Katrina fall-out

Happy Dog wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

Thomas Borchert wrote:


Matt,



Go back and read the thread.



I did. I fail to see what relevant context I left out. You claimed the
Dept of Homeland Security has been succesful in preventing terrorist
attacks. I asked for proof.

Well, we haven't had an attack since 9/11 on American soil and there is a
fair bit of evidence that the terrorists haven't stopped trying. That is
effective enough for me.


Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body cavity
searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just curious.

Post evidence that DHS has been ineffective.

Matt

Happy Dog wrote:

"sfb" wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...

We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks have
been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was gathered only
helps the bad guys.


I hope this is a joke.

Ask anyone with a knee or hip prosthesis about what it takes to get
through airport security.


They deserve it. Ditto for old ladies in wheel chairs. I feel safer. I
kind of knew that something that musn't be disclosed to the public is
happening at security checkpoints. It makes sense now.

Listen, git, nobody's taking over an airplane again. It didn't even work on
the fourth (maybe more) plane. It took less than an hour for *citizens* to
figure out what was happening, devise a plan and act. Frisking your granny
isn't going to accomplish what they claim.

I agree, unfortunately, our misguided civil rights activists think that
profiling is illegal, even though it would be much more effective and
would spare the grannies of the world ... until a granny attempts to
bring a bomb onto an airplane.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Happy Dog wrote:

I agree, unfortunately, our misguided civil rights activists think that
profiling is illegal, even though it would be much more effective and
would spare the grannies of the world ... until a granny attempts to
bring a bomb onto an airplane.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3828

The Security Pretext: An Examination of the Growth of Federal Police
Agencies
by Melanie Scarborough

Melanie Scarborough writes a monthly column for the Washington Post.


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

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, bureaucrats and special
interest groups have been busy repackaging everything from peanut subsidies
to steel protectionism under the rubric of "national security." Federal law
enforcement agencies have also been expanding their power in the name of
combating terrorism, whether or not such expansion has anything to do with
enhancing security. One safeguard that exists to prevent such abuse is
congressional oversight, but too many members of Congress are too often
reluctant to challenge law enforcement officials.

For freedom to prevail in the age of terrorism, three things are essential.
First, government officials must take a sober look at the potential risk and
recognize that there is no reason to panic and act rashly.

Second, Congress must stop federal police agencies from acting arbitrarily.
Before imposing costly and restrictive security measures that inconvenience
thousands of people, police agencies ought to be required to produce
cost-benefit analyses.

Third, government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to
their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America
has faced. British troops burned the White House in 1814, the Japanese navy
launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Soviet Union deployed
hundreds of nuclear missiles that targeted American cities. If policymakers
are serious about defending our freedom and our way of life, they must wage
this war without discarding our traditional constitutional framework of
limited government.


Full Text of Briefing Papers no. 94 (PDF, 163 KB)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote in message to the
inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
that
mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?

They turn off the key clickers.


The what?


He calls himself "Doof". What do you expect.

"Doof" wrote in message
...

"TL" wrote in message
...
Tom Fleischman wrote:


Most of the posters you mention are demonstrably bigoted,
narrow-minded, and misguided. Their posts serve well to demonstrate
just how disconnected from reality some people can be. I am impressed
by the recent emergence of previously quite posters who, over the past
few days, have effectively refuted the inane ravings of a handful of
bigoted talking heads. Your voice of reason

Voice of reason? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you even have hint of a clue what the word means?

Talk about full of it: World Record there.


So speaks the "Doof".

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing
from his own

"JH" == Jay Honeck writes:

JH You arrogant fool. You have NO idea what the inner cities are
JH like, and you have NO right to call me "racist."

Touched a nerve, eh? We're getting near the truth.

I lived in Oakland for a year. That was enough for me; I didn't need
7 years to figure out that West Oakland wasn't good for white boys.

I doubt you're an overt racist, but your grotesque stereotyping of
just about every group that comes across these newsgroups (French,
Europeans, poor, liberals, conservatives, you-name-it), combined with
your evident lack of knowledge of cultural groups, science, economics,
almost everything you write about, explains but does not excuse your
bigotry. You embody some of the worst this country has to offer: the
ignorant-and-proud-of-it, our-way-is-best attitude which our highest
leadership is full of.

That, and no demonstration of any empathy for anyone, not in the
current disaster, not in the past. You are a sad creature.

Happy,

We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks have
been thwarted. Public disclosure of how the intelligence was gathered only
helps the bad guys.

I hope this is a joke.


You can be sure it's not. The trust that some people have in their government
is boundless.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Earl Grieda"

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote in message to the
inane mean-spirited ravings of bigots.

What are "quite" posters? Are they related to "quiet" posters? Does
that
mean they type gently on the keys so as to keep the noise down?

They turn off the key clickers.


The what?


He calls himself "Doof". What do you expect.

Old IBM mainframe keyboards often had a solenoid that acted as a key clicker
and warning buzzer.

moo

"Matt Whiting"
Post the evidence that an attack has been thwarted. But for that, your
observation that there have been no terrorist attacks is as useless as
claiming that the sun rises each day because you ask it to. If body
cavity searches are mandated for air pax, you OK with that? Just
curious.

Post evidence that DHS has been ineffective.

I can't and shouldn't have to. Just like I can't prove that the DEA is
ineffective at limiting illegal substance abuse. They spend *billions* and
require ever more restrictions on freedom by claiming that they are
performing a sorely needed service. They use fear and hype to convince the
idiot majority that they should be able to act almost at whim. At what
point do *you* say that the ****ing you're taking isn't worth the one you're
getting?

moo

"sfb" wrote in message news:15ZSe.3328$Di4.558@trnddc07...
We all should be willing to accept the government's word that attacks
have been thwarted.

We should never be willing to accept anything the government says.