Pat Condell

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Or perhaps he is backing away because he determined it would fall foul of constitutional guarantees or that the "political" reason was that it stigmatise Muslims.

Then we agree - Political reasons. Why is it so hard for you to just say that. Sheesh!

I honestly dont see how it is not a religious issue but a safety security issue ~snip~ That resolution is targeted at one religion's practice, with no mention of security or safety.

Simply because that one religion wears them? Whats preventing the next Tim McVeigh from wearing one to move about freely and not be able to be tracked?

Men AND women who are known terrorists and who might be using this means ....should be targeted.

Please tell me how the heck we are going to do that if we CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES???

Originally Posted by classicman

Then we agree - Political reasons. Why is it so hard for you to just say that. Sheesh!

The politics of an emotional fear of one religion...OR the potential backlash...OR constitutional guarantees...OR because it is unworkable...sheesh!

How can you say it is not targeted at one religion when the resolution does just that and makes no mention of security as the reason.. sheesh!

Originally Posted by classicman

Please tell me how the heck we are going to do that if we CAN'T SEE THEIR FACES???

By all legal means...electronic surveillance, human intel, etc.