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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Roy Moore? 'Scuse me, time for another song.... you know, while you're trying to actually answer the question.

I already answered the question, asshole! You just can't find a way around it.

 

[Correll]

******* 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.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple ******* concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

YOu made a point, they called you racist.


In the lib mind, that's a win for them.

Funny then that "racist" doesn't even appear in the nest, anywhere. Nor is this thread about race anyway.

In your mind you just make it up and that's a "point" for you, amirite?

Sorry, I tend to lump all those various personal attacks the left considers debating, under the Race Card.


It is sort of lazy, but when it is ALL that they do...

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You be sure to run down to Congress and tell them that.

Right before they begin with that prayer thingy.

Prayers are not deemed to be representative of any particular religion. Got any other asinine comments to make?
I'm sure you'll think of something.

 

[Montrovant]

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".

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to cover any religious expression (such as the Ten Commandments, a popsicle stick cross on public land or a hijab) by a government entity and finds it an illegal de facto endorsement of a particular religion over others. That's the law! Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Please provide an example of a Supreme Court ruling which covers hijabs. Haven't you already pointed out your lack of knowledge when it comes to relevant USSC cases?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Changing the rules of Congress to accommodate someone's religion, be it Islam or Buddhism, is not acceptable and violates our secular legal admonitions against favoring any certain religion.
No matter how much you twist words and logic you can't change that.

I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam. You, on the other hand...

Change is often spurred by a single person or small group. That doesn't make the changes wrong or invalid.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

 

[Pogo]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

 

[there4eyeM]

The seat of American representative government would do well to represent liberty for women, not just the privilege of one woman.

 

[Correll]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

 

[Correll]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam. You, on the other hand...

Nor does it have to since we all know who the rule change was made to benefit specifically.
But that's beside the point....the hijab is a Muslim bit of wear mentioned in the Koran and designed to subjugate women. And it would be just as improper if rules were changed for a yarmulke wearing Jew or a turban wearing Sikh.
I don't know if you people are just pretending you don't understand or if you all really are that dense.

Change is often spurred by a single person or small group. That doesn't make the changes wrong or invalid.

In this case it does, if we still are following the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

WHOOOOOOOSH!

 

[Correll]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

WHOOOOOOOSH!

Why are you posting, if you have nothing to say? Are you just here to be a troll?

 

[Pogo]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

Uhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

WHOOOOOOOSH!

WAY whooooooosh.

 

[Correll]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

Uhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

Good.


So, the fact that once long ago, some guy resisted change that seems to have worked out well for US,


in no way implies that today, liberals give due consideration to whether change is good or not.



Sooo, my point stands.

 

[Pogo]

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

Uhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

Good.


So, the fact that once long ago, some guy resisted change that seems to have worked out well for US,in no way implies that today, liberals give due consideration to whether change is good or not. Sooo, my point stands.

You didn't make a point. I did that. What you did is completely miss it.




Too busy making all those



superfluous carriage returns


I'd say.

 

[Correll]

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.

Are you trying to imply that all change is good?

Uhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

Good.


So, the fact that once long ago, some guy resisted change that seems to have worked out well for US,in no way implies that today, liberals give due consideration to whether change is good or not. Sooo, my point stands.

You didn't make a point. I did that. What you did is completely miss it.

Fine. run it by me slower, with smaller words.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam. You, on the other hand...

Nor does it have to since we all know who the rule change was made to benefit specifically.
But that's beside the point....the hijab is a Muslim bit of wear mentioned in the Koran and designed to subjugate women. And it would be just as improper if rules were changed for a yarmulke wearing Jew or a turban wearing Sikh.
I don't know if you people are just pretending you don't understand or if you all really are that dense.

Change is often spurred by a single person or small group. That doesn't make the changes wrong or invalid.

In this case it does, if we still are following the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Funny, you still have yet to point to a single Supreme Court ruling that indicates hijabs, or any other religious head covers, are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House of Representatives. Should I simply take your word for it that such a ruling exists?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

 

[Correll]

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?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.