Power plant and dams

[3Dreaming]

All I'm saying is 3 miles to protect 40,000 people in a stadium compared to 30 miles to protect one is kind of lop sided. I am not saying he doesn't need protected.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MovingOn]

.......

[MrMorden]

I think the security apparatus is working pretty well. However, it's just a matter of time until we have another 9/11 event and it will probably be bigger than the last. Security has to be 100 percent effective and that's not possible. It will be interesting to read all the post after the next event. Why didn't they do such and such??? Of course a few here will say, "Oh well, that's life."

So you agree that if security is not 100% (impossible), another event is inevitable. So if it's inevitable anyway, why burden every citizen in the meantime with being groped in airports, pop up TFRs, etc knowing it will ultimately not prevent anything? That is not security, it is the illusion of security.

I'd rather live in a free society where the most obvious and basic security precautions are taken, but otherwise it is acknowledged that madmen will be madmen, but 99.999% of citizens are NOT madmen and should not be treated like minimum security prison inmates.

[MovingOn]

.......

[Merlinspop]

Your vision of this country is so different from mine, I can't even respond to that nonsense. I'm just glad the clowns that agree with you and run for national office are considered a joke and don't get elected.

And this is why we can't have civil discussions with you. Yet you claim that you are being attacked.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MovingOn]

......

[Nomore767]

'I'd rather live in a free society where the most obvious and basic security precautions are taken, but otherwise it is acknowledged that madmen will be madmen, but 99.999% of citizens are NOT madmen and should not be treated like minimum security prison inmates.'

This is unfortunately a common viewpoint. What IS the 'most obvious and basic security precaution'? Yes, 99.9% of people aren't madmen…we just have to check everyone to see which one of the 100 IS the madman.
Perhaps this is what they're doing with TFRs (which are 'temporary' after all) and restrictions to airspace and areas on the ground, with varying levels of intensity? Everyone stay clear please…the ones that don't will be dealt with.

It's easy to say 'it's 'obvious' until an individual comes up against it, then it often becomes a personal intrusion or inconvenience.
My wife used to work for airline security at Heathrow in London. She was always amazed at how many Americans would get angry at the security questions and searches of bags and bodies. "Do I look like a terrorist?' was the common refrain. Well, what does a terrorist look like? They're not all middle eastern garbed fanatics.
She took her job seriously, and personally. She transferred many passengers off the late running TWA flight to JFK , at their request, onto the doomed Lockerbie flight.

A free society isn't necessarily 'free'. There are a plethora of rules, limits, restrictions etc that everyone follows everyday. Except the scofflaws who are on the end of law-enforcement. People in Israel are 'free' to move around but have about the strictest aviation security in the world, bar none. Few issues at airport security in Tel Aviv.

I agree there will always be the nut-job. Still, why make it easier for them? If 99.9% are law-abiding citizens and follow the law and the direction of law-enforcement, how does that make you a 'minimum security inmate?' Tell me which one has the gun, explosive etc.
If 99.9% of pilots avoid the TFR isn't it much easier to spot and deal with the 0.01% who don't follow the rules or who have evil intent. What does it cost anyone, really, to follow the rule, restriction, speed limit, parking restriction, license requirement in order that we all benefit together?

Andy, I'm sure you are a law abiding citizen with no political or terrorist agenda. You fly a plane, have a license, follow a set of rules and I'm sure you're a great guy…still, we need to scan your bag, frisk you, x-ray, and check your documents anyway. You're fee to fly down to FL but just don't enter a few airspace areas we've set aside for the military, big airports, or secure government areas. Please.
Unfortunately, it's part of modern life and we will fight to change it for the better. We have your word for it, and you're free to come and go…but we'll check what you're doing, just in case.

As Ronald Reagan said…"trust, but verify'.

[drseti]

I'm just curious. What country, other than the US, would a Libertarian find appealing? .

I would think Australia comes close.

[drseti]

As Ronald Reagan said…"trust, but verify'.

Actually, Reagan was merely quoting an old Russian proverb.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MrMorden]

Your vision of this country is so different from mine, I can't even respond to that nonsense. I'm just glad the clowns that agree with you and run for national office are considered a joke and don't get elected.

And this is why reasonable discussion with you is fruitless. You don't want to have a calm discussion about the issue, or any as far as I can tell, you would rather attack me personally and those with similar views.

Is there one time when I have called anything you said "nonsense"? No. Have I ever called people who think as you do "clowns" or "a joke"? No. Why not? Because I am honestly trying to persuade people on this board of my positions, I'm not just trying to "win" an argument with a bunch of drive-by rhetoric about how stupid opposing opinions are. I know where other opinions comes from, and I can respect those that hold them even if I don't agree. You seem incapable of that level of courtesy.

Honestly, you seem to be a very bitter, angry person with a huge chip on your shoulder. Now go ahead and turn this around and rail about how we are all implicitly attacking you and you are just defending yourself against the vast right-wing conspiracy that pervades this forum.

I'm guessing the reality is you can't respond to my "nonsense" because you simply don't have a response to my arguments, other than to attack them and call them nonsense. Not a compelling argument, BTW.

[3Dreaming]

I agree. They should provide a larger buffer around major events. I don't have any idea what is appropriate for the President. I am not privy to the data. 30 miles might be right, it might be too much, it might not be enough. I have no way to know. I'll leave that to the professionals who are trained to deal with these things.

I don't think bigger around major events is the answer. Why shut more business down by blocking more airspace.
I think smaller around POTUS would be in order.

[MovingOn]

.......