Posted on 06/19/2002 4:45:25 PM PDT by Keyes For President
since the president is making the mistake of statist paternalism, I should celebrate the overall loss of liberty, since "my guy" will win?
what syncophant is in need of a leader? objective reality and the issue of mans' rights as being conditional to being as man is are not subject to debate.
there is no need to fawn at the altar of statist leadership. not to mention, the things which you did not address, ie if gore had given loan subsidies et al.
if you believe you have freedom then:
leave the country: you'll need a government approved passport
think you own your property? stop paying tax and you'll see who owns it.
think you work for yourself? each year, you work until the middle of may to pay your combined taxes.
do you want the best education for your children? if you do, you'll pay twice.
but, you are free, cause thats' what they say.
so, coke or pepsi.
Amen to that.
To these folks, agree with Bush on anything and you're a 'Bush-bot' or whatever silly schoolyard name they come up with this week. He's doing a good job but he's not a true conservative (never was) and he's not a dictator who will make all the fringe-right fantasies come true, either, so they attack and whine and moan endlessly.
President Bush is doing a good job in difficult times and adverse conditions. Perfect? Of course not, but far better than the fringe types will ever admit. Ignore these folks because they'll never 'get it' nor do they ever want to.
Given that the "inspections" for which some are singled out entail pulling people aside, taking off their shoes and belts and perhaps underwear, and completely emptying their luggage, the prospect of inspecting "ALL" airline passengers "the same" would bring air travel in this nation (and hence, the economy) to a virtual standstill.
Is that worth it? Just so we can all pat each other on the back for being so racially sensitive?
ALL should go thru screening.
ALL do (we ALL go through those metal detectors, remember? Not to mention those oh-so-useful questions at the desk like "do you intend to blow up this plane?" or whatever). What we are talking about is additional, intensive screening for things like explosive residue and perhaps hidden James Bond-y stuff. It's simply impractical to do this to ALL passengers. I guess what you are saying, then, is that it should be done to NONE. Even if it means a few planes are blown up. Wouldn't want to hurt the terrorists' feelings, after all.
Tim McVeigh ring a bell? What foreign country was he from
So because employing a profile would not catch a hypothetical Tim McVeigh-like airplane suicidal hijacker/bomber (something we haven't actually seen yet, keep in mind; neither McVeigh nor Kaczynski actually killed themselves for their "causes", like Islamofascists do), it should therefore not be done at all? Yeah, that's logical.
(Let's try it out-- If seatbelts don't prevent 100% of road deaths they should not be worn at all... )
do them right, and there's no need to profile.
This is false. You see, we have finite resources and a finite amount of time in which to check people thoroughly enough to stop anything other than an Uzi in the overcoat. How to use those finite resources? "Check everyone equally"? That means nothing more than what was done prior to 9/11 - the metal detector, the stupid questions. "Check everyone thoroughly - shoes off, belt off, everything?" That means: Country shuts down.
Can't we do something in between, by intelligently focusing our screening efforts onto those we think more likely to, well, actually be terrorists? If not, why not?
The Democrats don't need to even think about what do to to beat the GOP; our "own" people are doing their work for them.
Funny; on one hand Padilla is behind bars and his rights are "gone", yet they want to retain people of certain features to be held....
BWAHAHAHA
The problems I usually have are with those who constantly scorch any of us who have legitimate concerns with personnel and policy. Such an approach (discouraging/squelching principled criticism), is counterproductive in the extreme...ultimately it just empowers the truly unruly and destructive.
I have complimented the Administration when I felt it was appropriate, and criticized when appropriate...such a stance obviously makes me a traitor in some eyes...but in fact the opposite is true. Those who remain silent when our own Party sells us down the river are the ones who are being destructive in the long haul.
God help us all if we are ever the mirror image of the Clintonista syncophants...the republic would suffer horribly if we were so unprincipled.
Regards,
EV
Phew........Too much information. I'm glad there's no graphic with that image.
I agree with Ann that not to profile is idiotic.
I disagree with Ann in not searching Al Gore at every opportunity. I have it on good word that he is spreading chads throughout the land like a Fairy Godmother.
Yes it would. But who was suggesting that in the first place?
What is it with reading comprehension? Someone suggests racial profiling, and it never fails, certain other people always think we're somehow saying Let's IGNORE all non-Arabs at airports!
That's not what anyone is saying. "Ignore"? Please. No one is "ignored" and that's not even on the table.
Everyone stops at the desk, has to show a valid ID, and answer lamebrained questions.
Everyone puts their carry-on luggage into an X-ray machine and empties their pockets of keys and change.
Everyone has their possessions confiscated if they even resemble a weapon, to scale or not (Swiss army knife, nail clippers, Medal of Honor... )
And finally everyone walks through the metal detector. Everyone who sets it off is pulled aside for the wands, more pocket emptying, and perhaps much, much more.....
So again, why can't you comprehend what is being said? No one wants to "ignore" any air passengers. Just this: When it comes to extra screening efforts (extra! That is: in addition to what is already done to everyone), let's focus our (inherently FINITE) resources and time on likely terrorists, and not WASTE it by body-cavity-searching grandmas and little Trevor.
For some reason, whenever I say this someone writes back under the impression that I want to IGNORE Grandma and little Trevor, and apparently just wave them into the plane from the street curb. But why? Why is it so hard to understand what is actually being said by the profiling proponents?
Is it because it's simply easier to attack the pro-profiling position if you get to pretend that we're saying something we're not? Let me know,
May be you're upset that Alan lost his cable talkshow.
May be its that time of the month for Anne Coulter.
May be its your time of the month too, KFP. =^)
On the bash Rush Limbaugh and bash Alan Keyes threads for starters.
I agree, but just to be fair, then we'd have to search everyone with dimples.
;-P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.