The TSA, NSA, HS, it's all an extension of a police state. How can you be against a militarized police force but ok with organizations like the TSA, HS, the NSA it's the militarized police force on steroids.

 

Because they are literally protecting us from the zealots who are committed to destroying this country physically.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

So glad to see that a memorial post was hijacked and turned into a venomous argument that completely took away from what it was supposed to be. Have you guys no shame? If you want to argue go ahead, but have some respect and start another topic.

 

It's completely unfortunate, and I agree.

 

I don't think the thread would have turned this way if it weren't in the political forum. I assume Deacon originally had it in sideline (which I don't think is an inappropriate place for this at all) judging by his second comment, but in the context of the political forum political discussions are going to happen. The [BAD WORD REMOVED] contest is wholly unnecessary but there's nothing inherently wrong with discussing the politics of a subject like this. In fact, discussions surrounding events like this are sometimes the most enlightening and important, even if it hurts.


Purely memorial threads have their place, and political discussion around the event has its place. Let's not chastise either one of them.

 

I get his point, which I think was the OP original intentions was to share memories.

 

I separate topic could have been created with the question of "do people think we are safer after 9/11"?

 

The 1 year anniversary of the Matthews bridge is coming up, I bet someone will hijack that into a political topic. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

This thread started in the sideline and had to be moved to the political section because it was taken completely off track.  Just because this board has a political forum now doesn't mean any thread in any forum is fair game for political discussion. 

 

It has been said over and over KEEP YOU POLITICAL STUFF IN THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!  Warnings will go out when having to move hijacked threads in the future from the forum they start in to the political forum.

 

It's a shame this thread that was supposed to be a remembrance thread had to be moved to here.  This was one time in our history that brought every political spectrum together for a common cause.

---

<!-- isHtml:1 --><!-- isHtml:1 -->;

;

This thread started in the sideline and had to be moved to the political section because it was taken completely off track.  Just because this board has a political forum now doesn't mean any thread in any forum is fair game for political discussion. 

 

It has been said over and over KEEP YOU POLITICAL STUFF IN THE POLITICAL FORUM!!!  Warnings will go out when having to move hijacked threads in the future from the forum they start in to the political forum.

 

It's a shame this thread that was supposed to be a remembrance thread had to be moved to here.  This was one time in our history that brought every political spectrum together for a common cause.

I was unaware of that, I didn't see the thread until after it had been moved. In that case, I agree with the move, and that the political discussion had no place.

---

once it was moved it was fair game in this forum.

 

 

Should have never had to be moved.

---

<!-- isHtml:1 --><!-- isHtml:1 -->;

;

Well for whatever reason, the Franklin quote I posted made it political...I apologize. Someone reported it as such and I guess that hijacked it...

---

Because they are literally protecting us from the zealots who are committed to destroying this country physically.

 

So if the ends justify the means?

 

You could make the same argument for a militarized police force, either you believe in liberty or you don't. Liberty isn't a part time practice.

---

Where does the responsibility of the other 300 + people on the plane come in.

 

Grow a set and take them on.

 

The government isn't always there to protect you. Nor, should it be.

 

I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy...

---

Where does the responsibility of the other 300 + people on the plane come in.

 

Grow a set and take them on.

 

The government isn't always there to protect you. Nor, should it be.

 

I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy...

 

Are you serious?

---

So if the ends justify the means?

 

You could make the same argument for a militarized police force, either you believe in liberty or you don't. Liberty isn't a part time practice.

 

 

Please don't become a caricature.

---

Some security is needed, what we created is itself a caricature of good security. We waste finite resources trying to watch everyone, when instead we should look for actual terrorists and their connections like the Israeli model. This had the multiple effects of hassling the innocent, missing big internal targets, and costing much more than it should while adding more power to the public unions. That a lot to trade for heightened security. I think they should write laws for security protocols and then turn it over to the states and private companies that populate the transportation centers. You dont proffesionalize when you federalize, you just make it bigger, bloated, expensive, and political.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Please don't become a caricature.

Why because I apply the same principles I believe across the board? Big intrusive government is good if I'm keeping the boogie man away?


I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy you can't tell me the police are militarized and abusing the public and then champion the TSA NSA and HS.

---

Why because I apply the same principles I believe across the board? Big intrusive government is good if I'm keeping the boogie man away?


I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy you can't tell me the police are militarized and abusing the public and then champion the TSA NSA and HS.

 

"Either you believe in liberty or you don't". Statements like that make you lose credibility with me.

 

For example: I can believe store owners can set their own rules as long as those rules don't infringe the rights of others. When you start disallowing people due to race, creed, and color then I believe it is crossing the line. You don't have to agree with me, but leave that elementary "liberty is not a part time practice, either you agree with liberty or you don't" b/s at home.

---

Are you serious?

Deathly

 

"Either you believe in liberty or you don't". Statements like that make you lose credibility with me.

 

For example: I can believe store owners can set their own rules as long as those rules don't infringe the rights of others. When you start disallowing people due to race, creed, and color then I believe it is crossing the line. You don't have to agree with me, but leave that elementary "liberty is not a part time practice, either you agree with liberty or you don't" b/s at home.

So they can set their own rules, as long as you like them?

 

How do you feel about the NAACP, NJBC, or any of the gay groups? They should be disbanded right?

---

First of all, I don't lean left whatsoever and if you took time to read my posting you would know that. Bringing up examples like the NAACP isn't going to help your cause in this discussion with me so nice attempt at a failed red herring.

 

Second of all, what I'm saying is that I don't believe people should be denied service because of their skin color. This isn't the 60s. You may agree with this sign, but I think they are destructive to society moving forward.

 

---

Deathly

 

 

Just for clarification, are you implying that the victims on the 9/11 planes were cowards and didn't "have a set" because they did not get combative with armed terrorists?

 

Again.... I'm going to ask you if you are serious in hopes that you are not. Are you serious?

---

"Either you believe in liberty or you don't". Statements like that make you lose credibility with me.

 

For example: I can believe store owners can set their own rules as long as those rules don't infringe the rights of others. When you start disallowing people due to race, creed, and color then I believe it is crossing the line. You don't have to agree with me, but leave that elementary "liberty is not a part time practice, either you agree with liberty or you don't" b/s at home.

 

Settle down tough guy, let's qualify the topic. This isn't about civil rights I'd be more then glad to point out your flawed logic on that topic but not in this thread.

 

As for your thoughts on the need for a big intrusive government to combat the boogie man, I simply disagree. Unless you advocate 100% public disclosure of all thoughts, actions, and information you'll never be able to stop bad people from doing bad things. 

 

Departments like the TSA, NSA, HS and legislation like the NDAA and Patriot Act do nothing more then strip you of your privacy and the right to due process, it sets you and me in the sights of an all powerful, all knowing, all reaching federal government. 

 

Call it whatever you want, I call it consistency. I oppose big government on ALL levels. 

---

Settle down tough guy, let's qualify the topic. This isn't about civil rights I'd be more then glad to point out your flawed logic on that topic but not in this thread.

 

As for your thoughts on the need for a big intrusive government to combat the boogie man, I simply disagree. Unless you advocate 100% public disclosure of all thoughts, actions, and information you'll never be able to stop bad people from doing bad things. 

 

Departments like the TSA, NSA, HS and legislation like the NDAA and Patriot Act do nothing more then strip you of your privacy and the right to due process, it sets you and me in the sights of an all powerful, all knowing, all reaching federal government. 

 

Call it whatever you want, I call it consistency. I oppose big government on ALL levels. 

 

Like I said, you can disagree with me if you want. That does not mean I am anti-liberty. When you start saying things like "either you believe in liberty or you don't", you start becoming a caricature. Not everyone believes in radicalism, but that doesn't mean they don't support views and ideas to an extent.

---

Like I said, you can disagree with me if you want. That does not mean I am anti-liberty. When you start saying things like "either you believe in liberty or you don't", you start becoming a caricature. Not everyone believes in radicalism, but that doesn't mean they don't support views and ideas to an extent.

 

It just means you believe in half measures. You see government as a problem until it's needed to address a problem you fear.

 

That's how government get's everyone, it's big and bad until you personally need it. I'm just pointing out there's always other options, and people that take the strong stance against big government consistently regardless of personal gain are not "caricatures" as you would label it.

 

I get it you have a beef with Libertarians, lots of Republicans do.

---

EricC, the problem is that you are living by the idea that it's your way or the high way. Anyone that doesn't agree with your ideas is anti-liberty or has flawed logic. You know how annoying it is when people like Oklahomie live on the far left and cling to it so tightly they refuse to believe people who disagree have souls? Well, you are starting to sound like that. Posters like that become caricatures of themselves when they could tone it down a bit and support their cause tenfold more.

---