious exception to the House hat rule, not a Muslim exception or a hijab exception.

bad idea since it is almost impossible to DEFINE A RELIGION------creating a list of ACCEPTABLE RELIGIONS
is very NOT ACCEPTABLE

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

******* hat bans on the ******* House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.

Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

No, you are targeting Muslims because of their religious beliefs. You even erroneously call them "dot heads" because your bigotry is fed by your ignorance.

You simply hate anyone who is not white. It's OK to admit it. That way we will know to blame it on your ignorance.

1. I am not targeting Muslims. This particular change is about a Muslim, but my stance on change needing due consideration is pretty much universal.

2. I did not call them dot heads.

3. Enough with the "hate". I can oppose change without "hating" the people involved. You are being unreasonable.

4. There are plenty of whites that I do not like and plenty of non-whites that I do like. YOu are simply incorrect.

Your stance on "due consideration" appears to be "I don't approve of it, so don't do it". I guess that's universal, but I don't know that you should be proud of it.

 

[irosie91]

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

******* hat bans on the ******* House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.

Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.

there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion