Well said.

Women wearing the burqa do not have to justify to everyone else that they have 'rational' reasons for wearing it.

If they are wearing it because they are being forced or threatened into it, the appropriate remedy is should be directed against the use of force or threats, not the wearing of the burqa.

And the use of force or threats is already illegal. What the burqa-banners propose is to *extend* coercion, not reduce it.

I've been boycotting these interminable silly debates about the burqa, but Dr Bargaric encapsulates my thoughts on the matter so succinctly that I'll break my self-imposed rule:

<< At this stage, the bigger threat to our social cohesion is not the burqa, but the calls to ditch it. Once the overblown sensitivities of others start constituting a basis for curtailing our freedoms, liberty in many forms will be lost. >>

Strange times indeed. This week I've agreed with not only Mirko Pargaric and Peter Hume, but also Chris Berg from the IPA. What's going on?

So, Mirko, give us the benefit of your brilliant intellect. What erudite test would you use to identify those women who "freely" choose to wear the burqa and those who wear it under threat of violence? Having identified those wearing it out of fear of violence, how would you protect them from it?

"Only ban the burqa if it is not worn freely" - how do we know if it is or isn't worn freely? isn't that the point of the burqa, that you don't approach the wearer as the burqa withdraws them from society - it's like wearing your house/front door (closed) around with you

I see cj is up to his usual tricks "I've been boycotting these interminable silly debates about the burqa"

how noble of you cj .. oh .. hang on, first post on Monday this week

"It appears that in its haste to publish this flame-bait, OLO's usual editorial standards have been applied. Dear oh dear.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 24 August 2010 8:57:25 AM"

dear oh dear indeed .. self imposed boycott for what .. 3 days .. ? Or are we using some new definition here? Have there been any other discussion on the burqa in that time?

You martyr you!

What a load of tripe from both the author and CJ Morgan.

The burqa is one of the symbols of a very oppressive and extreme ideology called Islam that has had 1300 years to refine its manipulation of societies that it has either, conquered outright, or infiltrated, to progressively convert everyone to their own medieval mindset.

Founded by an illiterate deviant, and murderous thug called Mohammmed it has only survived because it was written down mainly in the old jewish language of Aramaic,( how ironic is that) and now comprises a whole series of verses that have no coherency.

Recent analysis of the verses in the trilogy shows clearly that at least 50% of them are to do with warfare, violence and manipulation against the Kaffirs and Jews ..that you and me.

...the burqa, apart from being offensive towards to all other people in a civilised society like Australia, is just a continuation of what the Koran in general, and the local imams exhort them to do.

If these people are so psychologically inadeqaute/deranged that they need to wear a Bin Liner over their heads, and not be able to communicate in an open and frank manner,as everyone else does by revealing all the visual cues that normal people communciate with... then what are they doing in this country in the first place.

Dont answer that, its the multi cult b/s so loved by politicians and lawyers in this country...the same multi/culti b/s that is slowly destroying Europe ..and the UK in particular.

A confused article, with a confusing proposal.

"The stock-in-trade reasons that are given for banning the burqa are demonstrably flawed and are often no more thinly veiled anti-Muslim rants."

Yup.

"Still we might be better off banning the burqa. Not because it is necessary for the community. Rather, the women inside them might need our liberation"

Oh. Really? Banning the burqa is somehow going to "liberate" the wearer? Would it not more likely condemn the wearer to a life indoors, if indeed she is being oppressed into wearing it?

"If their choice turns out to be fully free and informed, society has no basis for imposing its whims on their dress code."

Naturally. But that begs the question why "society" should be allowed to meddle with the minutiae of its members' lives in the first place.

"It is only once we find the answers to such issues that we can make a sensible and informed judgment about whether we should ban or restrict the burqa"

Not really. You are either in favour of individual freedom of choice, or you are not.

Stopping burqa-wearers in the street and asking them "were you forced to wear this garment" is not the answer either. How would you evaluate an answer "no", from someone walking three paces behind their husband?

Continuing to protect Australia's reputation as a tolerant, easy-going nation that values freedom above all else, will eventually solve the problem. Without it even needing to be a problem in the first place.

At least the article featured no bank robbers.

Mohammed has nothing to do with demanding that women wear a tent AKA burqa. The Koran advise both sexes to "dress modestly". The burqa is a cultural mode of dress primarily from the Middle East, many predominately Muslim nations do not have such regressive dress codes for women.

Hence a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of Muslim women wear this unhealthy, constrictive, demeaning form of dress. Determining if this mode of dress is donned willingly is near impossible. It is not just the men, some Muslim women put as much pressure on their sisters to wear the burqa otherwise they are treated as sluts. Much like some westerners do when our women bare their midriffs in public places.

As Bagaric says, "The stock-in-trade reasons that are given for banning the burqa are demonstrably flawed and are often no more thinly veiled anti-Muslim rants. There are no proven cases in Australia of criminals using burqas as disguises. Hence it is nonsense to challenge burqas on security grounds."

One point I rarely hear is that women may well feel safe under all this clothing - I remember my kid sister and her first bikini, it never even saw daylight the first time she wore it to the beach, she loved swimming but remained wrapped in her beach towel for the most of the day, until she finally caved due to soaring temperatures and plunged into the ocean with the beach towel on! She got over it, but then she was from a culture that accepts budgie smugglers and g-strings.

The burqa is part of a primitive culture supported by a literal interpretation of a religion and will go the way of the scarf that Christian women used to wear in church - without needing authoritarian measures taken against a minority of people.

I would like to suggest that the burqa hysteria is driven by the fear and discomfort of Westerners confronted with a cultural custom that is very different from our own.

If the anti-burqa proponents are so concerned about women's rights, in particular women's right to live free from oppression and fear, then you could start in your own back yards and address the fear and oppression suffered by many Australian women who are victims of domestic violence. These women do not wear the burka, because it isn't our custom to display symbols of oppression violence and fear. Rather, they are kept silent and their suffering hidden behind closed doors.

If you want to fight against the oppression of women, you can start at home. Domestic violence stats will convince you that there is a need.

In the meantime, maybe the anti-burqa crowd could take a good look at what their discomfort is really about. I'm willing to bet it isn't about what the women wearing it might be enduring, but rather about their own discomfort, and inability to cope with a woman who's face and body are hidden from view.

Before we start telling Islam what to do, we probably need to do something about our own rather hideous mistreatment of women in this country.

Pericles

You have more faith than I do when you say

" Continuing to protect Australia's reputation as a tolerant, easy-going nation that values freedom above all else, will eventually solve the problem. Without it even needing to be a problem in the first place".

Islam is very adept at taking advantage of the freedoms that we have and will use our tolerance to project their own intolerance.

They have made great strides in all the European countries and are a safe an secure voting bloc in the UN.

They came very close to shutting down freedom of expression, ( ie not being able to criticise religions, namely their religion)....
in those appalling Durban 1 and 2 Conferences.

The Organisation of Islamic Countries is extremely well funded by the whole block, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia and under the direction of that completely odious nonce named Ekmelledin Ishanoglu,whose brief would include to exand the ummah..by any means.

The burqa issue is the same as sharia ..its all part of the slicing and dicing us back to their stone age delusionality..a bit at a time.

..aided and abetted by our own tolerance and apathy and pushed along by left wing do gooders of various types, and dumb politicians.

If you doubt any of this just go to UK and wander around.

Stock in trade Anti Muslim.....rants ? "YEP" chirps Pericles.

Of course..there is no reason on Gods earth 'why' any person might be 'anti Muslim' or.. anti "Islam" is there ? of courseeeeee not. Perish the thought.

Let the Quran answer this issue.. what better source could we ask for ?

Surah 9
29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Let's see.. any basis for being 'anti Muslim' or...'anti Islam' there?

-Global holy war to impose Islamic rule *tick*
-Including over Jews and Chrisitians *tick*
-Jews and Christians are morons and cursed because of their core beliefs *tick*

Well.. that was easy.. nothing there to worry about..not a thing.

(Any bright spark who wishes to debate the contextual basis for the above.. is welcome to start a thread called "AGIR and OTHERS debate Hermeneutics" and I'll be there in a millisecond.)

Of course if leading Muslims were to stand up in public and denounce such things.... I'd put my arms around them and say "welcome to Aus cobber" because they would need some protective friends if they denounced those sentiments.

So...given that the Burqa symbolizes those hateful, vile, aggressive and loathesome imperialistic religious values..... I'd say ban it forthwith...

But then....Mosques and...Islamic schools also symbolize those values..hmmmm.... *wanders off*

cj - whoops sorry - it was Tuesday, not Monday

Why Australia needs a ‘burqa ban’
By James Mangisi - posted Tuesday, 24 August 2010

awesome boycott!

Do these woman a favour and ban the burka in public. You are expected to remove a m/bike helmet on entry, so wheres the diff.

Yes, Boaz, we all know how you feel about Muslims.

>>Of course..there is no reason on Gods earth 'why' any person might be 'anti Muslim' or.. anti "Islam" is there ? of courseeeeee not. Perish the thought.<<

But the thread is about clothing. And freedom from meddling government bureaucrats.

Not that it makes any difference to you, of course.

>>So...given that the Burqa symbolizes those hateful, vile, aggressive and loathesome imperialistic religious values..... I'd say ban it forthwith...<<

Of course you do.

How did you phrase it?

>>The Burqa, to me..is the moral equivalent...<<

The moral equivalent of what, we ask?

>>>...some bloke walking down the main drag in a Hitler Youth uniform, complete with swastika's and jackboots<<

How elegant, Boaz.

How very mature.

[Deleted for abuse].

[Deleted. Refers to deleted comment, and so redundant.]]

[Deleted for abuse].

Christopher Hitchen in todays Australian, Saturday, page 7 of Inquirer Section has some excellent and very cogent points to make on Muslim intolerance..which again puts the peripheral debate about burqas in its right context.

[Deleted for abuse].

<< At this stage, the bigger threat to our social cohesion is not the burqa, but the calls to ditch it. Once the overblown sensitivities of others start constituting a basis for curtailing our freedoms, liberty in many forms will be lost. >>
What "social cohesion"? Our "freedoms" and "liberty" are delusional; they are the freedom and liberty of the exercise yard. Naturally we hold them dear. We have to experience freedom before we can talk about preserving or defending it. The burqa is only a threat to our ideology.

.

Origin of Islamic Hijab:

.

Prior to the Hijab, women used to cover their heads with the "khimar" throwing its ends over their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts too:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts from sin and not show of their adornment except only that which is apparent, and draw their headcovers over their necks and bosoms and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, …"
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

.

Origin of the Islamic Burqa & Niqab:

.

There is no trace of either the burqa or the niqab in the Qur'an. The only text which may possibly refer (if the english translator's indication in brackets at the end of the text is correct) is to be found in the book called Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam, considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. Here is the reference:

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

The translator,M. Muhsin Khan of the Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at the University of Southern Caligornia, presents the last sentence in brackets as forming part of the text.

This must be confirmed before concluding that this is, indeed, a reference to the burqa and the niqab.

.

.

Contnued ...

.

What the Sahih al-Bukhari text does reveal, however, is that not only did the wives of "Allah's Apostle", Mohammad, not wear head scarfs, but he was loath to oblige them to do so.

One of the prophet's fathers-in-law, Umar, suggested he should oblige them to wear head scarfs. Mohammad refused.

It was only when Umar, on another occasion, informed Mohammad he had recognised one of his wives, Sauda bint Zam'a, who was very tall, going outside in the dark of the night to satisfy a natural need, that (by a strange coincidence) "Allah revealed the verses of Al-Hijab".

This seems to indicate that the "Islamic veil" was initially prompted by the necessity to protect the prophet's wives from being exposed to the view of passers-by, in the absence of enclosed toilettes, whilst satisfying their natural needs.

.

Bad new for burqa lovers;

Italy: Islam denied income tax revenue.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.1.880028077

Robbers and those who are about to commit a crime cover their faces.

Who's behind the covering is anyone's guess; but this we know, that the person in there is up to no good.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812378.htm?section=justin

Syria a predominantly Muslim country has banned the burqa, so the burqa was never a part of Islam until recent times. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145208/SYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKA/SYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKASYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKASYRIA-BANS-THE-BURKA

Thanx Phillip Tang for that interesting link to the Italian job :)

"The head of COREIS, one of Italy's largest Muslim groups, Yahya Pallavicini, said he was bitter that Islam had been denied the revenue from Italian income tax."

And dear Pericles, totally oblivious of the standing command/call in Islam(Quran 9:29) to bring into subjection all non Muslims of the world and tax them with the humiliating disgraceful "Jizya" tax whether they like it or not...... probably thinks they SHOULD receive a share.

Well Pero... how about it?

Tell ya what...when the Mufti of Rome/Italy stands up in public and says "I condemn the call to violent overthrowing of non Muslim governments as outlined in the Quran" hey..I'll send him a donation myself.. he will need it for his new security detail.

Still treading that well beaten liberal/progressive path of seeing religious things through atheist/secular binoculars...

Mate...I have to tell you..that is like drinking Bertrand Russell (Or Obama) brand ideological cool aide...same poison as Jim Johnsons..but takes a bit longer to destroy the soul.

If you don't know how religious values and ideas impact the heart..why bother trying to unravel it? There are little neurons in your head which simply don't connect in the way they do for a faith oriented person.. seriously...that's not abuse..it's a physiological fact.

So... while I disagree with your viewpoint.. at least I understand why the condition exists.

Just a final thought...the Burqa is not about 'clothing' it's about religion... let's start connecting some of those neuron paths.

Peter Hume (post #1) and Pericles (post #6) have best expressed the values by which Australia remains a free country.

But only Pericles detected the stealth attack in Mirko Bagaric's lip service to the principle of personal freedom.

When Bagaric refers to "some of the most progressive and culturally sensitive nations in the world, including France and Denmark" ... these are states which presume to make personal decisions on behalf of the individual. Australian law is built on different principles.

Imagine you are a criminology student working part time as a shop detective in a department store. You see a woman from an ethnic minority exiting the store with a $2000 coat under her arm, the label still attached. You might ask yourself all sorts of questions about culture, religion, poverty, unemployment, or whom the coat is for.

But this is all academic. As a store detective, only one question matters: Has she paid for the coat?

The reasons women do or do not cover their face may well be interesting questions, for social scientists.

But as far as the law is concerned there is only one question that matters: Whose face is it anyway?

If burqas are, as some argue, in some cases evidence of women being enslaved within their families, then the answer is not to hide the evidence of the alleged enslavement, but to strengthen the legal protection available to ALL women against being enslaved in domestic situations. It is acts of enslavement that are criminal, rather than what may or may not be acts of submission.

The wearing of the burqa is not - as never has been - a religious Muslim doctrine.

It's a cultural one. Not all Islamic countries wear them and not all Islamic countries oppress women. Some fundamentalist Middle Eastern states do (that's what fundamentalism does) but the majority do not.

The former President of Indonesia - a non-burqa wearing woman - is an example of both exceptions. Another potential female presidential candidate was even assassinated a few years ago in Pakistan.

It seems to me that too much is being made by both sides of what is essentially an imported fashion statement.

wobbles, "Not all Islamic countries wear them and not all Islamic countries oppress women."

Yes, but are women being oppressed in the countries where the burqa is worn? Because if that is so, women especially have reason enough to object to the fashion for what it represents, just as there is objection to the wearing of a white gown and hood for what that might represent, or brown clothing with Nazi-like symbols.

It follows that while there might not be a ban on the burqa and niqab, there ought not be any steps taken to encourage such fashion either, such as making special arrangements to get around perfectly normal and usual security identification requirements.

Then there are the body image downsides of a fashion that requires concealment of a female body only and for the most spurious of reasons. Fact is, the fashion is unhealthy enough from both psychological and physiological aspects to discourage its use. Would anyone here be concerned if the fashion is passed on to daughters? I hope some are and that raises still more issues.

It is not as simple as to ban or not, the fight is for the ground in between those extremes.

What a very odd assumption, Boaz.

>>And dear Pericles, totally oblivious of the standing command/call in Islam(Quran 9:29) to bring into subjection all non Muslims of the world and tax them with the humiliating disgraceful "Jizya" tax whether they like it or not...... probably thinks they SHOULD receive a share.<<

What on earth gave you the idea that I would support the allocation of one tiny red cent of taxpayers' money to a religion?

You really haven't been paying attention, have you.

The Italian government is performing their version of "Jizya", in fact, by taxing atheists, and redistributing their money to Catholics. Tell me, if you can, the philosophical distinction between the two imposts.

>>If you don't know how religious values and ideas impact the heart..why bother trying to unravel it? There are little neurons in your head which simply don't connect in the way they do for a faith oriented person.. seriously...that's not abuse..it's a physiological fact.<<

For which I am, it has to be said, profoundly grateful.

You are right of course about the neuron connections.

Fortunately, there are many examples of people who have been able to de-program themselves from the religious instructions from their hot-wired neurons, and proceed to live perfectly normal lives.

>>Just a final thought...the Burqa is not about 'clothing' it's about religion... let's start connecting some of those neuron paths.<<

The more illumination that is shed on the burqa, the more it appears that we are dealing with an intensely political issue.

As the Muslim nation of Syria's ban clearly indicates.

Fortunately today is a day of rest Pericles.. I just smiled at your last post..

Personally, I tend to agree on the issue of governments giving money to religions. The fundamental principles of sound Church growth are

-Self supporting
-Self Governing
-Self propogating.

The last thing we need is Government strings attached to money.

So..does that sound like an agreeable note ? :) It's the closest you will get today...

OH.. Update.. Beck Restoring Honour rally attracts massive crowd.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100828/ap_on_en_tv/us_dc_rally

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/28/us-right-king-lincoln-memorial

Boazy, on the basis of those reports Beck's 8/28 shindig wasn't exactly a world-changing event. Sure, a sizeable bunch of older 'white' folks strutted their odious stuff, but nobody seems to have taken them particularly seriously.

I think I'll file that along with your predictions about Fundies First's electoral success last week :)

If we ban the burka because women are pressured to wear it, we need to make a whole raft of other changes. School students are forced to wear uniforms. So are many employees. Advertising pressures us to wear certain clothes. Fashion magazines routinely advise women on what to wear. Indecent exposure laws define which body parts need to be covered. I cannot enter a bank with a stocking over my head (or so I would assume).

Imagine a world where women couldn't ask everyone in the house for an opinion on which clothes to wear to a party because it might be seen as telling her what to wear. My wife simply couldn't cope.

No choice is truly free.

"Only ban the burqa if it is not worn freely", is as ridiculous as "wife beating is OK if the wife does not complain."

How on earth are you going to tell? Few wearing the Burqa are going to freely admit that they do so not from a personal desire, but because it is expected of them.

I would say that if the Burqa was OK, then the Husband should wear similar garb.

Cornflower,

I agree - but in this country women have laws that protect them from that type of oppression.

It's up to them to assert their rights and that cultural hangover will eventually fade away.

The pressure for change may also move onto the males, particularly with the following generation wanting to assimilate.

How many remember those migrant widows from Eastern European countries that would dress in black for the remainder of their lives?

That was also a self-imposed cultural restriction but was gone within a generation.

Yep lets ban the Burqa and while we are at it I think we should impose a strict dress code on all women.
Perhaps we should invite that group of sensible and sensitive young men who were with Dianne Brimble in her last hours the job of designing such a dress code. We have every right to insist that women dress in a way that conforms to our expectations.

Has anyone noticed that our ABC continues to send lady correspondence to places where they are considered second class citizens, & thus likely to be less effective than males? Does the ABC still have any male employees they could send?

Of course our ABC has therefor have sent ladies to report on the Pakistan floods. Has anyone noticed that said lady correspondents are wearing some dreadfully ugly Muslim head gear while doing their reports? Does anyone else find this ridiculous, even bordering on offensive?

Does anyone else find it ridiculous that our PC brigade find it acceptable for Pakistan should impose its dress code on the ABCs reporter, but that we should not apply a dress code of our own here. Talk about cultural cringe.

I find it offensive that I am expected to accept a responsibility to respect the cultural oddities of immigrants to my country, but I have no right to expect that they do the same for my cultural oddities. After all it is my home, & they are applying to come here & take advantage of what I & others like me have built.

I found it most offensive that I could not find anyone who admitted to speaking English, when I needed some directions recently in a Sydney shopping centre. All immigrants should be required to have adequate English within 2 years of arrival, or have residency withdrawn.

I can see no reason why I should have a reduced enjoyment of my own country, simply because so many want to get away from their own country. After their culture has made their country of origin not worth living in, why should we let them bring any part of it here, to weave it's evil?

Well said HASBEEN, my feelings exactly. It makes my blood boil, when travelling, to obey the dress and/or other rules of various countries. Recently I was in a hospital waiting area and very nicely dressed when a couple with a child sat opposite me, she had on the full burqa. Not only was it confronting to me, my grand daughter jumped on my lap with fright.The husband was looking me up and down as if I was scum and the woman couldn't stop staring at me through the slit. How degrading. If these people choose to live in our beautiful country they should expect to live as Australians.

Not a good look, Hasbeen.

>>Does anyone else find it ridiculous that our PC brigade find it acceptable for Pakistan should impose its dress code on the ABCs reporter, but that we should not apply a dress code of our own here.<<

You're the sort of person who would walk into a church during a service in your singlet, thongs and baseball cap, and wander around talking loudly about the vile smelling incense, aren't you.

I find people like that offensive, and I'm an atheist.

But your logic is that old classic - they do it, so why don't we do it?

The simple answer is that I, along with many others, enjoy living in a country that is open and tolerant, as well as one that respects the customs and beliefs of others.

Which is one of the reasons that I choose not to live in Pakistan.

Plus the fact that I love cricket.

Pericles, you've got my vote.

Arcan, it's not all about you: you may be the centre of your own world, but not necessarily of anybody else's. And haven't you ever played the role of Santa Claus at a kids' Christmas party - the little ones almost invariably burst into tears at the first sight of this strange, monstrous, bearded creature. Shock of the unfamiliar also probably happens every day in hospital waiting-rooms. Give the women a break, for God's sake.

Should we tolerate, tolerance.

Isn't it funny that those who are always preaching tolerance of muslim, & other immigrant groups, want me to agree to their tolerance, but don't tolerate my feelings. It seems to be all one way with these people.

Native born must tolerate all kinds of cr4p, but we should never ask for any immigrant to fit in with us. Then we find it is always the least tolerant of newcomers that we are expected to tolerate, & make allowances for.

To the tolerant, go find somewhere better, & let us rednecks get on with our intolerant lives. If you can't find anywhere better, try showing some of your favourite tolerance to us.

Incidentally, wasn't it Pericles who didn't want to tolerate someone who requires a rifle to feel safe in an isolated home.

It would appear that for the bleeding heart brigade tolerance is a one way street, & it's the natives who must lie down in it, & get walked all over to satisfy their sensitivities.

Could we please ban fly zips on women's slacks? Their zips were once on the left hip, or the back, as skirts still are. Women didn't complain. Nobody asked us. It was forced upon us.
I do not need a fly. It is not my choice to wear one.
Please liberate me.

Yo CJ....just noticed your comment.

older 'white' folks strutted their odious stuff ? ?

curious about what 'odious' stuff those folks strutted ?

Was it.. "stop spending what you don't have" by any chance?

Or.."restore honour in our lives"? You sure have a wierd view of 'odious'.

As for the fundies first.. they seem to have lost some of their gloss eh... not surprising given that Fielding toyed with the idea of leaving the party and forming a new one with GOD FORBID..that (adjectives deleted) Tim Costello! ! !

That alone would turn me of ANY candidate..but if the leader of the party goes down that awful track..they sign their political death warrant.

Given Fieldings dabble with the devil... I'm not suprised at the result. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Back to the Beck Rally...
WHAT CHANGED ? I think the self awareness of the Tea Party movement and hopefully the minds of a number of Republicans about their true conservative roots.

I didn't expect anything like the inscription of "I have a dream" on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to suddenly vapourize.

Althoough Keith Olbermann loves to compare "I have a dream" with Becks "I have a scheme" .. not bad.. but Olbmermann is a lame duck anyway.

[In the important demographic of adults 25 to 54 -- the group advertisers are looking to reach -- Countdown was down 44% year-over-year in January. It averaged 268,000 viewers in that demo, only 3,000 more than Nancy Grace's show on HLN, and 12,000 more than CNN's Campbell Brown. Fox News's O'Reilly Factor dominated the hour with 964,000 viewers age 25 to 54, and was the only cable news show in the time period to increase its audience, by 55%.]

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/01/31/oreilly-vs-olbermann-vs-brown-vs-grace-cable-news-ratings-3/40622 see the graph mate.

Where does BECK fit in that ?

"Even with smaller ratings numbers, he's still the second-highest-rated cable news host, behind only his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-glenn-beck-ratings-down-by-30-this-year-2010-4

No one noticed ? :) der.

AlGoreIsRich -- are you on the right thread? Didn't see the word burqa once in that rave.

You're imagining things now, Hasbeen.

>>Incidentally, wasn't it Pericles who didn't want to tolerate someone who requires a rifle to feel safe in an isolated home.<<

Incidentally, no it wasn't.

But don't let reality intrude on your day.

>>let us rednecks get on with our intolerant lives<<

By all means. That's what we tolerant folks do. We don't begrudge you your redneckery, but we do feel a little sorry for you.

Can't be comfortable, carrying around that fear and loathing all the time.