"opposing the TSA's p.r. searches doesn't qualify as 'opposing airport security.' "
Indeed it does when you fail to qualify your opposition with alternative solution. What is your qualifer?
It is a true statement to say that if you oppose searches at airports you hold the same position that terrorists do, they oppose searches also. Go ahead and tell me how that statement is inaccurate. THEN you can call me silly.
"Hitler advocated strip searching security risks"
Hitler was looking for jooooooos....to exterminate them.
Is that what TSA is looking for? This is a failed anaology. You omit the WHY in your comparison and that nullifies when the WHY is injected. You call it security when indeed hitlers purpose was genocie NOT protecting ALL people.
"Your stupid guilt-by-association tactics"
That is funny you just DID that with your attempt at hitler anlogy. Laughable it is.
"Are you really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS? "
Yes.
Drunk drivers and terrorists both set out on their own agenda regardless of who is harmed. They only seek to push their own agenda and whomever gets hurt in the process is irrelevant. Both of their actions lead to hurt and dead people and both attempt to justify what it is they do.
Go ahead and make that statement untrue. Let me see you try.
"Indeed it does when you fail to qualify your opposition with alternative solution [to the problem of airport security]. What is your qualifer?"
---Fool. I can say that it is wrong to attack Switzerland, or go to the moon, or drive to the mall, without devising an alternative "solution." To refute your argument does not demand I supply alternate one. If you suggested that the best way to defend the US was to provide everyone with a 1971 Ford Econoline, I wouldn't need to provide another, better way to defend the US to demonstrate you're wrong. That 'propose your own solution' reply is the mark of someone who can't defend his own proposal and needs a distraction to avoid the simple fact that TSA nailclipper searches do nothing to prevent another 9/11. There will never be another 9/11, because PASSENGERS won't allow it to happen again. TSA has nothing to do with it.
"It is a true statement to say that if you oppose searches at airports you hold the same position that terrorists do, they oppose searches also. Go ahead and tell me how that statement is inaccurate. THEN you can call me silly."
---LOL. Have you interviewed terrorists recently, then? Perhaps they would prefer MORE security on the airports and less on the nuclear missile silos. You sink ever deeper into your swamp.
"Hitler was looking for jooooooos....to exterminate them.
Is that what TSA is looking for? This is a failed anaology. You omit the WHY in your comparison and that nullifies when the WHY is injected. You call it security when indeed hitlers purpose was genocie NOT protecting ALL people."
---Ah, you flail desperately for some form of distraction again. My point was that I can try the silly guilt-by-association game just as you, and you'll end up looking just as foolish then, too. I should have guessed you'd miss that point, though.
"That is funny you just DID that with your attempt at hitler anlogy. Laughable it is."
---Well, DUH. That was the POINT, dimbulb. If you were any quicker turtles and snails would be honking for you to move out of the passing lane. See the above answer again, I typed it slowly because I know you can't think real fast.
"Yes[, people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS]. Drunk drivers and terrorists both set out on their own agenda regardless of who is harmed. They only seek to push their own agenda and whomever gets hurt in the process is irrelevant. Both of their actions lead to hurt and dead people and both attempt to justify what it is they do. Go ahead and make that statement untrue. Let me see you try."
---Let me just see if I can get you to clarify that statement first: the degree of intent to harm or actual harm is irrelevant, only that there is intent to harm at all, or a disregard for the fair to good odds of harm occuring, that is enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent. Do I characterize your position properly? Please correct if I'm not right there.
And I do appreciate you finally taking the time to answer a question I posed quite a while ago.