KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Never happen, gentlemen. If there were to be another large-scale terrorist attack, the pressure to further restrictions would be intense, and the opposition to it would be demonized. (Think of the children. How can you be against saving children?) Hopefully, intelligence agencies and law enforcement continue to keep the threat of this down. But if they fail, the proposed legislation will be horrible, and the resulting legislation will be disappointing. Which is kind of where we are now. 305885[/snapback] ...but yet when you overwhelmingly pass legislation like the Patriot Act to do just that, people cry about how it infringes on civil liberties. Can't have it both ways. Do you want restrictions (resulting in things like the Patriot Act) or do you want your civil liberties?
beausox Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 ...but yet when you overwhelmingly pass legislation like the Patriot Act to do just that, people cry about how it infringes on civil liberties. Can't have it both ways. Do you want restrictions (resulting in things like the Patriot Act) or do you want your civil liberties? 305895[/snapback] In time of war civil liberties are in jeopardy.
beausox Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I have no problem with strict security. None. And the whole "it infringes on my freedom" line is BS. NOT ONE person feels that what El Al Israel does to its passengers "infringes on freedom". Its only when the "big bad" USA does it does it become a personal affront to everyone and shows the world how "terrible" we are, right? Bollocks. 305406[/snapback] Has El-Al had a hijacking since Entebbe? "They" tell me it takes up to 3 hours to get on board but it seems it might be worth the wait and inconvenience.
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 In time of war civil liberties are in jeopardy. 305900[/snapback] ...and when the war is over, do you really believe that the civil liberties will return? If so, what actions of the federal government in recent history prove that you will increase in civil liberties as opposed to the status quo or an increase in restrictions?
Alaska Darin Posted April 15, 2005 Author Posted April 15, 2005 ...and when the war is over, do you really believe that the civil liberties will return? If so, what actions of the federal government in recent history prove that you will increase in civil liberties as opposed to the status quo or an increase in restrictions? 305909[/snapback] It's similiar to boiling a frog. You put it in and slowly turn up the heat. The frog barely notices until he's dead. If you toss him into boiling water, he'll try to get out. Those who keep giving the government more power are the reason terrorism exists in the first place.
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 It's similiar to boiling a frog. You put it in and slowly turn up the heat. The frog barely notices until he's dead. If you toss him into boiling water, he'll try to get out. Those who keep giving the government more power are the reason terrorism exists in the first place. 305929[/snapback] Slippery slope. You let them get away with something small, and they will try to get a little more the next time. You say, "oh, no big deal. It is just something small." Once that passes, then they will try to get another small item. Love the analogy, btw, but I thought you would have used another animal like a cat.
PTS Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 No lighters on airplanes. Effective today. Pretty soon we're all going to be stripped, deloused, shaved, and mummified for travel. Love government. 305120[/snapback] AD, you're normally a pretty smart guy ... normally. So why would you want to chance someone bringing on a lighter that could be used to light a fuse?
Kevbeau Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 The four groups of terrorists on 9/11 didn't have explosives, they had box cutters. 305643[/snapback] Do you really think terrosists could hijack another plane with box cutters? I would be surprised if they could with anything less than a small armory now that people know the alternative.
Dan Gross Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Slippery slope. You let them get away with something small, and they will try to get a little more the next time. You say, "oh, no big deal. It is just something small." Once that passes, then they will try to get another small item. Love the analogy, btw, but I thought you would have used another animal like a cat. 305942[/snapback] I was wondering if the approach worked on lemmings... As many have implied, the terrorists seek acknowledgement and attention. Restrictions on civil liberties in order to prevent terrorism acknowledges that the terrorists are worth paying attention to. They win.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Slippery slope. You let them get away with something small, and they will try to get a little more the next time. You say, "oh, no big deal. It is just something small." Once that passes, then they will try to get another small item. Love the analogy, btw, but I thought you would have used another animal like a cat. 305942[/snapback] Bah! The 'slippery slope' does not exist! Everyone who wants something but doesn't want to think about the consequences knows that!
Alaska Darin Posted April 15, 2005 Author Posted April 15, 2005 AD, you're normally a pretty smart guy ... normally. So why would you want to chance someone bringing on a lighter that could be used to light a fuse? 305952[/snapback] I guess matches can't light fuses? Oh, and thanks for the backhanded compliment. I need validation from people I couldn't pick out of a lineup.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I guess matches can't light fuses? Oh, and thanks for the backhanded compliment. I need validation from people I couldn't pick out of a lineup. 305975[/snapback] He didn't say "light a fuse", he said "use as a fuse". Which, personally, I found even more insipid and dense...
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 He didn't say "light a fuse", he said "use as a fuse". Which, personally, I found even more insipid and dense... 305988[/snapback] Actually, he said "used to light a fuse."
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Actually, he said "used to light a fuse." 305992[/snapback] Oh. My English skills is sub-pear today, I'm guess. I'm must be channeling beausox...
PTS Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I guess matches can't light fuses? Oh, and thanks for the backhanded compliment. I need validation from people I couldn't pick out of a lineup. 305975[/snapback] I'm under the impression that matches are definitely not allowed on planes. Am I wrong?
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I'm under the impression that matches are definitely not allowed on planes. Am I wrong? 306050[/snapback] You are allowed to have 4 books of matches, but they must be of the time where you need to strike on the back of the matchbook.
PTS Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 You are allowed to have 4 books of matches. 306052[/snapback] Really, that's strange. Why allow one and not the other?
Campy Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Really, that's strange. Why allow one and not the other? 306053[/snapback] Your government at work...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Really, that's strange. Why allow one and not the other? 306053[/snapback] Uh...because the rules make no sense. For example: why four books of matches? What makes that fifth book so much more dangerous than the first four?
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Really, that's strange. Why allow one and not the other? 306053[/snapback] Gotta love bureaucracy, huh?
Recommended Posts