Explosion during Boston Marathon (political discussion)

• gut

  tk421;1427664 wrote:Do you want the people of Boston or New York to be subject to random bag searches while out on public property? That's the only thing that could ever make a difference.

  Obviously that's not the only thing that makes a difference. And it's more strawman arguments. If you want to talk bullshit, it's the same tinfoil hat arguments we hear again and again, that people who haven't been affected one iota by any of this view the govt attempting to identify, stop and search people that mean us harm is somehow taking away freedom of law abiding citizens.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427669 wrote:So, how do you stop these type of attacks at large outdoor crowds, since you are obviously an expert.

  I told you I'm bowing out. The logical construction you're using is that the only time an attack can be thwarted is at the very moment before it happens.
• tk421

  

  lhslep134;1427672 wrote:I told you I'm bowing out. The logical construction you're using is that the only time an attack can be thwarted is at the very moment before it happens.

  Of course, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes: I'm done talking about this on here. It doesn't matter what I think, since I apparently have not been personally affected.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427673 wrote:Of course, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

  tk421;1427664 wrote:Do you want the people of Boston or New York to be subject to random bag searches while out on public property? That's the only thing that could ever make a difference.

  That is exactly what you said... :laugh:
• gut

  tk421;1427673 wrote: It doesn't matter what I think, since I apparently have not been personally affected.

  That wasn't the point. I was wondering why such grave concern over a loss of freedom when you've apparently not suffered any, along with 99.99% of the rest of the population.
• Pick6

  

  I see tk went on one of his rants again, just to bail when people called him out on the sense he doesnt make.
• pmoney25

  

  He makes more sense than the rest of you do. Losing any freedom no matter how small you may deem it to be is not acceptable. History and facts are on his side. Slavery and oppression are on yours.
  
  I know the last statement is a bit dramatic but in all honesty everything that happened post 9/11 was pretty much exactly what Al Qaeda and Osama wanted to happen. Scared Americans, more laws, less liberty, bankrupting our country to fund these useless wars and what's the end result?
• Pick6

  

  pmoney25;1427734 wrote:He makes more sense than the rest of you do. Losing any freedom no matter how small you may deem it to be is not acceptable. History and facts are on his side. Slavery and oppression are on yours.
  
  I know the last statement is a bit dramatic but in all honesty everything that happened post 9/11 was pretty much exactly what Al Qaeda and Osama wanted to happen. Scared Americans, more laws, less liberty, bankrupting our country to fund these useless wars and what's the end result?

  Riding a plane is a privilege, not a right. Im all for standing in a full body scanner for a whole 2 seconds if it greatly increases my chances of having a safe flight. Boo frickin hoo.
• Con_Alma

  pmoney25;1427734 wrote:He makes more sense than the rest of you do. Losing any freedom no matter how small you may deem it to be is not acceptable. History and facts are on his side. Slavery and oppression are on yours.
  
  I know the last statement is a bit dramatic but in all honesty everything that happened post 9/11 was pretty much exactly what Al Qaeda and Osama wanted to happen. Scared Americans, more laws, less liberty, bankrupting our country to fund these useless wars and what's the end result?

  It doesn't matter to me what Al Qaeda and Bin Laden wanted. The wars aren't useless. We have drastically weakened their organised ability. When we began this effort the President was clear in that it will go on for a long, long, very long time. It may go on indefinitely If the feds aren't working to protect us there's no liberty nor Constitution to worry about being salvaged. It's the primary role of the feds. Everything else is just a social experiment.
• Mulva

  

  gut;1427678 wrote:That wasn't the point. I was wondering why such grave concern over a loss of freedom when you've apparently not suffered any, along with 99.99% of the rest of the population.

  Your argument appears to be "it hasn't happened to you yet, so who cares?", which is kind of a baffling position to take considering 99.99% of the population wasn't materially impacted by an explosion in Boston, either.
• pmoney25

  

  Pick6;1427735 wrote:Riding a plane is a privilege, not a right. Im all for standing in a full body scanner for a whole 2 seconds if it greatly increases my chances of having a safe flight. Boo frickin hoo.

  So is walking down the street a privilege? Next step will be people randomly searching bookbags in big cities.
  
  I'm sorry you don't see the big picture. Its not really that difficult to see the end result.
  
  Anyway back to the topic at hand. I am really excited to see the endless coverage of the bag the bomb might have been in. Also I find it in poor taste when talking about the victims, 99% of the focus is on the kid. There were two other victims who lost there life too. But kids bring in better ratings I guess.
• majorspark

  

  CNN is citing two federal officials this time as their source on the Ricin arrest. So much for John King's source.
• pmoney25

  

  Con_Alma;1427738 wrote:It doesn't matter to me what Al Qaeda and Bin Laden wanted. The wars aren't useless. We have drastically weakened their organised ability. When we began this effort the President was clear in that it will go on for a long, long, very long time. It may go on indefinitely If the feds aren't working to protect us there's no liberty nor Constitution to worry about being salvaged. It's the primary role of the feds. Everything else is just a social experiment.

  Haha right on cue. Al Qaeda knew they were not going to win a war vs the US. Al Qaeda or terrorist pose no threat to the sovereignty of America. Also using Bush as some sort of great strategist or leader to justify the reason or length of the war.
  
  The primary role of defense was meant to protect us from foreign threats and when our liberty was at stake. Not to interfere and occupy countries.
• Midstate01

  

  Did the fbi ever hold a news conference? I bet the media blew their leads and they are pissed and having to change strategies.
• lhslep134

  

  pmoney25;1427741 wrote:So is walking down the street a privilege? Next step will be people randomly searching bookbags in big cities.
  

  It's called probable cause and believe it or not it DOES exist and there ARE remedies when illegally searched.
• lhslep134

  

  pmoney25;1427747 wrote:
  The primary role of defense was meant to protect us from foreign threats and when our liberty was at stake. Not to interfere and occupy countries.

  I'm somewhere in between your two contentions, because I feel like proactive protection from foreign threats may entail interfering in other countries.
• Con_Alma

  pmoney25;1427747 wrote:Haha right on cue. Al Qaeda knew they were not going to win a war vs the US. Al Qaeda or terrorist pose no threat to the sovereignty of America. Also using Bush as some sort of great strategist or leader to justify the reason or length of the war.
  
  The primary role of defense was meant to protect us from foreign threats and when our liberty was at stake. Not to interfere and occupy countries.

  I did not speak of threat's on the U.S.'s sovereignty. I spoke of the safety of U.S. citizens.
  
  In addition. I did not speak of "Bush" as the strategist nor justification for war but rather it was a reminder of what we were made aware of in the beginning of the preparation of the current, continued efforts.
  
  You speak of what the primary role of defense was. I speak of what it's role is today.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1427755 wrote:I'm somewhere in between your two contentions, because I feel like proactive protection from foreign threats may entail interfering in other countries.

  It does entail interfering with other countries and other people. We are seeing the ongoing result of such efforts.
• pmoney25

  

  Con_Alma;1427763 wrote:It does entail interfering with other countries and other people. We are seeing the ongoing result of such efforts.

  
  What results? How are we more safe? How will killing women and children and bankrupting our country produce the great results you think or want to happen.
  
  We have had this debate before and I don't really want to hijack a thread with a never ending pissing match, so I will save it for another thread.
• Con_Alma

  pmoney25;1427771 wrote:What results? How are we more safe? How will killing women and children and bankrupting our country produce the great results you think or want to happen.
  
  We have had this debate before and I don't really want to hijack a thread with a never ending pissing match, so I will save it for another thread.

  What results........the lessened organised efforts of Al Qaida in addition to continued smaller terrorists efforts like we see in Boston. This isn't going to end anytime soon. This fight will continue for a long time. Laying down won't stop it.
  
  If the primary responsibility of the feds is to protect the people the funds used to do so are not what bankrupts the country. It's the additional activities expenditures combined with a lack of revenue to support all expenditures.
  
  I am not debating anything. I am sharing my opinion as are you. There's no reason to have a pissing match....at least I don't see one.
• WebFire

  Midstate01;1427750 wrote:Did the fbi ever hold a news conference? I bet the media blew their leads and they are pissed and having to change strategies.

  No, they cancelled it.
• justincredible

  

  Get used to more of this. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of you would welcome it. Fuck. That.
  
  
• Midstate01

  

  WebFire;1427786 wrote:No, they cancelled it.

  
  Thanks
• pmoney25

  

  Con_Alma;1427777 wrote:What results........the lessened organised efforts of Al Qaida in addition to continued smaller terrorists efforts like we see in Boston. This isn't going to end anytime soon. This fight will continue for a long time. Laying down won't stop it.
  
  If the primary responsibility of the feds is to protect the people the funds used to do so are not what bankrupts the country. It's the additional activities expenditures combined with a lack of revenue to support all expenditures.
  
  I am not debating anything. I am sharing my opinion as are you. There's no reason to have a pissing match....at least I don't see one.

  So you think spending a trillion dollars to fight against a gang for marginally better security has been worth it? Our own citizens are a bigger risk to my safety than Al Qaeda.
• Con_Alma

  pmoney25;1427802 wrote:So you think spending a trillion dollars to fight against a gang for marginally better security has been worth it? Our own citizens are a bigger risk to my safety than Al Qaeda.

  I do. I think we have an obligation to do so. I think any known terrorist group left unchecked would open the door to many dangerous scenarios. Seems as if multiple administrations agree.