Many men DO wear yarmulkes in public.
Hasidic Jewish men wear hats in public.

Did you know many Orthodox women acually wear wigs?
(has to do with the proscription that once she is married only her husband should see her hair)

Do *you* wear a cross that is visible to the public?
That is a religious symbol of meaning to *you*...
And I would never tell you to not wear it.

That's why this country *has* freedom of religion...so we an't legustalte religion or have a national mandated religion that all must follow (aside from what you may think).

That's why the pilgrims left England...they wanted to be free to worship as they wanted...not what the govenrment said they had to do.

I could care less what people wear in public. The prayer was given in a Christian English-speaking government meeting. SO, to ME, they are out of place wearing the head gear. And they knew what they were getting into when they ran for office.

That's contrary to what you *just* wrote:
"I personally am offended by Johnson-Harrell's wearing of that rag around her head, just like a couple of younger Muslims in Washington do. We do have freedom of religion, but flaunting their headware goes beyond that."

bluegrass, you did not read what I wrote. I dont care what people wear IN PUBLIC. the headgear is out of place when they are working in our government. read it all again. its clear.

Honestly really head gear. Modesty on a woman is not a negative thing. At least her butt isn't hanging out nor her underwear out of her pants. Yamakas are worn. People wear their wwjd pins and cross necklace indication Christian beliefs. The Amish....US Citizens and Christians cover their heads in modesty. Men take their hats off out of respect. However, the Christian women wear theirs. I have worn a scraf covering my hair to work a beret a head band barrettes Jewelry on my hair pearls etc. So what exactly is the protest about again because I forgot.

Offence is never 'given' it is always 'taken'.

Summarizing so far..
It started with some unknown high priestess reciting ‘the Lord is my shepherd’ implying that the new member was a Muslim goose. Then Rush Limbaugh came on stage and it became eminently clear how & why the Chamber of Penn was fast becoming / had become the Tower of Babel. Then Gentleman interjected how offensive Donald Duck was demeaning women by wearing red ties. Consciousness said, ‘do the research’, it being offensive to say ‘think man, think’ in our august Mingle society.

An esteemed member added that if one cannot think then her commonsense should suffice for rest of us. Then Gentleman pointed out that the Lord has not weeded out the black sheep. Commonsense clarified that if starving gracefully is not possible then blind your host.

Around this time Alice waltzed in from Wonderland saying Christian host must be at PEACE while his eyes were gauged out. Then Truly explained why the Lord kept vanishing from his House. Nature declared Washington was the new Rome. Commonsense responded in both Hebrew and Persian. Grass explained why cowboys wore guns. A few shots were exchanged (in air). Then you fainted.
--xx--

This may seem circular argument to many but it actually explains why men are resisting the laws that presents them with skirts.

The reason I say DO THE RESEARCH..is because one can THINK but without obtaining knowledge through research what are they to think about? what the news media is telling them..as we have for decades like mindless puppets..References to Alice in wonderland and the terminology I use to FOLLOW THE RABBIT ... references to Q....because if one thinks that the news media is going to dish out the truth nightly..think again about what they told you and.. DO THE RESEARCH..because the news media has already proven itself unreliable as a credible source in many ways..and again another reason I say "DO THE RESEARCH" is so you can prove it to yourself..or prove me wrong..I see nothing wrong in that as well..so yea..DO THE RESEARCH..or sit there and continue to THINK you know..

Who is the Mad Hatter who is Alice where is Wonderland..do you know..do you think Q is a LARP

I saw that film you are talking about Nature Lady and to me it looked like a clear case of Christianophobia..

Bwahahahaha

Unfortunately, we resist Research findings mainly because as we grow older, it threatens our known model of the world.

As I keep track of the media it seems that CNN (even with Google support) is going the way the Guardian is going. And it is not Fox, it is the wave of younger You Tube entrepreneurs (both Liberals & Conservatives) who are cutting into their market share!

I think your list of sources reflects this trend.

I agree.. but what is a person to do when it's a known fact that we can't depend on news sources both here and abroad to tell us the truth..which was one of the main reasons that Trump took to twitter and youtube..Not to mention if they are losing their market share..it's something they brought upon themselves by lying to the public..

So, I am curious..
I you claim we can't trust "news sources bothhere and abroad"..who's to say we can trust anyone's tweets/ youtube video?
Is it only people you *like* that you believe their stuff..?
And *all* opposing viewpoints are "faked"??

I mean...logic says if one says we can't trust news sources here and abroad...doesn't that include Fox??
And, if not...why do *they* get a free pass/ exception..because they hold a POV you agree with?

That isn't logical.

includes Fox. It's just that Fox got lucky with a conservative presidency.

seems redundant info but when pieced together:

1. MSM has wide coverage but limited staff.

2. You Tube (Twitter, FB) has wider & live video coverage of: local news around the world. Unfortunately it is not centralized unless sensational.

3. So while focusing on politicians and experts;
for local news it becomes cheaper to 'buy' from You Tube reporters.
Videos don't lie; they can be verified by other local cell phones.

An early avatar of this 'buy' was Huffington Post (e-paper) which came from nowhere and covered the world. Anybody can be a reporter for HP as long as they have local credibility. For instance, HP gave out the first unedited report that later got censored by Indian government and the censored version was on our MSM here.

It's true that You Tube is not reliable, Wiki has with time...(although not on critical matters. Moreover the younger gen does not care to take my permission.)

--

Just checked out a report on alternate to meat by AMAZING POLLY (in Tom's list). It's seems as serious as it can get.

Tha's 100% true.
I am reminded of a bogus youtube video a couple years ago of two guys "finghting" with light saber toys at Walmart..
It was fake as he**....but it wasn't stated so...someone had to out them...

P.S. Tried to find that stupid video to post here...can't, guess it got pulled.

'just the facts' style reporting went out when cable came in and broadcast programming was eliminated.

People wanted constant entertaining, so pundits and newscasters started to include more 'personality' to their reporting. I would't think that should be so much of a problem except somehow over the decades people have become so EASILY led. In first grade, we were taught how to spot opinion from fact and how to use CONTEXT to find meaning. I dont know where these skills were lost, but I think they are more the culprit than any 'fake' news could be. Because if people had those skills, 'fake news' would easily be dismissed as such and viewers would very easily be able to separate the factual from the opinion parts of a story.

As it stands now, opinions have become equal to facts for far too many.

Well, *I* for one don't want "constant entertaining"..
I can entertain myself...

I totally agree with that