Posted on 07/28/2006 7:24:33 PM PDT by Cagey
"You are the first and only person to mention bringing a firearm [Glock] into an entertainment venue."
Which means no one would ever try to bring in a firearm? You're way out in left field on this issue is more likely the reason you can't address it
"The idea of a well-dressed businessperson in their early-50's swinging a computer AC adapter as a flail at an Eric Clapton/Cream concert is an outrageous "stretch" by the security personnel."
BS. If you're unable to attend without your luggage, don't go where it's not allowed.
I remember going to the 1994 World Cup games at Stanford Stadium. They were not letting people take in water bottles with the tops on (you can remove the twist cap) because someone might use it as a club. However, there was this 7 foot tall Swedish guy that we saw at every game who had a huge cowbell on a rope that he slung across his back. The security people let him in with his cowbell while taking the twist tops off of others' water bottles. When asked about the cowbell, their answer was "It's okay because it's 'cultural'".
-PJ
I'm tired of living with the terrorist boogeyman. Our leaders either need to wipe them out or surrender.
Why should I be subjected to pat-downs at football games, taking off my shoes at the airport, walking through metal detectors when I get on a train..?
Our leaders don't want to eliminate this threat. Just like they didn't really want to beat the Soviet Union for almost 50 years.
You of course are absolutely 100% correct. Many other FReepers would obviously prefer to live in a permanent condition of fear and have metal detectors, sniffing dogs, and patdown searches on every corner.
~ Blue Jays ~
The leftists convinced you there are no such thing as terrorists? I've talked with radical muslims, sorry, but they do exist. But you can try to bury your head and say they are simply a bogeyman if it makes you feel better.
Why should I be subjected to pat-downs at football games, taking off my shoes at the airport, walking through metal detectors when I get on a train..?
Well, the idea is to catch those who are attempting to bring items to blow up and/or kill others. Not all that difficult to grasp, really. Now one can argue that those methods are inadequate to instill security, but the general intention is security.
Our leaders don't want to eliminate this threat. Just like they didn't really want to beat the Soviet Union for almost 50 years.
Really...have proof for that? No? Just speculation on your part, isn't it? But go ahead and spout whatever you like, it's a free country. Just realize, your post sounds much like something from DU.
Lunatic Fringe isn't saying there is no such thing as terrorists. He is saying is that they're literally hanging around our necks like an albatross and being "treated with kid gloves" by world leaders. An American should be able to walk through any city around the globe and simply hoist their American passport over their head for perfectly safe passage through the turmoil around them.
Terrorists need to be put on the defensive. They should understand that so much as kidnapping an American citizen (nevermind torturing, starving, and beheading) will result in immediate, overwhelming, and catastrophic retribution about which their grandchildren will hear frightening stories.
~ Blue Jays ~
I never said that. So because I disagree with pat-downs in public places, suddenly I'm a LIBERAL? What happened to Free Republic???? When was it taken over by the idiot Sean Hannity wing of conservatism???? Oh, wait.. I know. When they elected that idiot in the White House.
I agree with what you've said here, although I did not see it in Lunatic Fringe's post...but perhaps I've misunderstood.
An American should be able to walk through any city around the globe and simply hoist their American passport over their head for perfectly safe passage through the turmoil around them.
In a perfect world...however this isn't it.
Terrorists need to be put on the defensive. They should understand that so much as kidnapping an American citizen (nevermind torturing, starving, and beheading) will result in immediate, overwhelming, and catastrophic retribution about which their grandchildren will hear frightening stories.
Those days appear to be long gone. There was a time when nations would be ruthless in response. Now, with instant TV viewing and bleeding hearts around the world such actions are not very likely (with things such as international criminal courts and reelection campaigns).
No, when you deny and/or minimize their existence by referring to terrorists as "bogeymen". Here is the Wikipedia definition:
The bogeyman, also boogeyman, boogyman, or bogyman, is a legendary ghost-like monster that children often believe is real....The term bogeyman is also used metaphorically to mean a person or thing of which someone else has an irrational fear.
One can attempt to make a case that it's irrational to fear terrorists will attack within the US, but given 9/11, the first Trade Towers attack, John Muhammad murdering people on highways, the Lackawana gang etc., not to mention the Jewish center in my own town of Seattle that makes it seem ostrich (or DU) like to attempt to claim they are some sort of fabrication.
And this is the context to which I refer. I think it is an irrational fear that terrorists are going to do something at a Bucs game. I'd be more worried about Bucs fans lynching Jon Gruden.
The way this "war" is fought is ridiculous. I have to be patted down before I board a plane, but that Arab three people back in the security line is waved through. I have NEVER seen an Arab man scrutinized at the airport, but I have to throw away by Cat-5 crimper "because it's a tool" and the rules say no tools are allowed on a plane?
So, yeah... I support doing away with the pat-downs because they are WORTHLESS and perpetuate this culture of fear created by King George and his Motley Crew of Fools.
I would say I wish Reagan would come back, but then I remember he skulked out of Lebanon 3 months after the marine barracks were bombed.
Our country is not serious about this war, and if the government isn't going to take it seriously, why should I be inconvenienced for the sake of window dressing???
As for your "king George" comment...well, again, you do sound like someone posting on DU.
You're not a very good person to have a discussion with... you seem to put words in people's mouths that are nowhere near what they intended. You know what they say about ASSumptions, right?
As for your "king George" comment...well, again, you do sound like someone posting on DU.
Here's another idiot FReeper BushBot who thinks if you disagree with the President then you are "a liberal that belongs on DU."
Bush isn't conservative, pal, and he's not very smart. He's a moron who only became President because he had the money and the connections to do so. He got Iraq completely wrong because he allowed his advisors to bully him into it. If it wasn't for 9/11, he would have been another one-term Bush. He is the result of the Religious Right taking over the party.
I sure hope we Republicans have learned our lesson with Bush, but I seriously doubt it. My fellow FReepers have blinders on when it comes to Bush and this 'War on Terror'.
highlander_UW
That was a fine and well-considered response you sent me. It is very likely we are very close in our assessments of the current terrorist situation.
I see what you're saying about a "perfect world" above and perhaps I'm just longing for the good old days. Our collective memories as Americans is painfully short. We get brutally attacked in 2001 with thousands of innocents sent to their graves and a few short years later we're wringing our hands over panties on heads and barking dogs at Abu Ghraib and inconsistent air-conditioning for violent terrorists in Guantanamo Bay holding cells.
Lunatic Fringe
My posts above were initiated in your defense because I felt that perhaps your nuance and wording was being misunderstood. When you make references to "King George" rather than the proper and respectful "President Bush" you begin to immediately lose my attention on this thread.
~ Blue Jays ~
The truth must have shaken you since you shifted from discussing a topic to ad hominem attacks. It simply is evidence of the weakness of your statements. BTW, I'm not a republican, I'm not particularly a fan of President Bush AND I was against the Iraq war prior to it's beginning. Guess you're wrong on every point you've made so far. Maybe it's best we drop this, I don't want you to have a seizure or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.