Yeah, if all else fails, whip out the racist canard.

It's so much easier that debating the issues.

My hat's off to any one who shows they got the media's number.

Screw 'em.

You want to come in? Fine, just do it right.

Well, we're going to see if the "whip out the racist canard" still has any power with the electorate or if people are finally waking up to the tactic.

So what? Think Kentuckians watch that?

Sorry, I have to disagree with you and agree with Ms. Kelly and The Principal.

Fear is the only thing corrupt people understand. Expecting to effect real change at the ballot box is simply closing your eyes to what's been happening and allowing it to continue until there is no opposition possible.

Obama knows this. Why do you think he's still so arrogant despite record unpopularity?

Only when the possibility of violence is added to the mix will we see real movement in the political class.

There is no fear of God in their eyes.

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare."

I don't know who to blame more, The political class who has foisted these failed policies on us, or the major media for abandoning its role as objective informants in order to advocate for their own myopic vision despite the overwhelming evidence of its abject failure to ameliorate social problems wherever they have been tried.

Obama has always been a liar, but the press deliberately presented him, to an already ill-informed majority, as something else.

We will always have politicians who will flatter to gain advantage and we can survive them, but we cannot survive as a nation where truth is no...

I'm beginning to think you are correct.

Yes, of cousre.

And the fact that the majority of armed conflicts occurring in the world today have muslims as aggressors has nothing to do with modern Islam nor their "weird religious traditions".

Back to sleep. We'll wake you for morning prayers.

Yours and Chapman's argument, while using different comparisons are basically saying the same thing, i.e. that in a pluralistic society where individual liberty is the touchstone, banning a specific article of clothing goes against that idea.

Where both of your arguments fail, and where the arguments FOR banning them also fail, is they fail to address the fundamental conflict that Islamic ideology also has with Western ideals of pluralism and individual liberty.

The two cannot peacefully coexist, and red herring arguments about Amish and Hassidic women deliberately avoids this point.

I suspect that the move to ban burqas by some European countries is a passive aggressive way of avoiding having to deal with the real...