Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.
Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.
Why is it sad?
As long as they're practicing it peacefully, I don't consider Muslims any more or less wrong and misguided than a number of other religions I routinely ignore. I only have a problem with Muslims when they want to exercise their religion by killing and enslaving people and mutilating women's genitals.
We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....You don’t even support real freedom of religion or you would care that sharia is outlawed.So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?She can do that in a mooselimb country.Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?But as a lawmaker, is it okay for her to believe in sharia above our Constitution? Because that's what real mooselimbs are supposed to do.
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.
Why? It really affects no one but her, and breast-feeding doesn't always make that as practically possible as bottle-feeding.
And what the hell does "native-born" versus immigrant have to do with anything? Not to mention there's no more "adapting" involved in simply ignoring someone else's clothing than there is in ignoring someone breast-feeding a child.
My wife breast fed and worked.
Don't believe I ever said she couldn't. I said breast-feeding has practical concerns and issues that bottle-feeding doesn't. It's one of the reasons I didn't breast-feed with my kids. And I would hope we can agree that being a member of Congress is rather different from reguar jobs.
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 bitch 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.
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.
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.
We know.....because dropping this rule frightens you to no end.So....you cannot give a definitive account of all our Society and Culture.......and yet, here you try to stand in judgement of this new Representative...wagging your finger at her hijab.And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIAIt 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.
I do not have to give a definitive account of all of our Society and Culture to assert that it has value and that conserving that is a valid goal.
Your request is moronic. And dishonest.
Nope. I'm judging the weak fools that considered it important to change the rules for her.
Ah....and there we have it. There was no such thing. You lied.Share that one with us.It does raise the question of why change it now.
And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.
Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.
I saw at least one reference to someone else asking and being denied.
Why? Nothing I say will change your mind.
If it were completely reasonable, why doesn't the Senate have the same "completely reasonable" rule?Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.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.
No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.
BTW....I am amazed at how frightened certain people are of a woman in a hijab.
This is not about a woman in a hijab, but about the mindset that we need to adjust to them instead of the other way around.
This is about a woman in a hijab, because you think we need to demand that they change to be like us, rather than us simply making room for them to be different alongside us.
What system is that? Your system of hate & bigotry?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 bitch 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.
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.
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.
As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.You said it was because she was naturalized. That you abandoned that nonsense reveals even you know that assertion is ridiculous.Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.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.
lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.
Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?
And no one cares what makes you happy.
I asked you to ask me how many times a organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?
You did not ask me that, because you are afraid of the answer.
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.
I have no reason to believe that the proposed rules change package didn't get every bit as much discussion as any rules change package does when the majority changes hands. If you can show me otherwise, go ahead.
I suspect you know even less about how rules changes are put in place than I do, and you're just running off half-cocked to pitch a fit over something you just noticed for the first time.
These changes are not something that has anything to do with any community WE are a part of, so not one damned thing is being "forced" on YOU at all.
This is an example of an the national mindset where it is on US to adjust to them instead of the other way around.
Plenty of changes are occurring that are effecting me and mine communities, and it is silly of you to pretend this is some isolated incident.
Yeah, no. If we were talking about us having to actually change something about ourselves, that would be one thing. Since we're talking about us merely having to accommodate their presence and participation in our society without changing anything we ourselves do or don't do, you're way off-course.
Unless those "plenty of changes" you're talking about involve women wearing hijiabs and actually have some detrimental effect - or ANY effect - on you personally, it's irrelevant to the topic.
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 bitch 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.
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"
Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.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.
No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.
"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.
Did you read the article as to why?I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.
Why is it sad?
As long as they're practicing it peacefully, I don't consider Muslims any more or less wrong and misguided than a number of other religions I routinely ignore. I only have a problem with Muslims when they want to exercise their religion by killing and enslaving people and mutilating women's genitals.
Big case charging a doctor for mutilating women's genitals, just got dismissed.
Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit
9 girls that they know of. And the core charges were dropped. BUt hey, it's not my community, and doesn't affect me, so why should I care?
That's your stance on the issue, right?
So, get the state to step up. Just like it's states that have the laws on things like murder, theft, etc.A federal judge dismissed some charges Tuesday against eight people — including two doctors — in the genital mutilation of nine girls at a suburban Detroit clinic, finding it's up to states rather than Congress to regulate the practice.
I'm guessing they wouldn't be....unless they thought that Sikh was some kind of muslim.If it were completely reasonable, why doesn't the Senate have the same "completely reasonable" rule?Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.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.
No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.
BTW....I am amazed at how frightened certain people are of a woman in a hijab.
This is not about a woman in a hijab, but about the mindset that we need to adjust to them instead of the other way around.
Would you be as upset had it been a Sikh male elected to Congress? Yes, you would have!
You are a bigot, through and through!
So we are having to change for them by US having to wear hijabs now? Where is that happening? Name the place in this country where that is happening.Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.
Cause we wouldn’t want immigrants to assimilate to us, we gotta change for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And libs can't see an issue with that.
Wearing a hijab is outlawed?Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.She can do that in a mooselimb country.Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?
And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.
I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.
Ok, let's say all the barbaric stuff, and the stuff that dispossesses woman and children of their rights. As soon as we start limiting anything, the First is being infringed upon. So we don't really have freedom of religion, just a limited freedom of religion. An oxymoron, really.Wearing a hijab is outlawed?Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.She can do that in a mooselimb country.
And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.
I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.
You are correct, we do not...because we are a secular nation. And we no longer force people to stay at home or go to church on Sundays...we are not a christian sharia nation either.We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....You don’t even support real freedom of religion or you would care that sharia is outlawed.So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?She can do that in a mooselimb country.Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?
It's certainly how you come across.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 bitch 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.
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.
How is she changing it to her system? By wearing her hijab voluntarily and NOT putting pressure on anyone else to wear one? That's changing our system?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 bitch 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.
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.
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.
