TSA: GOVERNMENT FASCISM at the AIRPORT

[SteveAJones]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/opinions/tsa-invasive-pat-down-rye/index.html?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion 

Edited December 18, 2016 by SteveAJones
Spelling

[SteveAJones]

 

[BlueJean Baby]

All I can say is wow... glad that's never happened to me...

[Dan H.]

Man I just don't know what to make of your political views, so do you mind clarifying this for me?

You support Trump, or at least lean Trump in the politics thread. Isn't this kind of extra security and hardcore terrorist prevention Trump's bread and butter?

When he says that he is the law and order candidate doesn't that mean that he wants an increase of the exact kind of government fascism that the TSA brings down? Extra funding for cops to militarize police, support of officers who shoot unarmed people, extra extra border security, and a boost in terrorist prevention techniques is to me exactly in the same line of logic as TSA body scanners and pat downs.

Would you not expect there will be more government agency and police harassment? I mean the dude pals around with Rudy Giuliani, the father of Stop and Frisk, perhaps the most fascist policing decision in recent history.

[Georgy Zhukov]

1 hour ago, BlueJean Baby said:

All I can say is wow... glad that's never happened to me...

Nice to have white privileges eh?

[BlueJean Baby]

I saw them pull a little girl out of line in front of me in LA several years ago, she was about 4 and her parents were irate over them wanting to take her to a room and search her...you never know who they will decide to pull out of line.

[SteveAJones]

40 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Nice to have white privileges eh?

There is no such thing, try to get that through your head. If we didn't have such a politically correct society and had to keep this agency they could focus their attention on passengers most likely to pose a security threat: single men travelling alone. 

 

23 minutes ago, BlueJean Baby said:

I saw them pull a little girl out of line in front of me in LA several years ago, she was about 4 and her parents were irate over them wanting to take her to a room and search her...you never know who they will decide to pull out of line.

See above.

 

53 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

Man I just don't know what to make of your political views, so do you mind clarifying this for me?

You support Trump, or at least lean Trump in the politics thread. Isn't this kind of extra security and hardcore terrorist prevention Trump's bread and butter?

When he says that he is the law and order candidate doesn't that mean that he wants an increase of the exact kind of government fascism that the TSA brings down? Extra funding for cops to militarize police, support of officers who shoot unarmed people, extra extra border security, and a boost in terrorist prevention techniques is to me exactly in the same line of logic as TSA body scanners and pat downs.

Would you not expect there will be more government agency and police harassment? I mean the dude pals around with Rudy Giuliani, the father of Stop and Frisk, perhaps the most fascist policing decision in recent history.

Although I firmly believe in a law and order administration, I have always opposed the formation (and continuation) of the TSA and the tactics they use. The most effective terrorist prevention measure is to kill them where they train and live, not subject American citizens to expensive bureaucratic agencies and measures that do little more than promote the ILLUSION of security. Move all of that TSA funding into strict immigration controls, tighter border security and training for law enforcement personnel.

 

 

 

[Dan H.]

 To me that sounds like picking and choosing what sort of fascism makes you personally feel better.

The TSA, the PATRIOT Act, Stop and Frisk, and police militarization all are under the same umbrella of the government stepping in and harassing people out of fear.

And when it comes to terror attacks in America, many of them are carried out by individuals radicalized right here in America. That's the unsung brilliance of ISIS, they play Americans who are thirsty for desert blood like a fiddle. Americans are used to fighting governments and countries, not ideas. Ideas can slip through borders, jump over walls, and swim across oceans in the blink of an eye. 

This is the fundamental problem with the way we view the War on Terror: there isnt one place that the terrorists "live" thus we can't assume that its possible to go in and kill them. We aren't fighting a nation or a geographic area. We are fighting an ideology. An ideology that we pretend is exclusive to unfriendly Middle Eastern countries, but the truth is that mant of these terrorist groups have formed and operate not only in allied Middle Eastern countries, or even African, Asian, and European allied countries, but in the West as well.

The war on terror won't be won with guns, the police, or the military. The idealism has to be destroyed, and for every man we kill, two more will join the cause against us. 

So, do we want freedom, or security? Law and order is the death of freedom, and the beginings of a police state. We must be very very very careful when picking and choosing what kind of police harassment we are okay with, and whether or not it is ever truly effective.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Dan H.

[AxlisOld]

1 hour ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Nice to have white privileges eh?

I hope this is sarcasm. White privilege has just turned into a buzz word to belittle someone's accomplishments on basis of race. You didn't work minimum wage and save money living with a bunch of roommates in a 2 bedroom apt, to finally be able to afford a down payment on a house, your house is from white privilege.

[Dan H.]

2 minutes ago, AxlisOld said:

I hope this is sarcasm. White privilege has just turned into a buzz word to belittle someone's accomplishments on basis of race. You didn't work minimum wage and save money living with a bunch of roommates in a 2 bedroom apt, to finally be able to afford a down payment on a house, your house is from white privilege.

White privilege means is that society typically caters more towards white people than minorities. An example of this is that people with foreign or black sounding names are drastically less likely to be called for a job interview than someone with a white sounding name.

In Georgy's comment, I assume he is saying that brown people are statistically more likely to be taken for extra screening and frisking than a white person. Thus, just being born white gives you that statistical benefit.

It was intially a phrase designed to draw attention to the fact that discrimination is still alive and well in the United States, but has turned into a condescending insult used by HuffPost liberals to trash on individual white people and make them feel guilty. Ultimately its a societal problem that has hung on in American culture from slavery, Jim Crowe, crack laws and manditory sentencing, etc etc.

It should always have only been an observation for discussion, not a weapon for accusing individuals of racism just because they are white people.

[AxlisOld]

Exactly, it isn't what it literally means, it's how it's being used. They poisoned the well.

 

[Dan H.]

I think the phrase itself is also needlessly aggresive. Systematic discrimination is a more accurate phrase IMO.

Unfortunately thats not as easy for the lazy aggro liberal trolls on tumblr to wrap their heads around. They gotta feel superior to everyone else first and foremost, rather than actually having genuine concern for the racial flaws in our system, and how best to communicate those ideas to skeptics.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Dan H.

[SteveAJones]

24 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

 To me that sounds like picking and choosing what sort of fascism makes you personally feel better.

The TSA, the PATRIOT Act, Stop and Frisk, and police militarization all are under the same umbrella of the government stepping in and harassing people out of fear.

And when it comes to terror attacks in America, many of them are carried out by individuals radicalized right here in America. That's the unsung brilliance of ISIS, they play Americans who are thirsty for desert blood like a fiddle. Americans are used to fighting governments and countries, not ideas. Ideas can slip through borders, jump over walls, and swim across oceans in the blink of an eye. 

This is the fundamental problem with the way we view the War on Terror: there isnt one place that the terrorists "live" thus we can't assume that its possible to go in and kill them. We aren't fighting a nation or a geographic area. We are fighting an ideology. An ideology that we pretend is exclusive to unfriendly Middle Eastern countries, but the truth is that mant of these terrorist groups have formed and operate not only in allied Middle Eastern countries, or even African, Asian, and European allied countries, but in the West as well.

The war on terror won't be won with guns, the police, or the military. The idealism has to be destroyed, and for every man we kill, two more will join the cause against us. 

So, do we want freedom, or security? Law and order is the death of freedom, and the beginings of a police state. We must be very very very careful when picking and choosing what kind of police harassment we are okay with, and whether or not it is ever truly effective.

Law and order is the death of freedom? You must be or were once an American university student. That is such a preposterous and foolish notion. Generally, speaking these radicalized persons have a record a mile long. We know who they are, but our politically correct society doesn't have the political will to round them up. 

We also know which region of the world is exporting radical Islam, down to specific countries. For this reason, I have proposed that any American citizen traveling there without official approval should do so knowing it's a one-way trip, meaning reentry into the United States would be denied indefinitely. I also support, with exceptionally rare exceptions, a five year ban on ALL immigration into the United States. 

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

so THIS happened...smfh!

https://www.rt.com/usa/369719-alberts-cancer-tsa-screening/

[SteveAJones]

21 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

White privilege means is that society typically caters more towards white people than minorities. An example of this is that people with foreign or black sounding names are drastically less likely to be called for a job interview than someone with a white sounding name.

In Georgy's comment, I assume he is saying that brown people are statistically more likely to be taken for extra screening and frisking than a white person. Thus, just being born white gives you that statistical benefit.

It was intially a phrase designed to draw attention to the fact that discrimination is still alive and well in the United States, but has turned into a condescending insult used by HuffPost liberals to trash on individual white people and make them feel guilty. Ultimately its a societal problem that has hung on in American culture from slavery, Jim Crowe, crack laws and manditory sentencing, etc etc.

It should always have only been an observation for discussion, not a weapon for accusing individuals of racism just because they are white people.

If I can appropriate and modify the words of Gordon Gekko, "discrimination is good". Discrimination is instinctive. Discrimination promotes survival. Of course, there is and should be a difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination. Racial profiling, I believe, is also good, because it is proven to be effective. We should be using our heads for more than growing hair, particularly when deducing who is most likely to pose a threat to a commercial airliner.  

[Dan H.]

1 minute ago, SteveAJones said:

Law and order is the death of freedom? You must be or were once an American university student. That is such a preposterous and foolish notion. Generally, speaking these radicalized persons have a record a mile long. We know who they are, but our politically correct society doesn't have the political will to round them up. 

We also know which region of the world is exporting radical Islam, down to specific countries. For this reason, I have proposed that any American citizen traveling there without official approval should do so knowing it's a one-way trip, meaning reentry into the United States would be denied indefinitely. I also support, with exceptionally rare exceptions, a five year ban on ALL immigration into the United States. 

Law and order is ALWAYS the death of freedom. More laws = less freedom.

We really don't know when or how someone will radicalize, nit without mass surveillance and paranoid government bodies sticking their fingers into everyones personal lives. You overestimate our ability,  and underestimate ISIS's propaganda tactics. 

Which countries specifically are you accusing of supporting radical Islam, and is there a way to go about dealing with those countries without causing more distrust and hatred in the Middle East? In order to pull off what you're suggesting would mean we would have to invade sovereign countries, some of which like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies. Granted, they are problematic allies that are lazy and casual about extremism,  but does that warrent some shock and awe to you?

We would lose favor and trust internationally, as every country with any inkling or moral ambiguity would become a potential target for a violent and criminal invasion from the once respected United States

[Dan H.]

4 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

If I can appropriate and modify the words of Gordon Gekko, "discrimination is good". Discrimination is instinctive. Discrimination promotes survival. Of course, there is and should be a difference between lawful and unlawful discrimination. Racial profiling, I believe, is also good, because it is proven to be effective. We should be using our heads for more than growing hair, particularly when deducing who is most likely to pose a threat to a commercial airliner.  

It leads us down a dangerous road, my friend.

In theory, Rodrigo Duterte going around and slaughtering petty criminals a drug users in the Philippines by the tens of thousands PROBABLY does decrease crime drastically. 

But just because something works doesnt mean we should pay for it with our morality.

[SteveAJones]

19 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

Law and order is ALWAYS the death of freedom. More laws = less freedom.

We really don't know when or how someone will radicalize, nit without mass surveillance and paranoid government bodies sticking their fingers into everyones personal lives. You overestimate our ability,  and underestimate ISIS's propaganda tactics. 

Which countries specifically are you accusing of supporting radical Islam, and is there a way to go about dealing with those countries without causing more distrust and hatred in the Middle East? In order to pull off what you're suggesting would mean we would have to invade sovereign countries, some of which like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies. Granted, they are problematic allies that are lazy and casual about extremism,  but does that warrent some shock and awe to you?

We would lose favor and trust internationally, as every country with any inkling or moral ambiguity would become a potential target for a violent and criminal invasion from the once respected United States

Without law and order you have anarchy. There is little freedom to be found in anarchy, particularly for women and children.

You may have misunderstood what I'm calling for. I propose US citizen visits to some specific countries become a one-way trip indefinitely, and a five year ban on all immigration to the United States from ALL countries (with rare exceptions). If I wanted to spin it, I would call it Administrative Isolationism, in so doing both sides of the argument would have to support it. The hawks would be satisfied the threat was significantly mitigated, and the doves would be satisfied no overseas military operations would be commencing. 

 

16 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

It leads us down a dangerous road, my friend.

In theory, Rodrigo Duterte going around and slaughtering petty criminals a drug users in the Philippines by the tens of thousands PROBABLY does decrease crime drastically. 

But just because something works doesnt mean we should pay for it with our morality.

Any moral society would insist upon the execution of drug traffickers. Duterte is a wild card, but he's kicking ass and taking names. He has my support. 

[Dan H.]

10 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Any moral society would insist upon the execution of drug traffickers. Duterte is a wild card, but he's kicking ass and taking names. He has my support. 

He's not killing traffickers. He's killing purse snatchers, drug users, and innocent people and their families.

He is also claiming political opponents are drug addicts, and having them executed too.

Idk where you get your morals from, but in America we don't murder people with no trial and no due process.

EDIT: He also is a noted Fentanyl addict.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Dan H.

[SteveAJones]

Just now, Dan H. said:

Idk where you get your morals from, but in America we don't murder people with no trial and no due process.

No, Americans just character assassinate people in the court of public opinion.  

However, wait a minute. Trials and due process are a byproduct of law and order.

[Dan H.]

Just now, SteveAJones said:

No, Americans just character assassinate people in the court of public opinion.  

However, wait a minute. Trials and due process are a byproduct of law and order.

You're right, I meant to edit my post to say this: obviously without laws we have no society. Therefore we have to sacrifice freedoms for laws to provide a certain balance between the two. Wasn't tryna be dramatic,  but I can see how my post reads that way, so my bad there.

More more laws and more enforcement still always equals less freedom. Its just that we have to find a place that is comfortable. 

My point there is, championing law and order can cause some to lose touch of freedom. Some of what your suggesting seems to be in favor of stripping away freedom for the sake of paranoia. You need to be concious of how much you're paying just to feel safer.

Seems to me right now, on US soil, you're more likely to die in a plane crash or shark attack than be killed by a terrorist. So is sacrifing our freedom for such a statistically small threat to life REALLY in our best interests?

[SteveAJones]

6 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

Seems to me right now, on US soil, you're more likely to die in a plane crash or shark attack than be killed by a terrorist. So is sacrifing our freedom for such a statistically small threat to life REALLY in our best interests?

Big Government insisted upon it -- because there was money to be made and power to grab --  but I don't agree with it at all.

Constitutionally principled law and order -- THAT's what I support.

 

[Dan H.]

5 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Big Government insisted upon it -- because there was money to be made and power to grab --  but I don't agree with it at all.

Constitutionally principled law and order -- THAT's what I support.

 

I can get behind that. Although to be fair, our constitution deems that all people are created equal in the US. Thus making your "discrimination is good" concept seem pretty unconstitutional when applied in a practical way, like racial profiling

[SteveAJones]

13 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

I can get behind that. Although to be fair, our constitution deems that all people are created equal in the US. Thus making your "discrimination is good" concept seem pretty unconstitutional when applied in a practical way, like racial profiling

"Created equal" meant equal protection under the law (with some distinctions at the time).   

Racial profiling and stop and frisk are not unconstitutional practices in and of themselves, but the abusive application of those tactics can be. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by SteveAJones

[Fitha_whiskey]

2 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

"Created equal" meant equal protection under the law (with some distinctions at the time).   

Racial profiling and stop and frisk are not unconstitutional practices in and of themselves, but the abusive application of those tactics can be. 

That's a pretty easy comment to make when you are a white male who will not be profiled or stopped and frisked and hassled for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Yet if it did happen to you, you would be ranting and raving somewhere, calling on your fellow "patriots" (lol) to start a civil war against the police state.

You spew some real horseshit man.