Vegas is Terror Target
All I know is that I have no desire to kill anyone, but when if I do, it's as the direct result of dealing with the bs of air travel.
You can't stop someone motivated. Any kind of effective weapon can be hidden in plane plain sight.Quote: FaceA good friend of mine is an explosives expert for the DHS and trains the TSA guys. He said it's "retarded easy" (his words) to get something on a plane.
All I know is that I have no desire to kill anyone, but when if I do, it's as the direct result of dealing with the bs of air travel.
Quote: FaceA good friend of mine is an explosives expert for the DHS and trains the TSA guys. He said it's "retarded easy" (his words) to get something on a plane.
All I know is that I have no desire to kill anyone, but when if I do, it's as the direct result of dealing with the bs of air travel.
Now thats what I'm saying. It's a money making racket, like drug testing. It doesn't stop the problem and it enriches political cronies.
When you get a meal on a plane they give you weapons, as if somebody can't be choked out with a half dozen garottes onboard. The only people who think there arn't weapons on board are the people just searched. Evil doer's know different, but just keep submitting to being groped and thinking it's hunky dory, sheesh.
I know someone who worked for the search people and said the only reason they did the job was to get unfair access to women.
Quote: MrVRiddle me this: how many successful hijackings of planes leaving American airports have happened since TSA ramped up?
How many happened before 9/11? Again. Anomaly.
Quote: MrVRiddle me this: how many successful hijackings of planes leaving American airports have happened since TSA ramped up?
Then take that number and ask if it's worth giving up what we have.
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou can't stop someone motivated. Any kind of effective weapon can be hidden in plane plain sight.Quote: FaceA good friend of mine is an explosives expert for the DHS and trains the TSA guys. He said it's "retarded easy" (his words) to get something on a plane.
All I know is that I have no desire to kill anyone, but when if I do, it's as the direct result of dealing with the bs of air travel.
Right. Just like cops can't prevent someone from attacking, raping, robbing, or killing you. Only you can protect yourself. There have been supreme court rulings that the police have no obligation to protect you. Even though they say they are here to protect and serve.
Quote: MrVRiddle me this: how many successful hijackings of planes leaving American airports have happened since TSA ramped up?
hi jacking and bringing weapons are completely different. The new rules for cockpits fixed that, not tsa
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI do agree that a 9/11 style hijacking would now be damn near impossible with or without the TSA.
Then why have them any longer?
Quote: rudeboyoiThen why have them any longer?
Bombing could still be an issue perhaps.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkBombing could still be an issue perhaps.
Perhaps...lol
ISIS would probably love to mess with the US if we let them along with many other factions. Unfortunately, not everyone loves us. :( TSA might be overbearing, but without them, there would have probably been some other terrorist attack by now. If not, I would have considered ourselves lucky.
Quote: tringlomanePerhaps...lol
I was trying to be diplomatic :)
Quote: tringlomanePerhaps...lol
ISIS would probably love to mess with the US if we let them along with many other factions. Unfortunately, not everyone loves us. :( TSA might be overbearing, but without them, there would have probably been some other terrorist attack by now. If not, I would have considered ourselves lucky.
Why do you believe that? Do you think we weren't hated before 9/11 and the formation of the TSA? Yet that was the only point in time when something did happen. End the war on terror and the war on drugs. Do away with the DHS, TSA, and DEA. Were just flushing money down the toilet financing these agencies. At least with the DEA we can clearly see how ineffective they are since illegal drugs still run rampant across the country with the cartels making billions. Its prohibition that makes drugs profitable. End the prohibition. End the profit.
<--- Safely flied away from Las Vegas on Sept. 11, 2013, slightly thanks to the TSA.
And yes, there was some debate on flying out that particular day. I hope bin Laden is currently burning in Hell.
Shouldn't everyone just have guns on planes.Quote: tringlomaneAm I slightly annoyed we have to pay an extra $8/person on Southwest to the TSA because we bought our tickets to Vegas this Sept. later than other people that paid the same base fare? Sure. But I do want some level of security with my flights, and I would feel "less safe" flying if we continued with the "laissez-faire" approach rudeboyoi suggests, which we definitely had before 2001. Note that I tend to not bring things on an airplane that the TSA would care about. The "Mexican TSA" confiscated a "large" candle from my brother and his g/f in 2010 at the Cancun airport. It was somewhere between 3 to 5 oz. My g/f and I had a smaller candle and passed through without incident.
<--- Safely flied away from Las Vegas on Sept. 11, 2013, slightly thanks to the TSA.
And yes, there was some debate on flying out that particular day. I hope bin Laden is currently burning in Hell.
To shoot the snakes of course.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe Patriot Act has done more damage to our 4th amendment rights than any other bill passed. Do you really think violating the rights of hundreds of millions of our citizens is worth "protecting" ourselves from an anomaly?
The Fourth Amendment circumscribes The USA PATRIOT Act, which is actually a 300+ page book of a bunch of punctuational and vocabulary changes specified to already existing national security legislation. The Constitution specifies written Warrants to be issued (capital "W" refers to a titled document in writing by a magistrate) issued only upon probable cause, which is a standard of certainty well above that mere "intuition" satisfactory for self-written "warrants". The only thing anti-terrorism legislation will ever do is move the power to terrorize from private cells to Washington, D.C. The "War on Terror" is the State's war on the People's sovereignty! That's all! We've heard echoes of Ben Franklin: that those who would exchange liberty (natural rights, in particular free speech and association) for security (enforced protection from harm or misfortune) are worthy of neither. But, I would put it even stronger terms: Anyone who advocate "partial" restrictions on personal rights for the sake of "the greater good" of the masses has threatened the sovereignty of individuals by stating the intent to force disinterested but able-bodied self-protecting persons to surrendered their right to competently manage their own protection in order to finance, through taxation (theft), that physical protection they themselves would be too weak to supply to themselves in a true Republic. And whoever was entitled to a perpetual government?
Quote: NowTheSerpentThe Fourth Amendment circumscribes The USA PATRIOT Act, which is actually a 300+ page book of a bunch of punctuational and vocabulary changes specified to already existing national security legislation. The Constitution specifies written Warrants to be issued (capital "W" refers to a titled document in writing by a magistrate) issued only upon probable cause, which is a standard of certainty well above that mere "intuition" satisfactory for self-written "warrants". The only thing anti-terrorism legislation will ever do is move the power to terrorize from private cells to Washington, D.C. The "War on Terror" is the State's war on the People's sovereignty! That's all!
The patriot act is no good. Basically it allows the feds to circumvent needing probable cause using NSLs.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-section-215
http://rense.com/general94/patr.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/patriot-act
Quote: rudeboyoiGood read with lots of good links. Wake up.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/no-police-work/
I am not sure what your intent was behind linking this article. Do you feel that we should not have police in general or just that you are against the militarization of the police force?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI am not sure what your intent was behind linking this article. Do you feel that we should not have police in general or just that you are against the militarization of the police force?
My intent of sharing the article is to show who we really have to fear. Not terrorists. Of course I don't think we need the police. They don't protect us. Only we can protect ourselves.
Quote: rudeboyoiMy intent of sharing the article is to show who we really have to fear. Not terrorists. Of course I don't think we need the police. They don't protect us. Only we can protect ourselves.
How do you propose we enforce the justice system. How does one answer for crimes without the police. The police are the teeth of the justice system.
Do you propose Vigilantism?
Not "terror targets" = Barstow, Boise, Butte, Buffalo...
Before 911 several of the cretins who perpetrated it spent their time in Las Vegas, as it turned out mostly swilling fruity booze and getting lap dances in local brass pole establishments. Some of the young ladies employed in that line of work were quoted in local press afterwards as saying they were rude grabby douchebags & lousy tippers, but hard telling how much of that was a product of selective memory under the circumstances.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkHow do you propose we enforce the justice system. How does one answer for crimes without the police. The police are the teeth of the justice system.
Do you propose Vigilantism?
I don't believe we need a justice system. People just need to learn to defend themselves. Criminals can't run good forever. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. A crime involves a victim. No victim. No crime.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkHow do you propose we enforce the justice system. How does one answer for crimes without the police. The police are the teeth of the justice system.
Do you propose Vigilantism?
I don't believe we need a justice system. People just need to learn to defend themselves. Criminals can't run good forever. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. A crime involves a victim. No victim. No crime.
Quote: rudeboyoiI don't believe we need a justice system. People just need to learn to defend themselves. Criminals can't run good forever. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. A crime involves a victim. No victim. No crime.
I am sorry, not to be rude, seriously...but that is idiotic. How do you propose 80 year old women defend themselves from rape. How do you propose children defend from being abused. How do you propose my empty house from being robbed.
Granted, police can not prevent this either, however they provide a means of capture and punishment. You state that WE need to do it, but that is just another form of vigilantism.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI am sorry, not to be rude, seriously...but that is idiotic. How do you propose 80 year old women defend themselves from rape. How do you propose children defend from being abused. How do you propose my empty house from being robbed.
Granted, police can not prevent this either, however they provide a means of capture and punishment. You state that WE need to do it, but that is just another form of vigilantism.
I think he is trying to put forth the libertarian version of anarchy.
I don't really buy it either, and I consider myself a libertarian. It sounds great in principle, but in practice I think you just end up with warlords.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI am sorry, not to be rude, seriously...but that is idiotic. How do you propose 80 year old women defend themselves from rape. How do you propose children defend from being abused. How do you propose my empty house from being robbed.
Granted, police can not prevent this either, however they provide a means of capture and punishment. You state that WE need to do it, but that is just another form of vigilantism.
Communicate with your neighbors and look after eachother. The more altruistic members of society will help those that have no one else. You act like vigilantism is a bad thing.
Quote: rudeboyoiYou act like vigilantism is a bad thing.
It is. In a civilized society there needs to be a codified method of meting out justice. Your idea of correcting a wrong that I have done to you may be different than Joe, Frank, or Bob. That is what you get with vigilantism.
How do you feel about honor killing for example, that is a fine form of taking "the law" into your own hands.
What if your neighbors are the bad people the same guys that would have been the cops instead are now the criminals.Quote: rudeboyoiCommunicate with your neighbors and look after eachother. The more altruistic members of society will help those that have no one else. You act like vigilantism is a bad thing.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkIt is. In a civilized society there needs to be a codified method of meting out justice. Your idea of correcting a wrong that I have done to you may be different than Joe, Frank, or Bob. That is what you get with vigilantism.
How do you feel about honor killing for example, that is a fine form of taking "the law" into your own hands.
What if Joe, Frank, or Bob feel different about the current set of laws. How is that fair? Just let people interact with eachother. Whatever happens happens. That's freedom. Law is not.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhat if Joe, Frank, or Bob feel different about the current set of laws. How is that fair? Just let people interact with eachother. Whatever happens happens. That's freedom. Law is not.
So, basically, the guy with the most guns can do whatever he wants and everyone else has to live in fear?
Admittedly, not far from the system we have now, but at least it's theoretically possible to replace the people with the guns.
Quote: rudeboyoiJust let people interact with eachother. Whatever happens happens. That's freedom.
Ah yes, the law of the jungle.
"Me Tarzan, you Jane.
What, you don't WANT to be Jane.
I'm bigger and stronger than you: you're Jane."
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, basically, the guy with the most guns can do whatever he wants and everyone else has to live in fear?
Admittedly, not far from the system we have now, but at least it's theoretically possible to replace the people with the guns.
The US government is the guy with the most guns. That's who we have to fear. And why its so vitally important to oppose any gun control laws and to disband the police. Got to think of the future or our rights will keep getting stripped away.
Quote: MrVAh yes, the law of the jungle.
THIS!
This is what you propose RB. This is what they have in third world nations. It does not work.
Individuals would be preyed upon by groups. As mentioned, warlords.
Quote: rxwineI don't know if you can live individually free without a standard police force.
Individuals would be preyed on by groups. As mentioned, warlords.
We already are being preyed upon by warlords.
Quote: rudeboyoiWe already are being preyed upon by warlords.
Not me...I have my tinfoil hat on.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkNot me...I have my tinfoil hat on.
I can't think of one of them where I would want to live.
Quote: Dalex64There are plenty of examples out there of how well a country works without a government or a police force.
I can't think of one of them where I would want to live.
Would you mind providing one of these examples? I can't think of a single country that does not have some form of organized goverment?
Quote: GandlerWould you mind providing one of these examples? I can't think of a single country that does not have some form of organized goverment?
ISIS
Quote: rxwineISIS
Thats not a country that is a terror group who fantazises about forming a country. But they want a very organized country. If they had it their way they would reform the Islamic Caliphate which is a very rigidly structured goverment with many rules....
Quote: rudeboyoiJust because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. A crime involves a victim. No victim. No crime.
The difference between malum prohibitum, the root of (corrupt) statutory government, and malum in se, the basis for (incorruptible) common-law governance by the Principle of Fair Trade and Reprisal. Statutes employ lawyers to teach their paying clients how to circumvent the statute and, hence, enshrine legalism and bureaucracy; common-law justice by the supremacy of common sense Reason and Prudence fosters absolutely no loopholes and enshrines truly moralistic thought and action.
Quote: GandlerThats not a country that is a terror group who fantazises about forming a country. But they want a very organized country. If they had it their way they would reform the Islamic Caliphate which is a very rigidly structured goverment with many rules....
No doubt, but I was trying to think of something without a police force, which calls itself a country.
