Police are also able to demand that you stand on one leg and draft up a 5 page essay if they want, doesnt mean you legally have to. Cops can ask to search your car any time for any reason; doesnt mean you have to let them.
Perhaps I should have explained more clearly. When he didn't show them his birth certificate (and who carries this around with them 24/7?), they *arrested* him!
Those were Federal Agents. Strange. I don't remember seeing the protest over that. It wasn't until Arizona passed a law that says, "We have the same rights as the Feds do in our state" that everyone started throwing such a shit fit.
So, where was this post back when the FEDS arrested this guy? Actually it supports the idea that maybe local Arizona police should be handling this.
I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??
I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.
Agreed. I closed down my Facebook account because of this. And, yes, I did actually have a few friends.
Why not just limit the stuff in your profile to stuff that you don't care about being public? Hell, you could even use a fake name, fake information and even a fake "throwaway" email address. Then they would be sharing fake data. I don't have a problem with that.
Well, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Although I think they are a bunch of wuses, all they are doing is saying they won't have any children. If they were really dedicated to ridding the world of humans, they would commit suicide.
And in a not-so-rare display of irony, they commit suicide by running their SUV in a closed garage.
What exactly are your enormous privacy concerns? This already exists here in toronto. This works well. The truth is, when they raise the temperature in your ac for a period of time, you don't notice it because the temperature change in your home is not instantaneous. By the time you notice the small change, if you do at all, it'll be back to your original setting.
The blurb makes it sound sinister IMo with stuff like "under their control". They're just trying to control the peaks so everyone has power.
You may not notice it in Toronto where the high is 75, but where I'm at in Texas, it will be noticed when the LOW is 95!
Didn't I just read about 300 Slashdotters commenting that AGW was NOT about governments wanting to take more power. Now they are telling me what the temperature is in my home. Next they will tell me how much salt I can have on my food. What's after that?
Not sure why this is modded Troll... Unfortunately, it's quite true. While not blatantly stupid as FOX News, the National Post does use its fair share of twisted facts. In addition, it's well-known as the more right-wing national newspaper in Canada (the Globe and Mail being more left wing), and would therefore be more inclined to present facts in a right-wing-friendly way. Got to love the "free" press.
What difference does it make which slant is has as long as they are reporting FACTS? Are you telling me that facts presenting a "right-wing-friendly way are somehow no longer facts?
My God man! You've let your partisan colored glasses make you think that facts you don't like are not facts.
The question is what impact we are having on the climate with the stuff we are pumping in to the atmosphere and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.
If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".
No, but the cause will affect our method of dealing with it. So far, it's been blamed on SUV's in an attempt to get all Americans to drive smaller cars, cow farts, in an attempt to get Americans to turn vegetarian, and on deforestation, in an attempt to get Americans to stop urban sprawl and stop cutting down trees.
In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That's not a skeptics view. That's an idiot-who-doesn't-understand-statistics view.
And yours is nothing more than an insult with absolutely no refutation of his argument. You did nothing but attempt to insult him and made your self look like an ignorant ass in the process. Congratulations.
There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least. The FSM is as likely a cause. The sunspot minimum makes a far more beleivable.
Sunspots increase solar radiation, so I guess the minimum is the reason that temperatures have stayed relatively constant then?
Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, the thing that pisses me off about the whole scenario is the number of people using it to reject anything that leads to energy independence. By all means, let's continue chugging oil and making Big Oil execs and their Saudi prince friends filthy rich. I don't particularly care if AGW is real, but if it speeds up solar and nuclear energy research and deployment than I'm all for it. You can even say FSM did it, if it makes you happy and reduces our trade deficit.
No one is saying "let's burn oil like there is no tomorrow". What people are saying is that it is cheaper to drill for oil than to catch the unicorn farts required to power our cars, heat/cool our homes, and drive our economy.
I agree with the whole "let's cut our dependence on foreign oil bit", but we are not going to do that by banning all domestic energy production. It will take the reasonable efficiency proposals from the liberals and combine them with the feasible domestic energy policies of the conservatives. This means that we drill ANWR and offshore. This means that we tax that oil and use the money for alternative energy research (AND NOTHING ELSE!). It means that we increase automobile efficiency standards. We build nuclear plants. We build wind farms. We do ALL of what is reasonable, not just what one side or the other wants.
But lets not do it in a such a way that gives more power to the government to control our lives.
Um, you seemed to have ignored the first two thirds of his comment. You know, the part about how NASA assumes that we are.001 of a degree warmer than we were over seventy years ago. Really? We were accurate to 0.001 of a degree when measuring the world's climate average back when the Charleston was all the rage and cars still had wooden tires? And you are seriously willing to give up rights on that assumption?
Ten thousand scientists in two dozen countries, democratic, communist, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist all working together in concert to trick the world for personal or political gain.
If you believe that, then there is no hope for you or anyone else who truly thinks that this conspiracy theory has any credence.
They are the only ones left. Those that didn't carry the torch lost funding, lost credibility and had to find other lines of work. All that is left are the scientist who played ball with those that pay the grants, the politicians!
Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.
Sorry, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The knights of the Crusades were at least close to the military might and technology of the Muslims they attacked. Do you really think that the Muslims of today would be any less brutal if they had a military on par with the west or even the east? Hell, look at how they treat their own for a small clue as to how they would treat you.
It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.
That is unfair to the majority of modern and progressive muslims. The image of Islam we all see is distorted by media coverage, and muslims are usually as irritated as we are by violent, pushy, and fascist muslims.
Maybe so, but the image of planes flying into buildings, reporters being beheaded, gays being hung, women getting stoned because they had the audacity to get raped and endless missiles launched into neighborhoods from elementary schools tend to leave more of an impression than the puff piece about the Muslim immigrant who saved a kitten from a tree.
One day one of them said "we need to just round up all the muslims and shoot them" holy crap, dont realize if you know this, but that's called ethnic cleansing!!
Tell you what, when they actually act on that, and kill, I don't know, let's say 3000 Muslims or so in the name of Jesus, and Christians celebrate in the streets, you can come back with your moral equivalence argument. Until then, blow it out your ass.
You asked "what good is..." a few times. And you are right. Like we both said, it's theatrics. And it appears to have worked for the time being. It's a pain in the ass, sure, but I'd rather have a sore ass than a dead child.
Nope, but it will buy me enough time to arm myself if I'm home. If I'm not then I don't really care if he makes off with my insured property.
OK, but neither helps you on a plane. And if you don't care about your stuff, then why lock your door?
Relax. I was agreeing with you. Airport security is theatrics. But it's theatrics with a purpose.
Blah blah blah blah. You've eaten up the FUD hook, line and sinker. Terrorists make one attempt -- that fails miserably I might add -- and you jump to the head of the line to surrender your rights.
FUD? You got two out of three, but umm, where does "Doubt" come in? As for the Fear part, British Intelligence got wind of terrorists using explosive liquids in bottles, much like your Mt. Dew bottle, to blow up a plane. It failed miserably because they busted the ring up days before the attempt. Investigations have concluded that such a plot is feasible and could bring down a plane. That warrants fear. Uncertainty is the uncertainty that such an attempt would not be tried again. Return to Fear.
If there were a credible threat on 9-10-2001 concerning box cutters, wouldn't you like to think that TSA would have banned box cutters? It's not like security agencies suddenly realized that you could sneak liquid explosives onto a plane using a common Mt. Dew bottle. And it's certainly not like they just suddenly decided that Mr. Shakrai has had enough caffeine for the day. They had credible intelligence that said that people were trying to bring down airplanes with liquid explosives openly carried on board in beverage bottles. They are not just doing it to piss you off.
'm glad your experiences with TSA have gone better than mine. Here is the summary of my last experience with the bastards:
Yeah, that sux. In the future, let me suggest an alternative method of dealing with these guys.
TSA Drone: I need to see your ID Me: [hands over valid NYS drivers license] TSA Drone: This has a PO box on it, I need something with your home address. Me: I'm sorry, sir. That is all I have. TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it. Me: Let me check. I have my weapons permit. Will this work? [hands over valid NYS pistol license] TSA Drone: Your picture is glued onto this. Me: I know. That's how NY does it, unfortunately. Let me see if I have anything else... [digs through wallet]. I'm sorry, sir. That is all I have. What can we do here? I really need to catch my flight and I'm sure you're tired of looking at me. TSA: Let me get my supervisor...
Also, I might note that a national ID would take care of that problem as it would be familiar to TSA and they would have to accept it. But I don't want to have that conversation again as, somehow, creating a federal ID standard somehow keeps people from speaking freely, eliminates their freedom of religion and other rights along with it.
I wasn't aware my 20oz bottle of mountain dew was a weapon. "OMG, look out, he's got high fructose corn syrup and caffeine!"
There is problem with Mt. Dew. There's no problem with the bottle it's in. The problem is that someone might put something else into an empty Mt. Dew bottle that may explode when it comes into contact with a flame or electrical charge.
Fortunately nobody in this thread was advocating for that. I believe I was advocating for common sense. Do you really think that pulling Grannie out of the security line and making her take off her shoes advances the security of our air transportation network? Do you really think that forcing people through full body scanners that can't scan body cavities (i.e: there's still a way for someone who is determined to smuggle something bad on board) advances the security of our air transportation network? It's all security theater. Nothing more, nothing else.
I agree that common sense needs to be employed, but how do you know Grannie is not packing C4? The second you say that no one over 65 needs to be search is the second before terrorists start recruiting 66 yr olds. Of course it's all theater. Do you really think that little lock will keep a thief out of your home? Do you still lock your door? Why bother? Anyone between the ages of 12 and 70 could easily kick the door in, locked or not. There is an old saying: "A lock is not to keep a thief out. It's to keep an honest man honest." The point of airport security is to put up a good front so that those that would otherwise do harm will think twice before acting.
Ah, so it's ok to treat people like common criminals as long as they aren't doing something that's "required"?
I've never been treated like a criminal. I've been asked to step aside and pull my shoes off while someone waves a wand over me and someone else goes through my carry on. Any time that I've been "patted down", I always mention that I usually make people buy me dinner first. Sure, I make little jokes but I cooperate fully with a smile and I've never had any problems. The TSA agents have always been professional, work quickly, apologize for the inconvenience and tell me to have a good flight. I'm sure they wouldn't be as nice if I gave them attitude, but when I make their life easier, they return the favor.
Of course, I know what it's like to be treated as a criminal, but it was buy police officers who were, you know, treating me like a criminal by putting hand cuffs on me and taking me to jail. TSA has never done that to me. And, no, I'm not suggesting to anyone that the police be abolished, even though they have truly treated me like a criminal.
I don't think its the rules that bother people, its the enforcement.
What good are rules without enforcement?
I doubt you'd find many people who take issues with a "no bombs" policy, the real problem is that we're willing to give up basically all of our rights to enforce it.
ALL of our rights? Is the freedom of the press or freedom of religion not allowed on planes? How about the right to remain silent? People check you and your luggage to confirm that you don't have any weapons. This is not a suspension of ALL of your rights.
"Safety at any cost" is a pretty heinous ideology,
ANY cost? No. But, of course, there will be some cost. Do you not put new brake pads on your car? That's at a cost, is it not? I feel that "Absolute freedom, regardless of the risk to me or others" is equally as heinous.
Having a rule that says "murder is illegal" is fine and dandy, but when the enforcement path includes cameras in everyones house, then there is a problem.
False analogy. No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing to fly commercially (you can charter your own plane from a regional airport and not have to deal with security).
Your analogy could be fixed if your method of prevention was background checks before purchasing a firearm. See, you have just as much a right to bear arms as you do to NOT get searched without a warrant. Both are in the Bill of Rights. Are you opposed to background checks before buying a firearm? Should anyone be allowed to own a firearm, regardless of criminal or mental history. Sure, there are some people that think that anyone should be able to go to their local 7-11 and purchase an AK-47 complete with scope an ammo like they are buying a pack of smokes, but they are wrong.
Interestingly enough, there are actually people that would be willing to give up the privacy of their email if it makes the world safer.
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.
Um, you could charter a plane and fly with no searches. You could drive or take a bus, boat or train to your destination. See, when you purchase an airline ticket, you are agreeing to be searched and stuffed into a pressurized tube and launched to over 10,000 feet at over 600 mph. This is why the Fourth does not apply. Well, that and the fact that you are not guaranteed all of your rights, all of the time. I could bring up the "fire in a crowded theater" example, but instead I will bring up the "why can't I open the door on a plane in mid-flight as an expression of my free speech or yell "I HAVE A BOMB!""
Besides, as a fellow passenger, I wouldn't get onto a plane unless I was fairly certain that everyone else on that plane was also searched, just as I was.
No, what makes you a racist is that you bring up what is literally gossip in comparison with Bush starting an unwinnable war, illegally suspending constitutional rights, and staffing the federal government with his cronies. Remember the the guy who ran FEMA? Who's job before that was judging ponies? A job from which he was fired?
Wait! How does that make me a racist? What does any of that have to do with race? Did you oppose any of the stuff Bush did because he is white? The wars have expanded, Constitutional rights have not been restored and have been further limited, and cronyism is at an all time high. Why do you not oppose Obama from doing even more of the exact same stuff that Bush did?
So it appears that YOU are the racist. See, the only difference between Bush and Obama with respect to the issues you brought up is race. You opposed Bush when he did those things and support Obama blindly.
I never mentioned cronyism or the wars in my criticism of Obama. I support him in respect to Afghanistan and Iraq and accept that a president has the right to choose his cabinet. My criticism deals with his obvious inexperience in respect to diplomacy and the way he tends to stick his foot in his mouth when he speaks off teleprompter.
So it's just as racist to support someone because of their skin color as it is to oppose them. That makes you the racist, a racist guilty of projection.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Ah, the old Reagan passing of the deficit buck trick. Look, it's simple: Reagan and a Democratic congress -> deficit. Bush 41 and a Democratic congress -> deficit. Clinton and Republican congress -> surplus. Bush 43 and a Republican congress -> deficit. You can try and pass the buck to congress all you want but the fact is that the last two Presidents to preside over balanced budgets were both Democrats. The last Republican to preside over a balanced budget? Ike.
You forgot Clinton + Democratic Congress=deficit + recession Clinton + Republican Congress=surplus + economic boom and Bush + Republican Congress=deficit + economic boom Bush + Democratic Congress=deficit + recession
However, it is important to note that Bush's Republican Congress was quite slim, so slim in fact that when one or two Senators changed party, the control was lost.
It should also be noted that Bush said the only excuse for deficit spending was recession or war. He had both. Although, I agree with you that once the recession was over and Republicans did have a majority in both houses, no matter how slim, there was no longer an excuse when you consider that tax cuts actually caused the largest government receipts in history. It's as if they only held up half their end of the bargin. Granted, it didn't help that every time the R controlled congress tried to cut the budget, the D's and media would trot out some poor soul whose life would be devastated by the whatever cuts were proposed.
Finally: Obama + Democrat supermajority=extremely large deficit + recession
So, if the deficit was big during Bush's term of office, big enough for you to bring up, then why are you not going friggin nuts over the current deficit? I mean, if your problem is the deficit, then why didn't you bring up the current president and congress? Obama and Pelosi/Reid's deficit is 3x larger than Bush's. What's the difference. Could it be D after their name?
To me, the solution is simple. Forget the parties, stop placing blame and follow the 10th Amendment. The budget will take care of itself.
This, more than anything else I've seen in the last ten years, convinces me that racism is still alive in the US today. It's not that opposing Obama means you're a racist. It's the iron clad, unassailable assumption that he doesn't have the intelligence or talent to be in the political elite of this country by his own merits.
Wait just a damn minute here. Didn't I just get done hearing how stupid and incompetent GWB was for the past eight years? If saying the same thing about Obama is racist, then why was it not racist to say it about Bush?
Is it because Bush is white and Obama is black? Isn't applying different standards to different people based solely on race, by definition, racist?
Listen to the guy in interviews and debates. He not only can think on his feet, he thinks on his feet *faster than the other guy*
You mean like how a local plumber embarrassed him and caused him political grief for years by making him admit things that were politically damaging? Or are you talking about how he sends world leaders DVDs that they can't play in their home countries? Wait, you must mean the iPod gift of his speeches that he gives to dignitaries, right? Or does bringing any of this up make me a racist?
Bush was not stupid either. He is a Yale and Harvard grad. I don't care who your daddy is, Yale and Harvard do not pass idiots. Sure, he occasionally stuck his foot in his mouth or did something stupid, but his slip ups are nothing compared to Biden's faux pas. Also, Bush held his own against Gore and Kerry well enough to win the elections. I didn't hear any Democrat claim that Gore and Kerry were idiots.
You might not agree with all of his positions -- I certainly don't. But you have to admit the guy is very, very smart. Intelligence doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion, but it sure helps you get ahead in life.
I agree for the most part, but sometimes, I wonder about his intelligence. There is no doubt that he's misguided, gullible and inexperienced. Seriously, how hard it is to NOT bow to foreign leaders?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should have explained more clearly. When he didn't show them his birth certificate (and who carries this around with them 24/7?), they *arrested* him!
Those were Federal Agents. Strange. I don't remember seeing the protest over that. It wasn't until Arizona passed a law that says, "We have the same rights as the Feds do in our state" that everyone started throwing such a shit fit.
So, where was this post back when the FEDS arrested this guy? Actually it supports the idea that maybe local Arizona police should be handling this.
They are stealing your time. I hope people can clog things up real good for this. Fight it every way you can. It's outrageous.
I know. Seriously, what kind of law enforcement agency actually tries to enforce the law? What a bunch of dicks!
I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??
I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.
Agreed. I closed down my Facebook account because of this. And, yes, I did actually have a few friends.
Why not just limit the stuff in your profile to stuff that you don't care about being public? Hell, you could even use a fake name, fake information and even a fake "throwaway" email address. Then they would be sharing fake data. I don't have a problem with that.
Thats funny. The democrats gave out just as much bailout money as the republicans,
[Citation Needed]
Strange. I don't remember the Enron bail out. How did I miss that one?
The planet is going nowhere .
*** WE ARE. ***
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Well, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Although I think they are a bunch of wuses, all they are doing is saying they won't have any children. If they were really dedicated to ridding the world of humans, they would commit suicide.
And in a not-so-rare display of irony, they commit suicide by running their SUV in a closed garage.
What exactly are your enormous privacy concerns? This already exists here in toronto. This works well. The truth is, when they raise the temperature in your ac for a period of time, you don't notice it because the temperature change in your home is not instantaneous. By the time you notice the small change, if you do at all, it'll be back to your original setting.
The blurb makes it sound sinister IMo with stuff like "under their control". They're just trying to control the peaks so everyone has power.
You may not notice it in Toronto where the high is 75, but where I'm at in Texas, it will be noticed when the LOW is 95!
Didn't I just read about 300 Slashdotters commenting that AGW was NOT about governments wanting to take more power. Now they are telling me what the temperature is in my home. Next they will tell me how much salt I can have on my food. What's after that?
Not sure why this is modded Troll... Unfortunately, it's quite true. While not blatantly stupid as FOX News, the National Post does use its fair share of twisted facts. In addition, it's well-known as the more right-wing national newspaper in Canada (the Globe and Mail being more left wing), and would therefore be more inclined to present facts in a right-wing-friendly way. Got to love the "free" press.
What difference does it make which slant is has as long as they are reporting FACTS? Are you telling me that facts presenting a "right-wing-friendly way are somehow no longer facts?
My God man! You've let your partisan colored glasses make you think that facts you don't like are not facts.
The question is what impact we are having on the climate with the stuff we are pumping in to the atmosphere and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.
If natural global warming was deemed a threat to us we would have to look for ways to offset it. We are not children you know. It doesn't matter who "did it".
No, but the cause will affect our method of dealing with it. So far, it's been blamed on SUV's in an attempt to get all Americans to drive smaller cars, cow farts, in an attempt to get Americans to turn vegetarian, and on deforestation, in an attempt to get Americans to stop urban sprawl and stop cutting down trees.
In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That's not a skeptics view. That's an idiot-who-doesn't-understand-statistics view.
And yours is nothing more than an insult with absolutely no refutation of his argument. You did nothing but attempt to insult him and made your self look like an ignorant ass in the process. Congratulations.
There are many reasons to doubt AGW as a legitimate climate change candidate. The shrillness of its proponents not being the least. The FSM is as likely a cause. The sunspot minimum makes a far more beleivable.
Sunspots increase solar radiation, so I guess the minimum is the reason that temperatures have stayed relatively constant then?
Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, the thing that pisses me off about the whole scenario is the number of people using it to reject anything that leads to energy independence. By all means, let's continue chugging oil and making Big Oil execs and their Saudi prince friends filthy rich. I don't particularly care if AGW is real, but if it speeds up solar and nuclear energy research and deployment than I'm all for it. You can even say FSM did it, if it makes you happy and reduces our trade deficit.
No one is saying "let's burn oil like there is no tomorrow". What people are saying is that it is cheaper to drill for oil than to catch the unicorn farts required to power our cars, heat/cool our homes, and drive our economy.
I agree with the whole "let's cut our dependence on foreign oil bit", but we are not going to do that by banning all domestic energy production. It will take the reasonable efficiency proposals from the liberals and combine them with the feasible domestic energy policies of the conservatives. This means that we drill ANWR and offshore. This means that we tax that oil and use the money for alternative energy research (AND NOTHING ELSE!). It means that we increase automobile efficiency standards. We build nuclear plants. We build wind farms. We do ALL of what is reasonable, not just what one side or the other wants.
But lets not do it in a such a way that gives more power to the government to control our lives.
Um, you seemed to have ignored the first two thirds of his comment. You know, the part about how NASA assumes that we are .001 of a degree warmer than we were over seventy years ago. Really? We were accurate to 0.001 of a degree when measuring the world's climate average back when the Charleston was all the rage and cars still had wooden tires? And you are seriously willing to give up rights on that assumption?
Ten thousand scientists in two dozen countries, democratic, communist, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist all working together in concert to trick the world for personal or political gain.
If you believe that, then there is no hope for you or anyone else who truly thinks that this conspiracy theory has any credence.
They are the only ones left. Those that didn't carry the torch lost funding, lost credibility and had to find other lines of work. All that is left are the scientist who played ball with those that pay the grants, the politicians!
Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.
Sorry, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The knights of the Crusades were at least close to the military might and technology of the Muslims they attacked. Do you really think that the Muslims of today would be any less brutal if they had a military on par with the west or even the east? Hell, look at how they treat their own for a small clue as to how they would treat you.
It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.
That is unfair to the majority of modern and progressive muslims. The image of Islam we all see is distorted by media coverage, and muslims are usually as irritated as we are by violent, pushy, and fascist muslims.
Maybe so, but the image of planes flying into buildings, reporters being beheaded, gays being hung, women getting stoned because they had the audacity to get raped and endless missiles launched into neighborhoods from elementary schools tend to leave more of an impression than the puff piece about the Muslim immigrant who saved a kitten from a tree.
One day one of them said "we need to just round up all the muslims and shoot them" holy crap, dont realize if you know this, but that's called ethnic cleansing!!
Tell you what, when they actually act on that, and kill, I don't know, let's say 3000 Muslims or so in the name of Jesus, and Christians celebrate in the streets, you can come back with your moral equivalence argument. Until then, blow it out your ass.
What's left on Usenet is the "dark allies" of porn, spamming, and illegally shared copyrighted files.
Exactly! This is why I care! OK, I could do without the spamming and illegally shared copyrighted files.
You asked "what good is..." a few times. And you are right. Like we both said, it's theatrics. And it appears to have worked for the time being. It's a pain in the ass, sure, but I'd rather have a sore ass than a dead child.
Nope, but it will buy me enough time to arm myself if I'm home. If I'm not then I don't really care if he makes off with my insured property.
OK, but neither helps you on a plane. And if you don't care about your stuff, then why lock your door?
Relax. I was agreeing with you. Airport security is theatrics. But it's theatrics with a purpose.
Blah blah blah blah. You've eaten up the FUD hook, line and sinker. Terrorists make one attempt -- that fails miserably I might add -- and you jump to the head of the line to surrender your rights.
FUD? You got two out of three, but umm, where does "Doubt" come in?
As for the Fear part, British Intelligence got wind of terrorists using explosive liquids in bottles, much like your Mt. Dew bottle, to blow up a plane. It failed miserably because they busted the ring up days before the attempt. Investigations have concluded that such a plot is feasible and could bring down a plane. That warrants fear.
Uncertainty is the uncertainty that such an attempt would not be tried again. Return to Fear.
If there were a credible threat on 9-10-2001 concerning box cutters, wouldn't you like to think that TSA would have banned box cutters? It's not like security agencies suddenly realized that you could sneak liquid explosives onto a plane using a common Mt. Dew bottle. And it's certainly not like they just suddenly decided that Mr. Shakrai has had enough caffeine for the day. They had credible intelligence that said that people were trying to bring down airplanes with liquid explosives openly carried on board in beverage bottles. They are not just doing it to piss you off.
'm glad your experiences with TSA have gone better than mine. Here is the summary of my last experience with the bastards:
Yeah, that sux. In the future, let me suggest an alternative method of dealing with these guys.
TSA Drone: I need to see your ID
Me: [hands over valid NYS drivers license]
TSA Drone: This has a PO box on it, I need something with your home address.
Me: I'm sorry, sir. That is all I have.
TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it.
Me: Let me check. I have my weapons permit. Will this work? [hands over valid NYS pistol license]
TSA Drone: Your picture is glued onto this.
Me: I know. That's how NY does it, unfortunately. Let me see if I have anything else... [digs through wallet]. I'm sorry, sir. That is all I have. What can we do here? I really need to catch my flight and I'm sure you're tired of looking at me.
TSA: Let me get my supervisor...
Also, I might note that a national ID would take care of that problem as it would be familiar to TSA and they would have to accept it. But I don't want to have that conversation again as, somehow, creating a federal ID standard somehow keeps people from speaking freely, eliminates their freedom of religion and other rights along with it.
I wasn't aware my 20oz bottle of mountain dew was a weapon. "OMG, look out, he's got high fructose corn syrup and caffeine!"
There is problem with Mt. Dew. There's no problem with the bottle it's in. The problem is that someone might put something else into an empty Mt. Dew bottle that may explode when it comes into contact with a flame or electrical charge.
Fortunately nobody in this thread was advocating for that. I believe I was advocating for common sense. Do you really think that pulling Grannie out of the security line and making her take off her shoes advances the security of our air transportation network? Do you really think that forcing people through full body scanners that can't scan body cavities (i.e: there's still a way for someone who is determined to smuggle something bad on board) advances the security of our air transportation network? It's all security theater. Nothing more, nothing else.
I agree that common sense needs to be employed, but how do you know Grannie is not packing C4? The second you say that no one over 65 needs to be search is the second before terrorists start recruiting 66 yr olds.
Of course it's all theater. Do you really think that little lock will keep a thief out of your home? Do you still lock your door? Why bother? Anyone between the ages of 12 and 70 could easily kick the door in, locked or not. There is an old saying: "A lock is not to keep a thief out. It's to keep an honest man honest." The point of airport security is to put up a good front so that those that would otherwise do harm will think twice before acting.
Ah, so it's ok to treat people like common criminals as long as they aren't doing something that's "required"?
I've never been treated like a criminal. I've been asked to step aside and pull my shoes off while someone waves a wand over me and someone else goes through my carry on. Any time that I've been "patted down", I always mention that I usually make people buy me dinner first. Sure, I make little jokes but I cooperate fully with a smile and I've never had any problems. The TSA agents have always been professional, work quickly, apologize for the inconvenience and tell me to have a good flight. I'm sure they wouldn't be as nice if I gave them attitude, but when I make their life easier, they return the favor.
Of course, I know what it's like to be treated as a criminal, but it was buy police officers who were, you know, treating me like a criminal by putting hand cuffs on me and taking me to jail. TSA has never done that to me. And, no, I'm not suggesting to anyone that the police be abolished, even though they have truly treated me like a criminal.
I don't think its the rules that bother people, its the enforcement.
What good are rules without enforcement?
I doubt you'd find many people who take issues with a "no bombs" policy, the real problem is that we're willing to give up basically all of our rights to enforce it.
ALL of our rights? Is the freedom of the press or freedom of religion not allowed on planes? How about the right to remain silent? People check you and your luggage to confirm that you don't have any weapons. This is not a suspension of ALL of your rights.
"Safety at any cost" is a pretty heinous ideology,
ANY cost? No. But, of course, there will be some cost. Do you not put new brake pads on your car? That's at a cost, is it not?
I feel that "Absolute freedom, regardless of the risk to me or others" is equally as heinous.
Having a rule that says "murder is illegal" is fine and dandy, but when the enforcement path includes cameras in everyones house, then there is a problem.
False analogy. No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing to fly commercially (you can charter your own plane from a regional airport and not have to deal with security).
Your analogy could be fixed if your method of prevention was background checks before purchasing a firearm. See, you have just as much a right to bear arms as you do to NOT get searched without a warrant. Both are in the Bill of Rights. Are you opposed to background checks before buying a firearm? Should anyone be allowed to own a firearm, regardless of criminal or mental history. Sure, there are some people that think that anyone should be able to go to their local 7-11 and purchase an AK-47 complete with scope an ammo like they are buying a pack of smokes, but they are wrong.
Interestingly enough, there are actually people that would be willing to give up the privacy of their email if it makes the world safer.
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer." This, along with many other one-liners roll our forefathers over.
Um, you could charter a plane and fly with no searches. You could drive or take a bus, boat or train to your destination. See, when you purchase an airline ticket, you are agreeing to be searched and stuffed into a pressurized tube and launched to over 10,000 feet at over 600 mph. This is why the Fourth does not apply. Well, that and the fact that you are not guaranteed all of your rights, all of the time. I could bring up the "fire in a crowded theater" example, but instead I will bring up the "why can't I open the door on a plane in mid-flight as an expression of my free speech or yell "I HAVE A BOMB!""
Besides, as a fellow passenger, I wouldn't get onto a plane unless I was fairly certain that everyone else on that plane was also searched, just as I was.
No, what makes you a racist is that you bring up what is literally gossip in comparison with Bush starting an unwinnable war, illegally suspending constitutional rights, and staffing the federal government with his cronies. Remember the the guy who ran FEMA? Who's job before that was judging ponies? A job from which he was fired?
Wait! How does that make me a racist? What does any of that have to do with race? Did you oppose any of the stuff Bush did because he is white? The wars have expanded, Constitutional rights have not been restored and have been further limited, and cronyism is at an all time high. Why do you not oppose Obama from doing even more of the exact same stuff that Bush did?
So it appears that YOU are the racist. See, the only difference between Bush and Obama with respect to the issues you brought up is race. You opposed Bush when he did those things and support Obama blindly.
I never mentioned cronyism or the wars in my criticism of Obama. I support him in respect to Afghanistan and Iraq and accept that a president has the right to choose his cabinet. My criticism deals with his obvious inexperience in respect to diplomacy and the way he tends to stick his foot in his mouth when he speaks off teleprompter.
So it's just as racist to support someone because of their skin color as it is to oppose them. That makes you the racist, a racist guilty of projection.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Ah, the old Reagan passing of the deficit buck trick. Look, it's simple: Reagan and a Democratic congress -> deficit. Bush 41 and a Democratic congress -> deficit. Clinton and Republican congress -> surplus. Bush 43 and a Republican congress -> deficit. You can try and pass the buck to congress all you want but the fact is that the last two Presidents to preside over balanced budgets were both Democrats. The last Republican to preside over a balanced budget? Ike.
You forgot
Clinton + Democratic Congress=deficit + recession
Clinton + Republican Congress=surplus + economic boom
and
Bush + Republican Congress=deficit + economic boom
Bush + Democratic Congress=deficit + recession
However, it is important to note that Bush's Republican Congress was quite slim, so slim in fact that when one or two Senators changed party, the control was lost.
It should also be noted that Bush said the only excuse for deficit spending was recession or war. He had both. Although, I agree with you that once the recession was over and Republicans did have a majority in both houses, no matter how slim, there was no longer an excuse when you consider that tax cuts actually caused the largest government receipts in history. It's as if they only held up half their end of the bargin. Granted, it didn't help that every time the R controlled congress tried to cut the budget, the D's and media would trot out some poor soul whose life would be devastated by the whatever cuts were proposed.
Finally:
Obama + Democrat supermajority=extremely large deficit + recession
So, if the deficit was big during Bush's term of office, big enough for you to bring up, then why are you not going friggin nuts over the current deficit? I mean, if your problem is the deficit, then why didn't you bring up the current president and congress? Obama and Pelosi/Reid's deficit is 3x larger than Bush's. What's the difference. Could it be D after their name?
To me, the solution is simple. Forget the parties, stop placing blame and follow the 10th Amendment. The budget will take care of itself.
This, more than anything else I've seen in the last ten years, convinces me that racism is still alive in the US today. It's not that opposing Obama means you're a racist. It's the iron clad, unassailable assumption that he doesn't have the intelligence or talent to be in the political elite of this country by his own merits.
Wait just a damn minute here. Didn't I just get done hearing how stupid and incompetent GWB was for the past eight years? If saying the same thing about Obama is racist, then why was it not racist to say it about Bush?
Is it because Bush is white and Obama is black? Isn't applying different standards to different people based solely on race, by definition, racist?
Listen to the guy in interviews and debates. He not only can think on his feet, he thinks on his feet *faster than the other guy*
You mean like how a local plumber embarrassed him and caused him political grief for years by making him admit things that were politically damaging? Or are you talking about how he sends world leaders DVDs that they can't play in their home countries? Wait, you must mean the iPod gift of his speeches that he gives to dignitaries, right? Or does bringing any of this up make me a racist?
Bush was not stupid either. He is a Yale and Harvard grad. I don't care who your daddy is, Yale and Harvard do not pass idiots. Sure, he occasionally stuck his foot in his mouth or did something stupid, but his slip ups are nothing compared to Biden's faux pas. Also, Bush held his own against Gore and Kerry well enough to win the elections. I didn't hear any Democrat claim that Gore and Kerry were idiots.
You might not agree with all of his positions -- I certainly don't. But you have to admit the guy is very, very smart. Intelligence doesn't always lead you to the right conclusion, but it sure helps you get ahead in life.
I agree for the most part, but sometimes, I wonder about his intelligence. There is no doubt that he's misguided, gullible and inexperienced. Seriously, how hard it is to NOT bow to foreign leaders?