Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Do you think those percentages might change somewhat if we don't stand up to the terrorists and thwart their attacks? If given free reign the terrorists would gladly kill every one of us that they feel is an infidel. You are right with the thought that we don't need to get hysterical about it but we do need to be concerned and aware. There are a lot of people who should be thanking a certain T-shirt vendor in Times Square. Bullcrap, the bomb maker f-ed up or there would have been casualties. All the resources we pour into Homeland Security did nothing to stop this guy. It's all a load of crap - sensationalized in the media. People get scared and the government reacts by restricting our freedoms and putting on a show to make everyone feel better. It's ineffective and childish. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest that money in heart disease research, something that's 17,600 times more likely to kill you? Wouldn't it be better to NOT live your life with some irrationally-magnified fear hanging over your head?
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Bullcrap, the bomb maker f-ed up or there would have been casualties. All the resources we pour into Homeland Security did nothing to stop this guy. It's all a load of crap - sensationalized in the media. People get scared and the government reacts by restricting our freedoms and putting on a show to make everyone feel better. It's ineffective and childish. Wouldn't it make more sense to invest that money in heart disease research, something that's 17,600 times more likely to kill you? Wouldn't it be better to NOT live your life with some irrationally-magnified fear hanging over your head? It'd be even better to recognize that YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, AND YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT. **** happens. Unreasonable precautions against **** happening are useless.
John Adams Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 How do you feel about gun control? Just a Question. Extremely Anti. Own all the guns you want. (And if you want to know where I draw the line on that, I have to admit I'm not expert enough to answer. Something like this: If you pull a trigger/push a button and something bigger than my fist shoots out, maybe it shouldn't be in the hands of citizens. If you pull the trigger and lots of little pieces of metal come out at a fast rate, I'm probably OK with it. And frankly, I can be convinced to give more and bigger guns to more people easily.)
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Awesome! You should find the address of all 3000 families that had a loved one die on 9/11 and send them this same link, I'm sure they will share your same sentiment. What about the 43,000 families that had a loved one die in an automobile accident last year? You're better than that...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 It'd be even better to recognize that YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, AND YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT. **** happens. Unreasonable precautions against **** happening are useless. This.
John Adams Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 That is one giant leap. He said nothing about "big" government, but referred to the government having investigation powers in order to keep terrorist attacks at bay. I myself would prefer to never having anything to do with government but would prefer even more to put up with a little intrusion to save my a$ from being blown all over the city. Just sayin. I'm with Tom. Function within the Constitution and do what you can. Guess what: Sometimes the bad guys will bomb you and use your freedoms against you. The right only bitches about government intervention when it's against issues they care about. But when it comes to spying on citizens, gay marriage, etc, suddenly government can do no wrong.
IDBillzFan Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 And Congress had to reform health care because people were suffering. Arguments to sympathy are idiotic. Such a great point. It's odd to me that all I heard during the health care debate was "hundreds of thousands of people die every year because they don't have health care...so we must pass this bill." The only problem is that the bill doesn't take effect for four years, so what do we tell the 400,000+ people who are going to die waiting for the law to take effect? They probably don't matter cuz they were gonna die anyway.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
John Adams Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 The only problem is that the bill doesn't take effect for four years, so what do we tell the 400,000+ people who are going to die waiting for the law to take effect? Tell them adios and thanks for not being a drain on the system.
GG Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 It'd be even better to recognize that YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, AND YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT. **** happens. Unreasonable precautions against **** happening are useless. Bull. Then murder should be made legal?
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Bull. Then murder should be made legal? There's a wide gulf between "unreasonable precaution" and "murder should be made legal". I'm going to die, it might be when someone shoots me in the head...that does not mean that I want people to be free to shoot me in the head. It means that I want protection from that commensurate with the actual threat and my desire for privacy.
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Who's talking about giving up essential liberty? I'm saying if the government wants to check out why I'm calling Pakistan every week I don't give a shiit. I also don't have a problem with a van full of 20 Mexicans being stopped 5 miles from the border and the occupants being asked for ID. Same with the airline passenger that buys a one way ticket to Somalia with cash---give him a little bit more attention, eh? This PC crap is getting ridiculous. It's way past the time to call it like it is and dip all our ammunition in pigs blood.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Who's talking about giving up essential liberty? I'm saying if the government wants to check out why I'm calling Pakistan every week I don't give a shiit. I also don't have a problem with a van full of 20 Mexicans being stopped 5 miles from the border and the occupants being asked for ID. Same with the airline passenger that buys a one way ticket to Somalia with cash---give him a little bit more attention, eh? This PC crap is getting ridiculous. It's way past the time to call it like it is and dip all our ammunition in pigs blood. To what end? What does any of this accomplish other than making you falsely feel safer? Do you think these people don't adapt to the crappy safety measures that have been implemented at tremendous cost to the taxpayers? Does it make you feel safer when they ask you to take your shoes off at the airport? Our best efforts did not prevent this latest attack.
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Does it make you feel safer when they ask you to take your shoes off at the airport? !@#$ing Richard Reid should be executed just for that security rule alone. !@#$ing jackass.
John Adams Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 !@#$ing Richard Reid should be executed just for that security rule alone. !@#$ing jackass. Why can't someone put a bomb in their boob just to see what would naturally follow at the airports? But nooooo, all we get are stinky feet. As an aside, my family and I were in Times Square at exactly that intersection 24 hours before the Miracle Grow bomb. When my secretary found out, she said, "Guess you won't be going back there." I replied, "Yup. Be back there in 5 weeks. Exact same spot. With my wife and daughter."
GG Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 There's a wide gulf between "unreasonable precaution" and "murder should be made legal". I'm going to die, it might be when someone shoots me in the head...that does not mean that I want people to be free to shoot me in the head. It means that I want protection from that commensurate with the actual threat and my desire for privacy. And that's where the debate is, what is unreasonble precaution? Randomly checking bags, making each flier take shoes off are stupid. But, pinging all IP traffic destined to & from Pakistan is not.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 And that's where the debate is, what is unreasonble precaution? Randomly checking bags, making each flier take shoes off are stupid. But, pinging all IP traffic destined to & from Pakistan is not. Right. How exactly does one "ping all IP traffic destined to & from Pakistan"?
GG Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Right. How exactly does one "ping all IP traffic destined to & from Pakistan"? If a Pakistani ISP has a POP in the US, it's fair game.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 If a Pakistani ISP has a POP in the US, it's fair game. I'm not talking about legalities. What do you use to coordinate and filter all of this captured traffic? Where do you find enough manpower and translators? What do you do about strongly encrypted traffic? Assuming it's possible (I don't), what's it worth and what are the trade-offs? As a conservative, I'd assume that cost is a consideration for you.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 !@#$ing Richard Reid should be executed just for that security rule alone. !@#$ing jackass. Think about what a waste of time that whole incident cost. What terrorist is going to hide a bomb in his shoe anymore?
Recommended Posts