I'll rather live in danger with liberty than live safely without it.

[DominionSeraph]

Does ANYONE agree?

Move to Somalia.

Oh I'm sorry, did you want liberty with security?

 

[Craig234]

That quote is actually falsely attributed to Ben Franklin, although I do agree with the quote.

Interesting, first I heard that is wrongly attributed, have any links who said it?

 

[Craig234]

But we can't profile because the progressives along with the left get their panties in a wad over it. Political correctness and progressivism is counter-intuitive to what our goals should be which is the most protection for the least cost. When the progressives win, the rest of us lose.

We can't fight our enemy (radical extremists) to win, because that upsets the left. It then becomes more costly and they don't like the expense. You can't make them happy no matter what you do.

We must read those we capture their rights as if they were U.S. citizens. We can only engage the enemy during certain hours of the day. We should try those we capture in civilian courts with counsel provided at taxpayer expense and the insanity goes on and on and on.

Progressivism is the true enemy. We have the ability and the means to bring these conflicts to far swifter ends, but we are hampered by the mindset of a minority who's minds are stuck in adolescence.

The answer is to get them out of power and more or less tell them to get fucked which, BTW, we did earlier this month. They still bleat on as though they didn't get dealt a blow. They're ignoring the directive they were given. Both Obama and Pelosi have been particularly vocal in this regard.

Sometimes to beat an enemy, you have to dispatch another enemy first. That would be the case here. We can let extremists slowly wear us down and bleed us financially, or we can kick the progressives aside and get the job done.

I fully expect we'll take the first path - the wrong one. No reason to change now.

I had to print out your post and bury it in the cat box.

95% of what is said here about liberals is wrong, I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[JMapleton]

Move to Somalia.

Oh I'm sorry, did you want liberty with security?

You just admitted you're wrong because you're using a ridiculous example of a lawless land that cannot police itself because of lack of financial resources. That has nothing to do with the US, where private companies could provide their own airline security.

 

[DominionSeraph]

police

I'll rather live in danger with liberty than live safely without it.

Policing is sacrificing liberty for safety.

Jesus, do I have to spell everything out for you idiots?

 

[DominionSeraph]

DP (heheh)

 

[Capt Caveman]

There IS useful profiling, mostly based on behavior. That's what the Israelis use, because they are a tiny-ass country with very few airports and flights and they can employ well trained behavioral profilers to extensively look at each passenger. We could try the same thing, but I doubt anyone would support the cost of doing that in a country like the United States. And no, harassing brown people isn't a good substitute.

They also profile based on ethnicity. I'm living proof of it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The Israelis are successful precisely because they ignore ethnicity and concentrate on behavioral profiling.

I've been grabbed and detained coming off the plane at Ben Gurion.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd like to say, in specially regards to recent TSA pat downs and x ray scanners, which are intrusive and un-American, I'd rather fly on an airplane with people who could potentially be dangerous and not be violated than to have my body violated and intruded upon and fly in safety.

Anyone who would give up their freedom for this "pretend" measure of safety is a coward and is the reason thousands of Americans each and every day and being violated and treated like cattle.

People have died to protect our freedom and anyone who allows our politicians to violate their own constituents spitting on their sacrifice.

This is what terrorists want. They want us to live in fear and they want our country to fall from the inside. This is what's happening and you're letting it.

Does ANYONE agree?

Sure I do. I am DA MAN. Nobody pats me down or sends an x-ray machine up my ass. I been reading da web and de men is all stirred up so like a gorilla now I is all stirred up too. Tared a big branch off a tree and gonna do the gorilla stomp. Gonna hoot my head off too. I DA MAN APE.

 

[LunarRay]

(...)
Anyone who would give up their freedom for this "pretend" measure of safety is a coward (...)
Does ANYONE agree?

I think a full city bus motoring about the city is not all that different from an airliner flitting about the sky other than the fact that the bus is already on the ground whilst the airliner has a bit to go to get to that point regardless of the 'threat'. IOW, I think it is to do with fear of flying and the notion that terrorists see blowing up a plane as far more psychological than a bus...
We seem poised to castigate the 'government' when they don't implement measures to insure safety then castigate them when they do... But, I figure folks would stop flying airliners if they felt a threat was afoot and that may be the underlying thinking regards extreme safety measures. The question is, I think, would the terrorist win if either they managed to blow up an airliner or cause it to sit on the ground sans passengers? I think they do!

I stopped flying in 1985 when Air India went down off the coast of Ireland... I was there in Kinsale as they brought the bits and pieces ashore... It had an impact on me... and caused me to ride the QE2 to NY and the choo choo to the West Coast when my business was concluded...
I think I might ride an airliner again if I was certain that everyone aboard was vetted and every bit of luggage and anything else aboard was vetted to my satisfaction... otherwise, Nope!

We will always have crazies about and terrorists and the like... I'd rather read the newspaper about an event than be part of it... Me not no Gorilla!

 

[wirednuts]

i went to jail once for weed. they stripped me naked, bent me over and made me spread my buttcheeks. they found me on my couch watching tv, so they knew full well that nothing was up my ass, but they thought they could demoralize me anyway. humiliate me into obeying their wishes.

now you dont even have to go to jail for it. just book an airline flight. whats even more surprising is most people say they dont care. they actually believe the pictures 'go away' once they pass through the machine. they dont even think about the fact that the tsa couldnt strip search anyone without probable cause (meaning they cant delete the pictures. they need them for court). they dont even realize a full body scan IS a strip search (thats why theyre voluntary!, good job sucker you just consented to a SEARCH and SEIZURE!)

THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE these full body scanners are only for people who fail the traditional metal detector test. WHAT@?!?? full body scanners are designed to see plastics! go ahead and believe the tsa is fighting the afghan war in iraq, it doesnt take a psychiatrist to see whats really going on here.

now im still waiting for some screens from women with breast implants, i really need somethin to whack off to.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...now im still waiting for some screens from women with breast implants, i really need somethin to whack off to.

Don't the voices in your head provide enough material?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Profiling doesn't have to immediately consider only race or national origin. Much like they do only marginally, it should focus on actions taken by passengers leading up to their travel.

For example, the underwear bomber paid for his ticket with cash, had no passport at the gate, etc., and was still permitted to fly. WTF? Seriously? None of those things really have to do with skin color at all. He should have been detained, period.

I would much rather have a system that considers my method of payment, time of ticketing, purpose for flying, destination, flight history, etc. Certainly someone could come up with computer algorithms and data mining that would look at this stuff to develop a "profile" on a passenger and then subject those people that fall outside the parameters to additional screening.

For example, I almost always purchase my ticket through one website, use the same credit card(s), travel to the same destinations where my family reside, etc. If I purchase a ticket that is "different" from that pattern, request more information from me. Shit, there's more safety in my use of my credit card than there is in purchasing an airline ticket!

Buying a short notice ticket, is it being bought by a business for business reasons? Or is it the next terrorist? Certainly there are ways to look at these things without considering race or appearance at all, but yet we get invasive pat downs and scans instead while ignoring the most basic of indicators that would change what we already do very little.

Most of the bombing attempts(e.g Shoe and underwear bombers )boarded their flights in Europe so any action taken in the US would be moot if the flight is coming from overseas to the US.

 

[LunarRay]

(...)

now im still waiting for some screens from women with breast implants, i really need somethin to whack off to.

I presume you know of some better means of insuring passengers don't bring 'No-No' stuffs aboard an airliner? It seems 19 terrorists using Box Cutters took Four Airliners on a fateful journey awhile back... I imagine just about anything can be used... Gotta keep anything off them aircraft... And god knows there are all manner of ways to secret stuffs aboard anything...
Better safe than Sorry! No?

 

[MarkXIX]

Most of the bombing attempts(e.g Shoe and underwear bombers )boarded their flights in Europe so any action taken in the US would be moot if the flight is coming from overseas to the US.

That's exactly right, so why again are we all being subjected to this?

I neglected to make that point out of brevity. I felt I was already typing too much and no one would read it. Glad to see someone did!

 

[LunarRay]

Most of the bombing attempts(e.g Shoe and underwear bombers )boarded their flights in Europe so any action taken in the US would be moot if the flight is coming from overseas to the US.

That is regarding the flights TO the US and not domestic air travel... We can't do much about smoke coming from Iceland but we can if it emanates from Detroit. With the possible exception of International Air travel treaties... And, clean air considerations among developed nations... What be the difference?

 

[shira]

Hey, how about this idea?

Offer flights with varying levels of security. Passengers get to choose which security-level they wish to fly on.

If you choose "no security", there are no x-ray machines, no metal detectors, no body-scans, no pat-downs, no checked-baggage scans - no nothing. Of course, no one else on the flight is checked, either.

"Intermediate grade" would be the pre-body-scan/pat-down level of security.

"Full genitalia" security reveals what's in every orifice of your body, in every nook and cranny of your baggage.

Your choice.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That's exactly right, so why again are we all being subjected to this?

I neglected to make that point out of brevity. I felt I was already typing too much and no one would read it. Glad to see someone did!

Because the flights which the 9/11 hijackers boarded took off from US airports.

 

[Craig234]

I think a full city bus motoring about the city is not all that different from an airliner flitting about the sky other than the fact that the bus is already on the ground whilst the airliner has a bit to go to get to that point regardless of the 'threat'. IOW, I think it is to do with fear of flying and the notion that terrorists see blowing up a plane as far more psychological than a bus...
We seem poised to castigate the 'government' when they don't implement measures to insure safety then castigate them when they do... But, I figure folks would stop flying airliners if they felt a threat was afoot and that may be the underlying thinking regards extreme safety measures. The question is, I think, would the terrorist win if either they managed to blow up an airliner or cause it to sit on the ground sans passengers? I think they do!

I stopped flying in 1985 when Air India went down off the coast of Ireland... I was there in Kinsale as they brought the bits and pieces ashore... It had an impact on me... and caused me to ride the QE2 to NY and the choo choo to the West Coast when my business was concluded...
I think I might ride an airliner again if I was certain that everyone aboard was vetted and every bit of luggage and anything else aboard was vetted to my satisfaction... otherwise, Nope!

We will always have crazies about and terrorists and the like... I'd rather read the newspaper about an event than be part of it... Me not no Gorilla!

Sorry to do this to you, but do you realize the security is a lot better on an airplane than on a ship, bus, or a train? Those are more attractive targets for an attack.

 

[MarkXIX]

Because the flights which the 9/11 hijackers boarded took off from US airports.

And post 9/11 methods, pre-November 2010 invasive searches have prevented a repeat thus far. These new methods probably wouldn't have even caught those guys though either.

 

[Xellos2099]

My opinion is split on it. I understand WHY they are doing it, but it is very HARD to accept it as an American, as a human being.

Let me ask you this, would you "really" choose death over the use of the body scanner and pat down? Because really, are you willing to die for the liberty you give up? I want to say you don't have to worry if you got nothing to hide but people will just flame me for being politically incorrect.

 

[Craig234]

My opinion is split on it. I understand WHY they are doing it, but it is very HARD to accept it as an American, as a human being.

Let me ask you this, would you "really" choose death over the use of the body scanner and pat down? Because really, are you willing to die for the liberty you give up? I want to say you don't have to worry if you got nothing to hide but people will just flame me for being politically incorrect.

People aren't rational about this.

You raise a rational point, about people who make a questionable claim.

But notice I didn't get a response to my point, any one terrorists can buy a gun and shoot many people in a school any time - or into a crowd you are in.

That risk exists, yet people expect 'safety' to a whole other standard for air travel.

How much sense does it make to have that double standard?

What we need is to have the citizens learn to HANDLE terrorism that is IMO likely and at least possible, rather than react badly with terrible things done.

If I told you a hundred people will be murdered this week, you don't panic. If I told you a hundred Americans will be killed by terrorists this week in America, you panic.

I'm not saying 'accept it and don't try to stop it', I'm saying 'treat the issue reasonably and don't burn down your society in a crazy response.'

Continue to value you and others' rights, continue to have some perspective lest who ever can scream 'fear the terrorists' the loudest automatically win the next election.

Be ready to say 'our country will not change for the worse from an overreaction to the next terrorist attack, we will simply pursue those responsible, appropriately.'

We don't need to demonize, we don't need to let people with agendas 'use' the crisis for bad policy, we don't need to slash rights or allow torture or start a war.

Recognize there are billions of people and plenty of anger going around to make attacks likely, and they should not dominate our policies in a panic.

If there is one or ten or fifty attacks - I don't mean all like 9/11, I mean smaller attacks - we should not give up any rights or freedoms not rationally clearly justified in response. We have to tolerate some risk in order to have a free society. People want it both ways, but they only have it both ways at the mercy of the terrorists. If the terrorists do act, they have to pick, and 9/11 shows, they pick badly when panicked, blindly supporting anyone who promises 'security'.

Just as we have to tolerate an amount of murder to have freedom because any methods that eliminated murder would have to be tyrannical, we have to tolerate an amount of terrorism - or give up too much freedom that is not justified (the 'and then the terrorists have won' line fits.)

There are people with bad agendas just waiting for issues like a terrorist attack to let them try to get power by exploiting and demagoguing the issue.

 

[JMapleton]

We will always have crazies about and terrorists and the like... I'd rather read the newspaper about an event than be part of it... Me not no Gorilla!

You do realize though your fear is unwarranted? You have a greater risk of being involved in something dangerous just by walking down the street?

Could you at least respect that fact that your fear is not based on logic, but on a psychological defect on your own part and not choose to subject me to your own OCD by as a voter, forcing the TSA to do their Orwellian procedure on me?

 

[JMapleton]

pre-November 2010 invasive searches have prevented a repeat thus far.

Assumption with no evidence to support this.

Airplanes these days have locked cockpits and undercover armed agents on board. Now you want the government to search your anus? What are you so afraid of? Where will you draw the line?

How many levels of privacy will you sacrifice before you come to grips with your illogical fears and realization of your own mortality?

 

[LunarRay]

Hey, how about this idea?

Offer flights with varying levels of security. Passengers get to choose which security-level they wish to fly on.

If you choose "no security", there are no x-ray machines, no metal detectors, no body-scans, no pat-downs, no checked-baggage scans - no nothing. Of course, no one else on the flight is checked, either.

"Intermediate grade" would be the pre-body-scan/pat-down level of security.

"Full genitalia" security reveals what's in every orifice of your body, in every nook and cranny of your baggage.

Your choice.

I'd take the train... I can't imagine a pilot who'd fly under your first condition... but then again they used to when folks were a bit more in their own back yard... so to speak.

 

[LunarRay]

Sorry to do this to you, but do you realize the security is a lot better on an airplane than on a ship, bus, or a train? Those are more attractive targets for an attack.

I'm not too concerned about the security on a boat or train... I can swim and walk.. but, I can't fly. It is all about being waaaaaaaay up in the air and have something go boom... makes the plane visit the ground rather unplanned like. I drive too and there are more death from that than flying but of course there are more cars about too...


I read somewhere that the odds of being eaten by a great white shark are about the same as being terminated by a terrorist event in an aircraft... I don't go swiming either... and my Pacific Aquarium is not more than 100' to my West...