Do you really think that if you broke into some house, stole a computer, found hundred of horrible child porn photos of the house owner molesting children and turned that in to the police it would be unusable?
Do I think it would be unusable? No. Do I think it should be? Absolutely.
Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
Well, not to state the obvious, but it's entirely possible that you didn't do anything illegal, or that the law is absolutely unjust and should be challenged.
Actually, it sounds more like he has principles and wishes to stick to them. In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Stop violating the constitution and people's rights. Move to destroy the entire organization that you work for, which is something I'm trying to do.
Don't like it? Every part of the U.S. is connected by road and rail.
You should not have to avoid riding on planes in order to not be harassed by government thugs. Your 'logic' applied to other scenarios: "You don't want your home randomly searched by police? Don't live in this city. You can move elsewhere where it doesn't happen!"
I would sincerely like to thank you for your service.
You should not thank thugs who violate people's rights and the constitution for a living; it sends the message that doing so is okay, and that's absolutely false.
Then you are an immoral individual. "I was just following orders." wasn't a valid excuse, and neither is "I needed a job!"
The TSA violates people's fundamental liberties and the constitution. It doesn't matter how much you try to trivialize these violations, as those facts will remain facts.
In that role we've been 100% successful for over a decade.
Such nonsense. We also didn't really have an attack like what happened on 9/11 before 9/11, so I guess airport security was 100% effective then, too. In reality, secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back have done far, far more than any of you thugs.
If you don't want to be delayed, then by all means stop trying to sneak knives and guns onto planes.
How about you government thugs stop harassing people at airports and get out? I don't care how effective you claim to be; I don't care how effective you are; I care that your job requires that you violate the fourth amendment and people's fundamental liberties and privacy.
Freedom is more important than safety, and while I deny that you are anything more than security theater, that is my fundamental point. The fact that you haven't realized this shows how unprincipled you are.
For all the moaning everybody does about the TSA, I have yet to hear of a viable alternative.
Here's a viable alternative: Eliminate the TSA and get government thugs out of airports. This has a few benefits; we wouldn't be violating people's fundamental liberties, we wouldn't be violating the constitution, and far less importantly, we'd save money.
Should we just dismantle all checkpoints like we had in the 1960's?
Yes. Government thugs should just get out of airports.
and I am guessing that the security checks keep most of them off the planes.
You guess without evidence, and in turn, support policies that involve the violation of people's fundamental liberties and the constitution. Even the latter without the former would make you unprincipled trash.
Freedom is more important than security. Why do I even have to say that in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? You should understand this well already.
to search adults but say, "I don't need to examine children and old people".
He shouldn't be violating *anyone's* rights. Old people and children aren't more important. One would have to be immoral to work for the TSA to begin with, because it's a job that requires you violate people's rights.
But of course there's a long way between "acceptable" and "so unacceptable I'll put it ahead of all other issues combined", so his equivalence of "Americans tolerate [the TSA]" with "we have said... the TSA is acceptable" is pretty bogus.
Yes.
But if Americans don't make defending their rights their top priority, then they're just mindless trash.
Look at the percentages spent on various departments and you'll find that spending on the military is relatively small compared to other spending.
X being smaller than Y does not mean that X is not large.
With that said, if you added up all the money we spend on wars, things like the NSA, TSA, DOD, and absolutely all the military or defense-related operations or organizations that we have, the number is absolutely huge.
Plus, national defense is one of the FEW things that the federal government is supposed to do according to the Constitution.
9/11 could happen again, and if allowing it to happen again means that I'm more free, then I'm 100% for that. I am absolutely opposed to the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, etc., no matter how 'safe' they keep us.
You'd be immoral. How safe they make us (and I doubt they actually make us safer) is irrelevant; what matters is the fact that the job requires that you violate people's rights and the constitution, and that cannot be tolerated.
It's an entirely different situation when a clearly identifiable enemy (a country, in your example) attacks you and declares war. Terrorists committing terrorist attacks are is hardly even close to the same thing.
But yes, anyone who was actually *scared* of the Japanese bogeyman at the time was illogical. The war was more justifiable than any wars we've fought in a long time, but being terrified would have been irrational even then.
On the other hand you apparently have no useful understanding of public policy.
I understand that public policy is often illogical, and definitely is in this case.
I take it then that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics and instead link to a few deaths thinking that it means we're all going to die. The terrorist bogeyman doesn't scare me, and neither do your silly links. They didn't scare me on 9/11, and they won't scare me now.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think that if you broke into some house, stole a computer, found hundred of horrible child porn photos of the house owner molesting children and turned that in to the police it would be unusable?
Do I think it would be unusable? No. Do I think it should be? Absolutely.
No. Because they're afraid they'll lose, regardless of whether or not they're guilty. Intimidation works very nicely.
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument.
It hurts your brain, not my argument. If you've been alive even a few years, you'd probably know what I'm talking about.
Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
Well, not to state the obvious, but it's entirely possible that you didn't do anything illegal, or that the law is absolutely unjust and should be challenged.
Actually, it sounds more like he has principles and wishes to stick to them. In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
That's pretty bad but let's face it, that seems to be the direction the world is heading.
Yeah, so just give up on things like "freedom" and "privacy."
She wouldn't.
What they're taught is not math at all.
I don't know what else you could ask for.
Stop violating the constitution and people's rights. Move to destroy the entire organization that you work for, which is something I'm trying to do.
Don't like it? Every part of the U.S. is connected by road and rail.
You should not have to avoid riding on planes in order to not be harassed by government thugs. Your 'logic' applied to other scenarios: "You don't want your home randomly searched by police? Don't live in this city. You can move elsewhere where it doesn't happen!"
Stop rationalizing your abuses; it's an eyesore.
I would sincerely like to thank you for your service.
You should not thank thugs who violate people's rights and the constitution for a living; it sends the message that doing so is okay, and that's absolutely false.
One does what he must in this economy.
Then you are an immoral individual. "I was just following orders." wasn't a valid excuse, and neither is "I needed a job!"
The TSA violates people's fundamental liberties and the constitution. It doesn't matter how much you try to trivialize these violations, as those facts will remain facts.
In that role we've been 100% successful for over a decade.
Such nonsense. We also didn't really have an attack like what happened on 9/11 before 9/11, so I guess airport security was 100% effective then, too. In reality, secured cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight back have done far, far more than any of you thugs.
If you don't want to be delayed, then by all means stop trying to sneak knives and guns onto planes.
How about you government thugs stop harassing people at airports and get out? I don't care how effective you claim to be; I don't care how effective you are; I care that your job requires that you violate the fourth amendment and people's fundamental liberties and privacy.
Freedom is more important than safety, and while I deny that you are anything more than security theater, that is my fundamental point. The fact that you haven't realized this shows how unprincipled you are.
For all the moaning everybody does about the TSA, I have yet to hear of a viable alternative.
Here's a viable alternative: Eliminate the TSA and get government thugs out of airports. This has a few benefits; we wouldn't be violating people's fundamental liberties, we wouldn't be violating the constitution, and far less importantly, we'd save money.
Should we just dismantle all checkpoints like we had in the 1960's?
Yes. Government thugs should just get out of airports.
and I am guessing that the security checks keep most of them off the planes.
You guess without evidence, and in turn, support policies that involve the violation of people's fundamental liberties and the constitution. Even the latter without the former would make you unprincipled trash.
Freedom is more important than security. Why do I even have to say that in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? You should understand this well already.
to search adults but say, "I don't need to examine children and old people".
He shouldn't be violating *anyone's* rights. Old people and children aren't more important. One would have to be immoral to work for the TSA to begin with, because it's a job that requires you violate people's rights.
But of course there's a long way between "acceptable" and "so unacceptable I'll put it ahead of all other issues combined", so his equivalence of "Americans tolerate [the TSA]" with "we have said ... the TSA is acceptable" is pretty bogus.
Yes.
But if Americans don't make defending their rights their top priority, then they're just mindless trash.
Look at the percentages spent on various departments and you'll find that spending on the military is relatively small compared to other spending.
X being smaller than Y does not mean that X is not large.
With that said, if you added up all the money we spend on wars, things like the NSA, TSA, DOD, and absolutely all the military or defense-related operations or organizations that we have, the number is absolutely huge.
Plus, national defense is one of the FEW things that the federal government is supposed to do according to the Constitution.
That does not justify this excessive waste.
9/11 could happen again, and if allowing it to happen again means that I'm more free, then I'm 100% for that. I am absolutely opposed to the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, etc., no matter how 'safe' they keep us.
You don't need to pretend to be a piece of trash; we already have many people like that in society, and I see them every single day.
But we praise the leaders when they use a piece of fiction to decide science policy.
Who is this "we"?
In all fairness, if I got a job as a TSA agent
You'd be immoral. How safe they make us (and I doubt they actually make us safer) is irrelevant; what matters is the fact that the job requires that you violate people's rights and the constitution, and that cannot be tolerated.
That, to me, is a fair compromise.
There can be no compromise; the TSA must be destroyed.
Happens to the best of us
It really doesn't.
Breaking the law is always wrong
I disagree.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Since right and wrong are subjective, they strangely can, depending on the individual.
Talk about the death of nuance.
"Breaking the law is always wrong" is a good example of that.
Hate to break it to you, but the US Constitution does not have jurisdiction outside the borders of the USA.
Much of the constitution doesn't make any distinction between non-citizens and citizens.
It's an entirely different situation when a clearly identifiable enemy (a country, in your example) attacks you and declares war. Terrorists committing terrorist attacks are is hardly even close to the same thing.
But yes, anyone who was actually *scared* of the Japanese bogeyman at the time was illogical. The war was more justifiable than any wars we've fought in a long time, but being terrified would have been irrational even then.
On the other hand you apparently have no useful understanding of public policy.
I understand that public policy is often illogical, and definitely is in this case.
I take it then that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics and instead link to a few deaths thinking that it means we're all going to die. The terrorist bogeyman doesn't scare me, and neither do your silly links. They didn't scare me on 9/11, and they won't scare me now.