Ok.. this is getting silly. The TSA is out control. - Page 2

Yep
Another $7 billion that could be used a lot more effectively on something else.

I'm still surprised they didn't just make every1 strip down and wear hospital gowns and slippers on the flights after that would-be underwear bomber.
I'm sure it came up as a possibility.

like i quoted you, but anyway..

Huh?

Thanks Baggi. Saved me some time. It just blows my mind that this is lost on some people.

ok, about dont let this unanswered..

Sj wrote, after a body scan, they explored the purse of his girlfriend. Additional.
And you wrote, It's like you're unaware that their are protected classes of people in our society. Women, people of color, gays, whoever

So my question was: Why then they stressed her? if im right and she is Asian. Better say from Vietnam. In your logic, SJ should be explored.

And there is no way that this is a party thing..

Its more that they have and follow some weird hand(paranoia)book system that goes out of control more and more. I heard more than one time about cases that people got handcuffed very quick if they complaining or so ??

Its middle in the Us and a behaviour like in a war zone ???

i think the real concern here is that SJ doesnt care who sees his junk...

No, they don't. Generally, liberals believe that a reason why black people are in jail in greater proportion to their numbers in society is because of officer and institutional racism. Conservatives, indeed, rational people do understand that that does play a part, because forgetting everything else, there is racism in this country, and that can easily affect the police force and judicial system. Ron Paul has said how the drug war unfairly targets African Americans, and how the prison system is rigged against them. Now, Liberals likely do believe it is more of a reason.

And in general, on both sides, most people see the imbalance due to problems in society. Liberals agree, as do most people that Blacks are worse off financially, live in worse neighborhoods, are less education, and these lead them to commit more crimes. Conservatives are more willing to take a "hands-off" approach, making black society take responsiblity for itself and find the answers in its own community, while Liberals generally want to be more proactive. I generally side with the former, but that is a conversation you can have.

Because the number of conservatives who actually care about constitutionally-protected freedoms is at an all-time low.

Also, the protests are much, much less ideologically based than you think.

It is like asking, why are the vast majority of Tea Party protestors white, Republican, and middle-class? Why do you suppose that is?

Because it is the White middle-class that has been most affected by the recession. It is the White middle-class that sees the poor getting handouts, the rich getting handouts, and themselves paying the bill. And the middle-class of other minorities are either nonexistant (Asian), too marginalized (Hispanic), or too used to being kicked around or too enamoured with a Black president to take action (Blacks).

Generally, it is the people whose friends and family's are in the prison/judicial system who will protest. People who are victims of racial profiling and injustice who will protest. People who have seen it first-hand, who will protest. And these people tend to be minorities and young people, both who tend to be Democratic much more for identity reasons than political reasons.

You do realize, that the conservative motto has always been to never give up any rights in exchange for some measures of safety. Extreme or not, that has always been the motto of free-market, constitutional conservatives.

So most minorities that have ever been stopped for a random security check have always cried racism?

Do you blame some minorities for being a little wary?

I mean, are you saying that racism doesn't exist? It has been eliminated?

Because you said in an earlier post, how as an immigrant official you can spot someone who is illegal, and uncoincidentally, they happen to be non-white. And you state how it is foolish how you can't use race as a criteria, even though it is an important factor.

Them, when people are trying to look at discrimination, shouldn't they also look at race? Should they not look at the fact that race-based discrimination happens to overwhelmingly happen by Whites non non-Whites? Or do you want them to completely throw that important factor out the window?

I can just as easily mimic you in saying:

I'm at the point now that I can spot racists by just looking. Racists as in, people who discriminate against others on the basis of race. Am I wrong sometimes? Yep, who isn't? But for the most part, even when i'm wrong i'm partially right.

What do I mean by that? Well, if I approach a person I believe to be a racist, they usually are a White person. Their dress, their mode of communication, their respect for authority, their actions, their behavior, their physical upkeep, etc, all bear certain markings....

The problem is, Whites's tend to be white skinned. Shocker, I know. And white skin is not brown skin. So that makes them a "a target of the liberal left" So, even if I see them and know them to be racists, or at least, a pretty good chance of it, I can't just "accuse" them and hold them accountable.

It's like you're unaware that their are protected classes of people in our society. Whites, rich people, corporations, men, whoever it is that one can point to and say that they have had a history of power over another group are ipso facto innocent, even when found guilty, because the liberalsdrove them to it.

No, not quite.

1st, Bigcat made the implication that liberals implemented this joke of a security system, TSA, to feel 'safe.' That is pure bullshit because conservatives are scared of everything that is foreign to them; they need safety nets and countless ineffective measures to quell their fears. ie. pre-emptive strikes, the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, TSA.

2nd, profiling has happened before because the people conducting them are unqualified to profile individuals. You don't herd all muslims and then say, here, we're going to screen you.

3rd, I can guarantee that a significant majority cannot tell the difference between a vietnamese and a japanese, or a korean from a chinese. I can guarantee that no one here can tell the difference between a Sikh or a Muslim who is dressed in a more modern manner with no turban/pug. Italians and Indians can look alike. Hispanics and Arabs can look a like. Persians and French people can look alike.

Both Yousef Ramzi and the hijackers dressed like the rest of us. Yousef took the name of an italian on his passport. The 9/11 hijackers used fake names to get on board. Have you seen pictures of the London bombers? Some of them look like they're from Spain.

This is what terrorists do. They know how to blend in. If they're intelligent enough to make explosives, they are intelligent enough to get past security in one way or another. So making an argument that encouraging profiling would solve any problem is absolute bullshit.

Someone mentioned it earlier that there are no proactive approaches, only reactive ones.

I wish I had a clue what you're asking me, but I honestly don't.

Ah, I think I see your point.

Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality. This is why it's so important for Conservatives to purge the Republican party. Because people see the Republicans as conservatives and they believe that things the Bush Administration did was somehow conservative.

However, increasing government spending and government agencies is not conservative.

Right. You don't herd anyone.

You look for certain traits that lead a person to believe the subject might be dangerous. Liberals don't understand this philosophy, this is why Grandma gets looked at instead of Senor Jihad.

Which means nothing. Water looks like vodka too.

This is why grandma gets looked at, because useful idiots think that profiling means looking for "japanese" or "muslims" or some other category.

And yet none of them looked like Grandma.

Exactly. You're making the argument that we are unable to tell. You're a liberal. You're the reason why grandma gets checked.

That's the point.

Thanks for helping.

Creating an agency for the sole purpose of civilian defense is a conservative move, not a liberal one.


Well duh, but your argument was made that liberals get angry when racial profiling is done. Then on the other hand, you acknowledge that you can't identify what a terrorist looks like with your quote below this. So how does racial profiling increase the safety margin if you can't tell who's who?

Of course it means something. You implied that liberals get angry because of profiling, but you fail to understand that it is racial profiling at the airport a lot of people make a big deal about, not psych profiling, of which TSA members at the security checkpoints are not qualified to do anyway. It totally nulls your argument.

Grandma gets looked at because people are unqualified to conduct screenings. Therefor, profiling becomes pointless. That is something you're not getting.

And how do you profile a terrorist? Mannerisms? What is the mannerism of a terrorist that walks through the airport? you don't know; nobody knows. Have you developed some uncanny power that enables you to determine who's a terrorist and who's not.



That's fine. I don't necessarily agree with grandma being checked. But that goes back to what I said earlier that TSA has unqualified people conducting screenings. You kind of have to read things a couple times through before you can comprehend what's being said Bags.

So basically you make a claim that liberals go crazy if a race gets profiled, then you make another claim that there is more to profiling than race. But terrorism has no race, so I don't understand how you can claim that liberals are angry at psychologically profiling individuals who might fit an age demographic vs. those that are racially profiled.

You think that you and the rest of the tea party are conservatives?

You really think that? You think that John Boehner and Mitch McConnel and Sarah Palin are really that different from the "Bush Republicans"?

You think that being for countless wars, huge military spending, big deficits is conservative?

You think that violating constitutional rights is conservative?

You think that cutting social security and medicare is conservative?

You think that increasing the tax burden on the middle class is conservative?

You think that allowing big business to capture big government is conservative?

Ridiculous.

Conservatives have to purge the paleocons and loons from the party. Because otherwise, the independents in this country are going to say, "gee, I don't like the Democrats but I sure am not with the crazies."

The Tea Party is Conservative and Libertarian. Definitely not liberal though.

Palin for sure. Boehner, maybe a little less. McConnel? Probably closer to Bush.

Defense of our nation is conservative.

Absolutely not. It's the liberals who believe in a living, breathing constitution. And the progressives.

As opposed to getting rid of them both completely? Getting rid of them both is the conservative option.

Definitely not.

Not at all.

It's a progressive move. Conservative means conserving the past, not creating new things.

Because you can have a better idea. Like I said, it's not grandma. Terrorists, funny enough, all tend to look about the same. I mean, I see no reason to target a Mormon, for example. Whereas libs think that you've got an equal chance of being a Mormon terrorist as you do being a Muslim terrorist.

My argument is that it's liberals like you who prevent the TSA from doing any profiling at all. Which you admit. So we agree.


No, I get it. You have your reasons for preventing profiling.

My point is, it doesn't matter that you have your reasons. Rather, that it's true that liberals are the ones who are preventing the profiling.

So thanks, yet again, for proving my point.

There are lot's of ways to profile for terrorism. This is what the Israeli's do in Israel. They don't even have TSA like checkpoints, instead, they have operatives moving around inside the airport, dressed in plain clothes, who look for the signs.

Regardless, you obviously do not believe that it can be done. You're incredulous that someone can even think, for a second, that profiling is possible!

And you're a liberal. Which again, is my point. Which again, you've illustrated.

Which is that we agree. You're against profiling, i'm for it. You're liberal, i'm conservative.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who supports profiling and who doesn't.

I used race as an example. Religion is another example. Age is another example.

There are lot's of categories under which one could profile. Thanks to the liberals though, they are all not legal.

I think there is something happening here known in psychology as Cognitive Dissonance:

It's tough to believe that your policies have consequences.

Look at how Bassix is arguing. At first, he's completely appalled at the fact that you would say liberals are at all responsible for what the TSA is doing. He claims you're "talking out of your ass"

Then, without actually coming out and straightforward admitting that it's liberals who cause it, he argues that profiling is wrong.

This leads to cognitive dissonance. Obviously the answer to grandma having to take her shoes off and be harassed, is to profile. But he cannot accept that answer. So he makes competing claims. That it's not the liberals who are for it (Because their policies have no real world consequences, they musnt!) while simultaneously arguing profiling doesn't work, or cannot be done.

It's very interesting.

I'm with Baggi on this one.

Racism and discrimination isn't even real! It's something that the Blacks, Mexicans, and women came up with. Oh...and the progressives-slash-socialists-slash-communists-slash-Marxists. Oh, and Soros.

Guess which one is the terrorist.

Defense is a conservative formality, not a liberal one. Remember, liberals don't like defense.

Funny, I wasn't aware that Mormons frequently go to the airport in their suits or religious jammies. Once again, you missed the point. White people can be muslim and blacks can be mormon.

No, your argument was pretty clear here

Clearly, you believe racial profiling will add a margin of safety. And clearly, your conservativism won't take accountability for the fact that your homeboys implemented a fear machine into the system.


No, you just distorted your whole argument from the previous post and you also distorted the 'liberals want us safe' argument from bigcat (even though Bigcat is a big republican/bush supporter). That was most clearly your conservative cronies at work, of which, you'd like to pawn off on the liberals.

They racially profile and still had an incident with a security breech all the way to the plane. People learn how to adapt smart guy, this is how people break laws or rules. Life isn't 100% fail proof, nor is security.

No, I believe you cannot detect a terrorist through racial profiling. I find it useless. Research into the most advanced technologies to screen everyone is as far as you can go. Sorry that doesn't excite you.

Centrist, thanks.


It doesn't take a genius to figure out who supports profiling and who doesn't.
[/quote]

Sure bags, just for you I'll say I'm against profiling. But hey! let me know when you can pick out a terrorist from a regular individual.
You used it as your only example. Let me know when your deeds increase the margin of safety, ya? And let me know when you catch a terrorist at the airport.

Exactly, life is not 100% fail proof, nor is security. There is a best way to do things though, and that is profiling.

Interesting that you put racial before profiling, regardless, this is my point.

This was also Bigcats point.

The liberals are the ones opposed to profiling.

This is the point from the beginning. This is why Grandma gets stuck being screened.

Thanks for that. Can't believe it took this long to get to that point.

If people would just admit the obvious from the beginning.

And now ive made it clear that there are lot's of ways to profile, not just racial. Racial is the most popular form though, in the liberal mindset, but all profiling is outlawed, thanks to...... drum roll please...

Liberals.

Which is where we started.

So at least now you've switched from denying that to, "Of course Grandma has to be searched! Profiling is horrible, plus it doesn't work, even when it does, but nothing is 100%, something else but I forget, blah blah blah"

Nor do liberal policies have real world consequences resulting in totalitarian procedures at the airport.