Rashida Tlaib ' Impeach the MF ' Tee Shirts !!

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Tlaib Leads Chant of 'Impeach the Motherf-cker' on Capitol Hil ...
Youtube - Sep 26, 2019 › watch ›
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY3CLxcJGz4

"'Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib is selling profane t-shirts with the slogan “impeach the MF”'

[risky biz]

Let's hope 'dutch' can show up soon to free this Muslim woman from her piteous state of religious oppression.

[Clave]

You poor tender little snowflake.

Is that better or worse, do you suppose, than four solid years of "lock
her up"?

[risky biz]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:48:30 AM UTC-7, Clave wrote:
> On 10/4/2019 9:26 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Tlaib Leads Chant of 'Impeach the Motherf-cker' on Capitol Hil ...
> > Youtube - Sep 26, 2019 › watch ›
> > -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY3CLxcJGz4
> >
> > "'Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib is selling profane t-shirts with the slogan “impeach the MF”'
>
> You poor tender little snowflake.

I think you're confused about 'mogulah'. He likes the T-shirts.

[Clave]

On 10/4/2019 11:01 AM, risky biz wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:48:30 AM UTC-7, Clave wrote:
>> On 10/4/2019 9:26 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Tlaib Leads Chant of 'Impeach the Motherf-cker' on Capitol Hil ...
>>> Youtube - Sep 26, 2019 › watch ›
>>> -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY3CLxcJGz4
>>>
>>> "'Democrat Representative Rashida Tlaib is selling profane t-shirts with the slogan “impeach the MF”'
>>
>> You poor tender little snowflake.
>
> I think you're confused about 'mogulah'. He likes the T-shirts.

The word "profane" threw me off.

[Dutch]

I think she's good in America, for now anyway. But hundreds of millions
of women around the world aren't so lucky. Many of them are risking
their freedom and more simply for the right to walk alone and let the
sun shine on their hair. Many just want the some basic rights men have,
like to speak their minds. But keep making a joke of it, that's what
matters.

[risky biz]

Muslim woman Rashida Tlaib is the one making a joke out of you, not me.

[Dutch]

Did I ever state that Congesswoman Talib was being denied her basic
human rights? I would imagine that her position on the rights of women
in the Islamic world is more in line with mine than yours.

[risky biz]

That's nonsense. I can't imagine that she delusionally thinks that she should be the one to decide how hundreds of millions of Muslim women are allowed to dress, what they can wear and what they can't, as you do. Your attitude toward the personal freedom of women is identical to that of 'Saudi' Wahabbist clerics and the Afghan Taliban.

[fffurken]

lol Of course you <3 Tlaib, she's a 'Person of Color' and she hates huwhite people, and America. Just like you do.

[fffurken]

lofl Does anyone take this Moslem nutjob seriously? (thankfully I haven't read one of its posts in about 5 years)

[fffurken]

lol Poor Dumb Clam

[Dutch]

Wow, your ability to turn everything backwards and inside out is
amazing. "There's no oppression of women in the Islamic world, what are
you raving about??"

[risky biz]

Your ability to arrogate to yourself the spurious authority to tell hundreds of millions of women what they can and can't wear just as Saudi Wahabbist clerics and the Afghan Taliban do and pretend that you see no similarity of yourself to them is what's truly amazing.

"There's no oppression of women in the Islamic world, what are
> you raving about??"

And then to FABRICATE a quote and attribute it to me is the icing on the cake. You're as characterless as the Trumpanzees pretending that Donald Trump is more than a chimp. It's really hypocritical for you to criticize them.

[Dutch]

It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion. Those, like me, who demand
that women be free to dress as they choose, and enjoy every other right
that men do, are somehow oppressing women.

It's mental gymnastics at an Olympic level.

> "There's no oppression of women in the Islamic world, what are
>> you raving about??"
>
> And then to FABRICATE a quote and attribute it to me is the icing on the cake. You're as characterless as the Trumpanzees pretending that Donald Trump is more than a chimp. It's really hypocritical for you to criticize them.

You're demented.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

She cares a lot about other people's problems. Does Trump?

[Dutch]

Ilhan Omar was asked the other day on Full Frontal what she thinks about
being the main target of the president and the other republican talking
heads. here response was. "I pay no attention to them. Just because I
get to live rent-free in their heads doesn't mean they get to live
rent-free in mine." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2tBmNbjbw

The squad are badasses.

[risky biz]

~ It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion. Those, like me, who demand

> that women be free to dress as they choose, and enjoy every other right
> that men do, are somehow oppressing women.
>
> It's mental gymnastics at an Olympic level.
>
> > "There's no oppression of women in the Islamic world, what are
> >> you raving about??"
> >
> > And then to FABRICATE a quote and attribute it to me is the icing on the cake. You're as characterless as the Trumpanzees pretending that Donald Trump is more than a chimp. It's really hypocritical for you to criticize them.
>
> You're demented.

You're a lying hypocrite and I'm proving it. That doesn't make me demented to anyone other than a lying hypocrite.


'dutch': 'Since we already know which garments are mandatory for women under Islamic custom, if you're going to do anything a ban is much simpler.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/6ThQyqteres/flpM50nBDAAJ

'dutch': 'The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/6ThQyqteres/rQpfq0IFDwAJ


'On 10 February 2004 the lower house voted by a large majority (494 for, 36 against, 31 abstentions) in support of the ban . .

The initiators of the law are said to have particularly targeted two items of clothing: the headscarf and the veil (French: foulard and voile respectively); however the law mentions neither and just addresses "ostentatious" ("conspicuous") symbols. Because of its terse, broad, vague terms, the law will leave a lot of its interpretation to the administrative and judicial authorities.

The headscarf (sometimes referred to as the hijab in both French and English) covers the hair, ears, neck, and sometimes the shoulders, but not the face. Most Muslim girls who cover their heads in school wear such a headscarf.

Human Rights Watch stated:[15]
The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom said:
In February 2004, the Commission issued a public statement expressing concern over the proposed new law. The Commission expressed particular concern that the proposed restrictions may violate France’s international human rights commitments. The Commission also stated that though increased immigration in France in recent years has created new challenges for the French government, including integration of these immigrants into French society as well as problems of public order, these challenges should be addressed directly, and not by inappropriately limiting the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief. The French government’s promotion of its understanding of the principle of secularism should not result in violations of the internationally recognized individual right to freedom of religion or belief.

In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that the expulsion of a Sikh pupil from his school in 2008 because of his Sikh turban or keski was a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed by France.'

In some schools, the ban was also applied to long skirts and headbands. In April 2015, a 15-year-old schoolgirl in northeastern France was sent home for wearing a long skirt deemed an "ostentatious sign" of the girl’s Muslim faith by the principal. It caused further controversy and infuriated many of the country’s Muslims, who saw the school system’s censure of the girl as discriminatory. The Collective Against Islamophobia in France has documented 130 similar cases across France between January 2014 and April 2015.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

'Between 1994 and 2003, around 100 female students were suspended or expelled from middle and high schools for wearing the scarf in class.

The tradition of the headscarf itself has been in existence since before the advent of Islam, and depictions of Mary, mother of Jesus, show her wearing a hair covering. It is not explicitly commanded in the Qur'an yet some consider it a part of tradition.

The importance assigned to head covering varies, from that of colorful head scarves that do not conceal much hair in sub-Saharan Africa, to head scarves that cover the hair and neck to the extent that it should cover all hair, as worn in much of the world, to cloths that cover parts of the face (Yemen), and in Saudi Arabia, the entire body, must be covered by the veil (burqa), as is the case in some areas of Pakistan.

In most Muslim societies, this obligation is not enforced by law.[4] In Egypt and Turkey, for example, wearing the scarf is controversially forbidden in certain professional contexts. In reality, un-veiled Muslim women are a common sight in cities such as Istanbul, Karachi, Islamabad, Rabat, and in Jakarta, Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world). However, the obligation is legally enforced in certain countries such as Iran, and those who violate such laws are legally culpable for their dress. Most societies in the Muslim world take a more relaxed approach to the scarf where girls and women can be seen wearing hair coverings of all levels or none at all.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France

'Armed police have forced a woman on a beach in Nice to remove her burkini as part of a controversial new ban.

The incident occurred on the beach at the city's Promenade des Anglais, the location of the lorry attack on Bastille Day in which 84 people were killed last month.

Photographs show four police officers armed with handguns, batons and pepper spray standing round the woman who was lying on the beach wearing a blue headscarf and matching top.

After speaking to the woman, she appears to remove the blue long-sleeve top.

She is thought to have been issued with a fine and warned about the new dress code on the beach.

Several women have now been fined in France for wearing the swim wear.

Just let this sink in. Men with guns forcing a woman to undress, with the weight of the law behind them. pic.twitter.com/4BI16Bbss9
— Abdul-Azim ???? (@AbdulAzim) August 23, 2016

On Tuesday a 34-year-old mother of two, whose family have been French citizens for at least three generations, told French news agency AFP she had been fined on the beach in Cannes, 18 miles from Nice, for wearing leggings, a top and a headscarf.

The former air-hostess from Toulouse was issued a ticket saying she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

“I was sitting on a beach with my family,” she said. “I wasn't even planning to swim, just to dip my feet.”

After initially refusing to undress in front of the officers who were reportedly holding tear gas canisters, she was issued with an on-the-spot fine while other people on the beach allegedly shouted insults, telling her to “go home”.

Mathilde Cusin, a French journalist for France 4 TV, who witnessed the incident, said: “I saw three police officers watching the beach. One of them had his finger on the trigger of his tear gas device, no doubt containing pepper."

“It was pretty violent. I had the impression of a pack going after a woman sitting on the ground, crying with her daughter.”

“The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home’, some were applauding the police,” she said. “Her daughter was crying.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-swimwear-ban-france-nice-armed-police-hijab-muslim-a7206776.html


'The incoming head of France’s government body on Islam is facing a mounting backlash for suggesting Muslims should be “discreet”.

Jean-Pierre Chevènement, 77, has been charged with heading the Foundation for French Islam by President Francois Hollande – despite not being a Muslim himself.

“The advice I give in these difficult times – like the imam of the Bordeaux mosque - is that of discretion,” the former interior minister told Le Parisien.'
[Because the full power of the state will land upon you if you don't dress the way it demands.]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-politician-chevenement-outrage-muslims-discreet-controversy-burkini-islamaphobia-a7193676.html

[fffurken]

She cares a lot about hating huwhite people. Just like you.

[Dutch]

Women in the west have fought hard and sacrificed much to achieve a
degree of liberation in a male dominated society. I only ask for those
same freedoms to be extended to any who come to the west. The same
freedoms that men enjoy.

‘I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take
their feet off our necks.” -RBG

[risky biz]

You are apparently admitting that you DO advocate coercion (when your own words are exposed) and that your below statement was a crude attempt at deception:

'It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion.'


Further, who is your cryptic 'RGB' and why only those women who have 'come to the 'West'? Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument in favor of the state FORCING women to dress in a manner that you prefer?

[Dutch]

On 2019-10-07 10:23 a.m., risky biz wrote:
> You are apparently admitting that you DO advocate coercion (when your own words are exposed) and that your below statement was a crude attempt at deception:

All laws are in some sense a form of coercion.

> 'It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion.'

If that quote is accurate then it was a typo. It should read, 'It's as
if, in your mind, there is NO coercion.'

> Further, who is your cryptic 'RGB'

Are you kidding? Hint, she sits on the SCOTUS. Watch the movie about her
life titled "RGB". It's inspiring for those of us who are advocates for
women's rights. You might not get it.

> and why only those women who have 'come to the 'West'?

Because as westerners we have little say or influence over the laws and
customs of other sovereign nations.

> Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument in favor of the state FORCING women to dress in a manner that you prefer?

You keep saying that, as if allowing women to be coerced is preferable
to attempting to intercede on their behalf. 'It's as if, in your mind,
there is NO coercion.'

[risky biz]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 12:17:17 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
> On 2019-10-07 10:23 a.m., risky biz wrote:
> > You are apparently admitting that you DO advocate coercion (when your own words are exposed) and that your below statement was a crude attempt at deception:
>
> All laws are in some sense a form of coercion.

That's why some of us believe there should not be laws backed by the coercive power of the state which violates the human rights of some individuals simply to suit the prejudices of some other individuals. Like yourself, for example.

> > 'It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion.'
>
> If that quote is accurate then it was a typo. It should read, 'It's as
> if, in your mind, there is NO coercion.'

It wasn't a typo. It was you pretending that laws authoritatively directing women how to dress simply to suit your personal prejudices are not coercive. It's sad that you are now lying about that, too.

> > Further, who is your cryptic 'RGB'
>
> Are you kidding? Hint, she sits on the SCOTUS. Watch the movie about her
> life titled "RGB". It's inspiring for those of us who are advocates for
> women's rights. You might not get it.

The part I don't get is that you don't even know the name of someone you claim to find so inspiring. Try 'RBG', genius.

And you aren't an advocate of women's rights if you want to employ the coercive power of the state to violate their human rights simply to suit your prejudice against their religion, hypocrite.

> > and why only those women who have 'come to the 'West'?
>
> Because as westerners we have little say or influence over the laws and
> customs of other sovereign nations.

Nonsense. 'Western' nations have lots of say and influence over other nations. Influencing them to end oppressive laws that dictate dress, just as you do, is something 'Western' nations should be doing. And they should be doing something about people like you, too. You're the enemy within.

> > Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument in favor of the state FORCING women to dress in a manner that you prefer?
>
> You keep saying that, as if allowing women to be coerced is preferable
> to attempting to intercede on their behalf. 'It's as if, in your mind,
> there is NO coercion.'

In the examples I provided earlier in the thread the woman and her young female child who were crying as French police armed with teargas forced her to remove clothing were being coerced by no one other than the state enforcing irrational, oppressive, religiously prejudicial laws which fill people like you with glee.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an advocate of such laws I would be quite surprised. If such a law came before her I believe that she would vote to strike it down and that she would also have some choice words for the FASCISTS responsible for instituting it.

[Dutch]

On 2019-10-07 3:26 p.m., risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 12:17:17 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>> On 2019-10-07 10:23 a.m., risky biz wrote:
>>> You are apparently admitting that you DO advocate coercion (when your own words are exposed) and that your below statement was a crude attempt at deception:
>>
>> All laws are in some sense a form of coercion.
>
> That's why some of us believe there should not be laws backed by the coercive power of the state

Oooooooh scary!

> which violates the human rights of some individuals simply to suit the prejudices of some other individuals. Like yourself, for example.

What about their right to dress as they choose being denied by
oppressive religious cults?

>
>>> 'It's as if, in your mind, there is coercion.'
>>
>> If that quote is accurate then it was a typo. It should read, 'It's as
>> if, in your mind, there is NO coercion.'
>
> It wasn't a typo. It was you pretending that laws authoritatively directing women how to dress simply to suit your personal prejudices are not coercive. It's sad that you are now lying about that, too.

'It's as if, in your mind, there is NO coercion.'

You presume that every woman who covers her face is doing so
voluntarily. That is dishonest and cruel.

>
>>> Further, who is your cryptic 'RGB'
>>
>> Are you kidding? Hint, she sits on the SCOTUS. Watch the movie about her
>> life titled "RGB". It's inspiring for those of us who are advocates for
>> women's rights. You might not get it.
>
> The part I don't get is that you don't even know the name of someone you claim to find so inspiring. Try 'RBG', genius.

Typo flame, impressive.

>
> And you aren't an advocate of women's rights if you want to employ the coercive power of the state to violate their human rights simply to suit your prejudice against their religion, hypocrite.

So it's perfectly OK if religious cults to violate human rights, as long
as the government doesn't do it?

>>> and why only those women who have 'come to the 'West'?
>>
>> Because as westerners we have little say or influence over the laws and
>> customs of other sovereign nations.
>
> Nonsense. 'Western' nations have lots of say and influence over other nations.

"Nations" might have some, very little, individual citizens have none.

> Influencing them to end oppressive laws that dictate dress, just as you do, is something 'Western' nations should be doing.

Wow, we agree!

> And they should be doing something about people like you, too. You're the enemy within.

What??? You mean I am the enemy of the oppressors.

>
>>> Is that supposed to be some kind of an argument in favor of the state FORCING women to dress in a manner that you prefer?
>>
>> You keep saying that, as if allowing women to be coerced is preferable
>> to attempting to intercede on their behalf. 'It's as if, in your mind,
>> there is NO coercion.'
>
> In the examples I provided earlier in the thread the woman and her young female child who were crying as French police armed with teargas forced her to remove clothing were being coerced by no one other than the state enforcing irrational, oppressive, religiously prejudicial laws which fill people like you with glee.

Argument by inflammatory anecdote.

>
> If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an advocate of such laws I would be quite surprised. If such a law came before her I believe that she would vote to strike it down and that she would also have some choice words for the FASCISTS responsible for instituting it.

RBG is in favor of self-determination for women. Oppressive religious
cults are the enemy.

[risky biz]

You may not have noticed or maybe don't want to admit it but you've been completely faced in this thread a long time ago. Things like that can happen when you start with a lie, which is exactly what you did. Maybe your strategy is to 'last-post' until you think that's forgotten.

[Dutch]

What lie are you imagining? You otoh started this thread with a lie, by
implying that I view Rashida Tlaib as a victim of religious oppression.
Putting words in other people's mouths is always a winning way to start.

[risky biz]

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:10:55 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

~ What lie are you imagining? You otoh started this thread with a lie, by

> implying that I view Rashida Tlaib as a victim of religious oppression.
> Putting words in other people's mouths is always a winning way to start.

I didn't start this thread. Stop being a spastic.

Rashida Tlaib, the congressional representative, is a Muslim woman who CHOOSES to not wear a head covering. Something which you pretend can't exist. You portray all Muslim women as being coerced into wearing full-body coverings when the obvious fact is that 90% of them, worldwide, DON'T.

Ilhan Omar, the congressional representative, is a Muslim woman who CHOOSES to wear a head covering. Her current biggest sin, according to her right-wing detractors, is that she just filed to divorce her husband.

Confusing, isn't it? Maybe we should all just go along with your simple idea of using B-1 bombers to effect social engineering. After all- their religion, according to Islamic expert, you, teaches them to conquer the 'West'.

Can you see yet why you are a social psychopath on the order of Adolph Hitler? Remember the less than 1% of Jews in Germany whom he said were bent on destroying Germany? I think you took some lessons from his playbook.

[Dutch]

On 2019-10-07 8:44 p.m., risky biz wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:10:55 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
> ~ What lie are you imagining? You otoh started this thread with a lie, by
>> implying that I view Rashida Tlaib as a victim of religious oppression.
>> Putting words in other people's mouths is always a winning way to start.
>
> I didn't start this thread. Stop being a spastic.

You started the exchange with me by spewing the following insulting non
sequitur:

"Let's hope 'dutch' can show up soon to free this Muslim woman from her
piteous state of religious oppression."
>

> Rashida Tlaib, the congressional representative, is a Muslim woman who CHOOSES to not wear a head covering. Something which you pretend can't exist.

I pretend nothing of the sort. That is a LIE. What is wrong with your brain?

> You portray all Muslim women as being coerced into wearing full-body coverings when the obvious fact is that 90% of them, worldwide, DON'T.

How the fuck do have the gall to manufacture this shit?

> Ilhan Omar, the congressional representative, is a Muslim woman who CHOOSES to wear a head covering. Her current biggest sin, according to her right-wing detractors, is that she just filed to divorce her husband.

My wish is that EVERY Muslim women have the CHOICE to NOT wear a head
covering, veil, or any other garment they dislike, and enjoy every other
right and privilege men enjoy.

>
> Confusing, isn't it?

The confusing thing is how you could be so hopelessly detached from
reality wrt what I believe.

[BillB]

You were very clear that you wanted to ban certain types of Muslim clothing, whether the woman wanted to wear it or not. You actually pontificated that you knew better what they wanted than they did!

It's already illegal in Western countries to FORCE any adult woman to wear anything she doesn't want to. You want to BAN clothing that many WANT to wear. That kinda makes you a fascist.

[Dutch]

That's a lie. I've never been anything but ambivalent about any such
law. I would hate to replace one problem with another. As a person
deeply committed to the rights of women why would I want that? I want to
women to have MORE choices, not fewer.

>
> It's already illegal in Western countries to FORCE any adult woman to wear anything she doesn't want to.

Do you have any evidence that such a law has ever been enforced?

> You want to BAN clothing that many WANT to wear. That kinda makes you a fascist.

Anywhere you see some women wearing traditional Muslim headgear and
others not wearing it, as you see with Sikh men and turbans, I see that
as evidence that there is no problem.

[risky biz]

'dutch': 'Since we already know which garments are mandatory for women under Islamic custom, if you're going to do anything a ban is much simpler.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/6ThQyqteres/flpM50nBDAAJ

'dutch': 'The ban on the veil is completely reasonable.'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/6ThQyqteres/rQpfq0IFDwAJ

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 He can't stop lyinng.

> > It's already illegal in Western countries to FORCE any adult woman to wear anything she doesn't want to.
>
> Do you have any evidence that such a law has ever been enforced?
>
> > You want to BAN clothing that many WANT to wear. That kinda makes you a fascist.
>
> Anywhere you see some women wearing traditional Muslim headgear and
> others not wearing it, as you see with Sikh men and turbans, I see that
> as evidence that there is no problem.

The head Saudi cleric stated unequivocally that 90% of Muslim women do not wear the clothing required by law in Saudi Arabia, which is a SMALL Muslim country.

Yet you have a HUGE problem with the VERY FEW Muslim women who don a head covering in the 'West'. So much so that you want laws to FORCE then to not wear what they wish but to dress as you wish. You're a fascist.

Go ahead. Keep on 'last-posting' with even more convoluted lies.

[Dutch]

On 2019-10-08 12:28 a.m., risky biz wrote:

DNR

Please, shut up and fuck off.

[risky biz]

Oh, come on. The truth doesn't hurt all that much, does it?

[Dutch]

You and the truth parted company a long time ago. But fine, have at it,
if you really are that desperate to have the last word.