America's Biggest Enemy Within............

[MMMMMM]

And a Good Day to the Good Doctor,


As Moderator, I am responsible for overseeing this forum, and for trying to maintain a certain level of respectable conduct and posting quality.

Calling someone "Bill O'Reilly" or "Dufus" is not especially villainous; however, permit me to utilize this opportunity to let all users know that all are expected to strive to uphold certain standards of civility in all of their posting endeavours.

As mentioned elsewhere, in less than a fortnight there will be a "stickied" posting guideline for this forum (which will also include portions of the T of C).

Do allow me to offer sound assurance that it is not my goal to ban users, unless convinced that a sturdy hickory switch and a visit to Zee's woodshed will have no salutary effects upon their behaviour. (Sadly, though, there springs to mind at least one character who would probably prove impervious to any amount of switching. As you might well guess his name, this sentence shall now conclude with a moment of silence).

Well then: Cheers to all, and cheerio, and all that happy horseradish, forever and for aye,


M

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
...and all that happy horseradish,

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch your tongue, Mister!

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling someone "Bill O'Reilly" or "Dufus" is not especially villainous;

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat in my own defense, I really wasn't trying to engage in name calling; Bill O'Reilly really did (and frequently does) say things very similar to Dr.Wogga's OP.

O'Reilly on the ACLU

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhat in my own defense, I really wasn't trying to engage in name calling; Bill O'Reilly really did (and frequently does) say things very similar to Dr.Wogga's OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will of course be duly noted at court-martial.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
....if checking my back-pack - or yours - means that a pregnant mother and her todler don't have to fear being blown to bits

[/ QUOTE ]

instituting bag checks and such is what instills fear into people. they think they're supposed to be afraid, so they are. same thing when they had the military presence at airports. everyone was just nervous when statistically you're more likely to drown than be killed by a terrorist.

[mackthefork]

Before you know it, you'll be producing your papers on every street corner, when you cry out in desparation everyone will say, 'whats the diff, they already do it on trains'.

Regards Mack

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
everyone will say, 'whats the diff, they already do it on trains'.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they won't. They will say, "What is the problem if you have nothing to hide" or they will say "Think of the children."

The title of OP post is right on. America's biggest enemy is within. Within those people so willing to give up basic rights, thinking they are going to be safer from the people who, working with the terrorists, help pump up the fear at every chance.

Do you think searching Grandma's shopping bag from Macy's is really going to make you safer? Do you think the government pawing thru every free citizen's back pack is going to be sucessfull? Don't think the terrorist will adapt to that tatic and do something different?

It will catch no one, but it will achieve the ultimate goal -- keep people afraid, eliminate the need for reasonable cause, search and seizure, warrants, freedom of travel, etc. Oh, and did I mention -- keep the fear pumped up. Think of the children.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It will catch no one, but it will achieve the ultimate goal -- keep people afraid, eliminate the need for reasonable cause, search and seizure, warrants, freedom of travel, etc. Oh, and did I mention -- keep the fear pumped up. Think of the children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously we agree completely, if you give them an inch today, then they sure as hell will take a mile tommorow, that you can bank on. Fear is the new number one tool of politics in the west.

Mack

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why people would mind getting searched if you have nothing to hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question "what do you have to hide" is an authoritarian demand. It's incompatible with personal freedom. It labels those who exercise personal autonomy as anti-social.

The word "hide" itself is predudicial. It assumes that there cannot be a good reason for one to want to keep personal information to one's self.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
....if checking my back-pack - or yours - means that a pregnant mother and her todler don't have to fear being blown to bits - or some hard working stiffs don't get the "privelege" of being blown to smithereens by crazies detonating their explosive-laden back-packs courtesy of the aclu, then that's tough-titty on you, me, and everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

If saving people is the motivation for this, then we need to ban cars, aeroplanes and trains anyway, many more people are killed every year by unfortunate accidents, I just look on terrorism as another of those wrong palce, wrong time things, and hope myself and other people would do the most they can to minimise the risk. However that shouldn't include the loss of my rights as an individual to freely move within my own country, they say we won't let terror win, well newsflash these new powers are the reason terror will win.

Mack