Comprehensive security

"Marco Leon" wrote:
True, but you can't entirely attribute the fact that there has not
been a
single successful al-Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil on pure
coincidence.

I suppose you mean "...since 9/11."

No it's not coincidence, but neither is it necessarily due to the
anti-terrorism efforts of the U. S. government, which are mostly futile,
politically motivated busy work. Remember that there have historically
been long stretches between Islamic terrorist operations in the U. S.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Roger Long" wrote:
Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting
people
to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the
trains run on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than
the terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
free to give it up.

Attaboy, Roger.
--
Dan

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

- George W. Bush

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

- George W. Bush
And, next term, there will be. For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for
ANYBODY but this guy! Even if Kerry is as bad, or worse, at least you'll be
breaking the momentum. Look beyond the piddling tax breaks he's giving you
with our grandchildren's money and think about what has cost you the most
freedom since 911, the attacks government reaction? Then ask yourself, have
any of these measures been sensible, effective, or worth the freedom lost?

--

Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:

For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for ANYBODY but this guy!

If you're voting to vote *against* a major party candidate, you will be wasting your
vote unless you vote for the opposing major party candidate. If you're one of those
rare people who actually have a candidate that you want to vote *for*, you are
wasting your vote if you don't vote for that candidate.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

I've already voted for my guy. If somebody else can't vote for him, I'd
just as soon they voted for Nader or Kermit the Frog.

--

Roger Long



"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Roger Long wrote:

For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for ANYBODY but this guy!

If you're voting to vote *against* a major party candidate, you will be
wasting your
vote unless you vote for the opposing major party candidate. If you're one
of those
rare people who actually have a candidate that you want to vote *for*, you
are
wasting your vote if you don't vote for that candidate.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:


I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
"flip-flop", and "waffle."


Are you saying that you believe it's better to fly straight into the
mountain than to change direction when you see the ground coming at you,
just because you know you have to get to the other side?

Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping. It's
management.

Standing by your convictions when they are unfounded and/or based on
invalid data, on the other hand, is naive, and sometimes deadly.



--------------------------------


I'm Judah and I approve this message.


(Paid for by lots of friendly usenet newsgroup hosts who have chosen to
carry my crazy rantings and ravings.)

In article ,
Judah wrote:
Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping. It's
management.

In order to change an existing plan to a new plan, there has to be a new
plan. I have yet to see evidence of a new plan from the major party
candidate who is opposing the incumbent.

Changing your mind and admitting that you changed your mind is not
flip-flopping. Changing your mind and insisting that your new position
was really your position all along, when it can be easily documented
that it wasn't, is called lying. Flip-flopping is repeatedly changing
your position depending on the group to whom you are speaking.




JKG

In article , Judah
wrote:

I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
"flip-flop", and "waffle."

Are you saying that you believe it's better to fly straight into the
mountain than to change direction when you see the ground coming at you,
just because you know you have to get to the other side?

No.


Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping.

True. But what does that have to do with the do-nothing senator
from my home state?

It's management.

False.

Standing by your convictions when they are unfounded and/or based on
invalid data, on the other hand, is naive, and sometimes deadly.

Why are you bringing Kennedy into this discussion?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Martin Hotze wrote

I'm sure you can figure out other places to check facts. Hopefully
you'll do your research with a more critical and thorough approach
than the likes of [Michael] Moore.

I could if I want to, but to tell you the trouth: I have no interest.

One would think that a desire to earn and/or maintain the respect of
those who read your posts would kindle an interest in projecting some
semblance of an objective viewpoint. In your case, evidently not.

Jim Rosinski

john smith wrote

You guys haven't caught on yet, have you?
It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with federal
money for contracts and empire building within federal agencies.
It's a jobs program.

Very sad, but unfortunately true. Others statements in this thread
about the perception of increased security being more important to
those in power than the reality of its minimal nature aren't wrong.
But I think your short post comes the closest to hitting the nail on
the head. There's always a "big dig" going on somewhere.

Jim Rosinski