“This just goes to show that Maggie Gallagher and Bryan Fischer are stupid and have not read or understood the ruling. They obviously don't understand that "Findings of Fact" are indisputable, because they are FACTS. Facts are indisputably true by definition. Furthermore, anyone who has any grasp on reality and ability to understand logical reasoning could see that the judge's conclusions were ironclad, based entirely upon Constitutional law and federal judicial precedent, and therefore are not "his opinions". Sorry Maggie, but you have no case, and obviously no common sense.”
chicagurl on Aug 6, 2010 at 13:45:40
“Oh, Aidan - are you new here? You'll quickly come to realize that republicans never deal with "facts."”
“If by clearly and witty you mean that she uses sluggishly tired and doltish "humor" to distort the facts and show that she doesn't agree with them, then you're totally right. But here's the problem, you can't argue with the facts because they don't change just because you don't agree with them. She wouldn't know how to present a fact truthfully if it smacked her right on the nose.”
“So are these people saying that if say, anyone in the United States did something that is against the law in Indiana, that it shouldn't be published in their newspapers because the action is not legal there? So they just want to be sheltered? It wouldn't matter to these people what the law is, whether same sex marriage is legal or not, they would be complaining about this either way. The fact of the matter is that they are bigots, they don't like gay people, and they don't want to read about them in their newspaper. Frankly, they should get over it. This is just a blatant attack by the social conservatives and their hick cronies on the freedom of the press. And are these people in Indiana that delusional as to think that the newspapers care as to whether or not they agree with what is published? Seriously, WAKE UP, no one cares.”
“I don't necessarily get why he would vote against a resolution (which means very little in the grand scheme of things) just because he doesn't agree with the fact that they're voting on a resolution...”
“I think Senator Boxer could have been a little more respectful in her tone when she asked the question, but I don't see why he wouldn't call her "Senator" in the first place. It just seems... appropriate. And John McCain is a loser, so who cares what he says on "Hannity", which has a nimrod for an anchor to begin with.”
“This would constitute discrimination against an ethnic-religious group. If France does this, it will only show how radically anti-Muslim they have become.”
alossix on Jun 19, 2009 at 16:35:07
“Agreed. What would legally constitute a burqa or niqab? Would any head covering be included in the ban, or only head coverings that are used in certain religions? To whom does the law apply?
How about a compromise: No woman in France can be forced to wear full-body coverings against their will?”
callmeslice23 on Jun 19, 2009 at 16:24:23
“Or that they feel very strongly for womens rights?”
Patricia84 on Jun 19, 2009 at 16:18:19
“I don't see how this is discriminatory. If someone want to be wearing gabs that prevent them to be recognized, they should do so in their very home or go where such behavior is acceptable. Imagine if everyone went down the streets wearing black masks, how freaky would that be? I understand that this is a cultural thing for some but if they value their culture that much they should stay where such customs are normal, i.e, not in the Western world.
People are getting thrown in jail for kissing in the streets, not wearing a hijab and so on in Muslim countries. If Western people are expected to follow a precise code in Muslim countries so should Muslims in the Western world. Nothing discriminatory about that. It's not so much about religion as it is about culture. France's culture is a secular one, which means religion is something personal, that you keep in your home or the church you go to. You don't get to force it down everyone's throw and expect them to let you go completely unidentifiable so they can accomodate you.”