The Isolated Political Blurt Thread

Brooklyn (NYC) liberals will do/say anything for attention. They are a special breed of stupid, led by Bill "Big Red" DeBlasio.

They are thowing it all in, including the kitchen sink, to bring down Da Donald...and they cry bullying, but who is being bullied?
 
They are thowing it all in, including the kitchen sink, to bring down Da Donald...and they cry bullying, but who is being bullied?

This ranks right up there with calling someone racist for pointing out the racism of others as the stupidest attempt at deflection ever.

Par for the Beco course.
 
This ranks right up there with calling someone racist for pointing out the racism of others as the stupidest attempt at deflection ever.

Par for the Beco course.

Think what you like....but the bully is being bullied. They copied his tactics...espically Rubio, those talking heads, and the rest of the media
 
Only an asshole would compare the Holocaust to Trump, or anything for that matter....idiots

Brooklyn (NYC) liberals will do/say anything for attention. They are a special breed of stupid, led by Bill "Big Red" DeBlasio.

They are thowing it all in, including the kitchen sink, to bring down Da Donald...and they cry bullying, but who is being bullied?

Somebody needs to inform the low-watt lightbulbs here that it's the right-wing Trump followers who are disseminating the memes.

https://img42.com/ThSm3+

And I guess Nashville, Tennessee is Brooklyn now. Wow. Must be that non-liberal edumacation at work.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eg38RNYAs0A/UR1XpvgePiI/AAAAAAAAKYY/p2X3kO6967s/s1600/facts.gif
 
Doesnt matter WHO.....comparing the Holo-caust to anything is ignorant, blind, mistaken, and wrong.
 
Its like being outraged when White people use the N word.....
 
Doesnt matter WHO.....comparing the Holo-caust to anything is ignorant, blind, mistaken, and wrong.

Why are you hyphenating "Holocaust?" :confused:

Its like being outraged when White people use the N word.....

You mean like you used to continuously get verklempt at not being allowed to use the N-word like "Chris Rock does?" Or interject your unnecessary snark on social justice matters concerning black people whenever something real was spotlighted and clapback was broadcast? No, this is not "like" that. At all.

I'm not completely following your consternation here, Becky. Coming from someone who liked saying stuff to the effect of "you people whine about everything," this is somewhat perplexing given that it's calling out actual present racist rhetoric in praxis.
 
Why are you hyphenating "Holocaust?" :confused:



You mean like you used to continuously get verklempt at not being allowed to use the N-word like "Chris Rock does?" Or interject your unnecessary snark on social justice matters concerning black people whenever something real was spotlighted and clapback was broadcast? No, this is not "like" that. At all.

I'm not completely following your consternation here, Becky. Coming from someone who liked saying stuff to the effect of "you people whine about everything," this is somewhat perplexing given that it's calling out actual present racist rhetoric in praxis.

I dont do that....I am for justice for ALL....one nation, under god. I'm not like you, I might add....that anything of color is RIGHT!!!!!!
 
http://56.media.tumblr.com/af8df88e7c3c9a427c2e791ea6c7922e/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo1_1280.jpg

http://56.media.tumblr.com/e4aa7b555366a10597e3b98208cd41c8/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo2_1280.png

http://56.media.tumblr.com/c39c094711fdfaa095dd0a6131e99b6b/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo3_1280.png

http://56.media.tumblr.com/3a1c1675792e8d5711ef9fb03eef4468/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo4_1280.png

Sikh Captain Simratpal Singh Is Suing the Army for the Right to Wear His Turban and Beard

By Mathew Rodriguez
March 02, 2016

It was a historic moment when U.S. Army Captain Simratpal Singh was originally given temporary accommodations for the beard and turban he wears as part of his Sikh religion. But now, the first Sikh in years to be accommodated by the U.S. military is suing them for discrimination on the basis of religion, ThinkProgress reported.

As the end date of his accommodation draws closer, officials told Singh he must undergo a series of tests: a helmet test and three days of "intensive safety mask testing," according to the Becket Fund, his legal representation along with the Sikh Coalition. As of Tuesday afternoon, the officials have postponed the tests due to court pressure, but will move forward in defending them.

The tests are meant to determine whether Singh's beard and turban are a distraction in combat situations. However, members of the Special Forces and other men with beard exemptions have not had to take these tests.

Singh's lawyers argue that these tests violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which they said "forbids the military from suppressing a soldier's religious exercise unless it has a compelling interest that cannot be met in a less restrictive way." If the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act sounds familiar, it's probably because it's a blueprint for state-level laws that have been used to discriminate against LGBT people.

"Captain Singh is more than willing to undergo the same safety testing as all other soldiers, but he objects to defendants treating him differently because of his Sikh religion," the lawsuit stated. The goal of the lawsuit is a permanent accommodation for Singh.

Harsimran Kaur, legal director for the Sikh Coalition, denounced the turban and beard ban in a statement. "This ban is wrong. Sikh Americans have proven time and again that they can serve with honor and excellence," Kaur said. "Our military's work is too hard and too important to be weighed down by unnecessary limitations on who can do the job."

There is also some precedent for Singh to stand on. In 2010, Simran Lamba, the first enlisted soldier to be granted a religious accommodation since the 1980s, was allowed to wear his turban and beard. Since 1984, Army policies barred those items, often preventing Sikhs from enlisting.

Sikh army doctors can grow beards and wear turbans if they get special permission, and in 2015, a Sikh ROTC member was allowed to don a turban and sport a beard — but permission was granted only after he brought ROTC leaders to court.


http://mic.com/articles/136819/sikh-captain-simratpal-singh-is-suing-the-army-for-the-right-to-wear-his-turban-and-beard?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.FBjfY5DKD
 

Why the fuck can this fucking shit bag not where the fucking uniform in accordance with AR 670–1? like every other joe?:confused:

This mother fucker think he's god damn special or some shit?

Trying to be a fucking individual....

Not trying to be in the Army....

Not trying to be a soldier.



The uniform is called a uniform because it's fuckin' uniform as in all the mother fuckin' same....

Someone needs to put CPT. shit bag in the front leaning rest until he feels like being a team player. :cool:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/930JNIfZQuM/hqdefault.jpg
 
http://56.media.tumblr.com/af8df88e7c3c9a427c2e791ea6c7922e/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo1_1280.jpg

http://56.media.tumblr.com/e4aa7b555366a10597e3b98208cd41c8/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo2_1280.png

http://56.media.tumblr.com/c39c094711fdfaa095dd0a6131e99b6b/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo3_1280.png

http://56.media.tumblr.com/3a1c1675792e8d5711ef9fb03eef4468/tumblr_o3ff6kBDWR1r83d7lo4_1280.png

Sikh Captain Simratpal Singh Is Suing the Army for the Right to Wear His Turban and Beard

By Mathew Rodriguez
March 02, 2016

It was a historic moment when U.S. Army Captain Simratpal Singh was originally given temporary accommodations for the beard and turban he wears as part of his Sikh religion. But now, the first Sikh in years to be accommodated by the U.S. military is suing them for discrimination on the basis of religion, ThinkProgress reported.

As the end date of his accommodation draws closer, officials told Singh he must undergo a series of tests: a helmet test and three days of "intensive safety mask testing," according to the Becket Fund, his legal representation along with the Sikh Coalition. As of Tuesday afternoon, the officials have postponed the tests due to court pressure, but will move forward in defending them.

The tests are meant to determine whether Singh's beard and turban are a distraction in combat situations. However, members of the Special Forces and other men with beard exemptions have not had to take these tests.

Singh's lawyers argue that these tests violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which they said "forbids the military from suppressing a soldier's religious exercise unless it has a compelling interest that cannot be met in a less restrictive way." If the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act sounds familiar, it's probably because it's a blueprint for state-level laws that have been used to discriminate against LGBT people.

"Captain Singh is more than willing to undergo the same safety testing as all other soldiers, but he objects to defendants treating him differently because of his Sikh religion," the lawsuit stated. The goal of the lawsuit is a permanent accommodation for Singh.

Harsimran Kaur, legal director for the Sikh Coalition, denounced the turban and beard ban in a statement. "This ban is wrong. Sikh Americans have proven time and again that they can serve with honor and excellence," Kaur said. "Our military's work is too hard and too important to be weighed down by unnecessary limitations on who can do the job."

There is also some precedent for Singh to stand on. In 2010, Simran Lamba, the first enlisted soldier to be granted a religious accommodation since the 1980s, was allowed to wear his turban and beard. Since 1984, Army policies barred those items, often preventing Sikhs from enlisting.

Sikh army doctors can grow beards and wear turbans if they get special permission, and in 2015, a Sikh ROTC member was allowed to don a turban and sport a beard — but permission was granted only after he brought ROTC leaders to court.


http://mic.com/articles/136819/sikh-captain-simratpal-singh-is-suing-the-army-for-the-right-to-wear-his-turban-and-beard?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.FBjfY5DKD

Im sure he'll win, and they wil pay him.....
 
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZrVL_G0R--/espgdbh0z9ojx86y1cdi.jpg

The Supreme Court's Three Female Justices Are Fighting Tooth and Nail for Reproductive Rights

Stassa Edwards

Thursday 12:30pm

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, a challenge to Texas’s HB2, a wide-ranging bill whose purpose is largely to regulate abortion providers into non-existence. From requiring clinics to abide by the same building codes as a surgical center, to requiring physicians to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, the TRAP laws have been successful with its intended goals; before HB2 went into effect Texas had 41 clinics, it now has 18. At stake yesterday was whether or not HB2 went too far, placing an “undue” burden on the women of Texas, many of whom drive hundreds of miles and take days off of work because the state’s mandatory waiting period.

And, to be clear, the stakes are high. If HB2 is allowed to stay in place, more clinics will close and more states will pass similar laws (Florida is slated to pass an omnibus bill similar to Texas’s). But as Dahlia Lithwick at Slate points out, there was one primary difference between yesterday’s arguments and 1992's arguments in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (the case that gave states the right to regulate abortion providers): namely, there are more women on the court.

During Casey, Sandra Day O’Connor was the lone woman on the court. Yesterday, Elana Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor relentlessly challenged the oft-repeated language that TRAP laws “protect women,” and that regulating abortion providers into the ground is the beneficence of the state.

Lithwick writes:

It felt as if, for the first time in history, the gender playing field at the high court was finally leveled, and as a consequence the court’s female justices were emboldened to just ignore the rules. Time limits were flouted to such a degree that Chief Justice John Roberts pretty much gave up enforcing them. I counted two instances in which Roberts tried to get advocates to wrap up as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor simply blew past him with more questions. There was something wonderful and symbolic about Roberts losing almost complete control over the court’s indignant women, who are just not inclined to play nice anymore.


Read: http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-supreme-courts-three-female-justices-are-fighting-t-1762607159?rev=1457025964449&utm_content=buffer67fab&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
Back
Top