The Annoyed Man wrote:This is one reason why elections matter. You elect the right people, and TSA get's its wings clipped. You elect the wrong people, and you get what we're getting.
Do you think Perry would clip their wings?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
The Annoyed Man wrote:This is one reason why elections matter. You elect the right people, and TSA get's its wings clipped. You elect the wrong people, and you get what we're getting.
When people say "profiling" I read it as muslim people. And I do not see it as "silliness" when peoples (any peoples) rights are unfairly trampled.hangfour wrote:My, my, my ... What will it take for us to get over our silliness about profiling and get rid of all this expensive (and useless) technology and the associated jobs program ... grrrrrrr!
I really don't have any idea. OTH, I'm not necessarily a fan of his. I'd vote for him over Obama, but I might not vote for him in the primary.mamabearCali wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:This is one reason why elections matter. You elect the right people, and TSA get's its wings clipped. You elect the wrong people, and you get what we're getting.
Do you think Perry would clip their wings?
I'm a Muslim and I don't see how it tramples on anyone's rights to be singled out for a search if it protects life. All of us profile ... I profile when I'm walking in 'certain neighborhoods' and I see four or five young men dressed in hoodies displaying gang colors ... I move to 'orange' alert especially since I have a CHL. Is this wrong?When people say "profiling" I read it as muslim people. And I do not see it as "silliness" when peoples (any peoples) rights are unfairly trampled.
But what I hear some saying is only profile the muslims and I think that would be ineffective. What I think we need is behavioral profiling. Keep the metal detectors take the scanners out and replace them with sniffers that can detect explosives. If any thing was to make it past that I don't think anything else could stop a threat.If a threat is not stopped before they get to the airport there is little chance anything at the airport would stop it.hangfour wrote:I'm a Muslim and I don't see how it tramples on anyone's rights to be singled out for a search if it protects life. All of us profile ... I profile when I'm walking in 'certain neighborhoods' and I see four or five young men dressed in hoodies displaying gang colors ... I move to 'orange' alert especially since I have a CHL. Is this wrong?When people say "profiling" I read it as muslim people. And I do not see it as "silliness" when peoples (any peoples) rights are unfairly trampled.
I firmly believe profiling is useful and we all do it even if we don't think about it, I think the difference comes in how we use it and how well we use it. In your situation you are in a bad neighborhood, there is a group, they are wearing hoodies, and have gang colors, in this situation I believe you successfully profiled a potential threat. Now at an airport, the only thing that makes you suspicious is your race? I disagree with this, race is not enough of a basis to profile someone as a threat, there are so many more factors than race that they should be paying attention to.hangfour wrote:m a Muslim and I don't see how it tramples on anyone's rights to be singled out for a search if it protects life. All of us profile ... I profile when I'm walking in 'certain neighborhoods' and I see four or five young men dressed in hoodies displaying gang colors ... I move to 'orange' alert especially since I have a CHL. Is this wrong?
What? There are Caucasian Muslims, Chinese Muslims (about 20 million of them), Indonesian Muslims (202 million), Indian Muslims ... I could go on and on. Perhaps the poster meant Arabs (not Muslims) as only a small percentage of Muslims are Arabs.Now at an airport, the only thing that makes you suspicious is your race? I disagree with this, race is not enough of a basis to profile someone as a threat, there are so many more factors than race that they should be paying attention to.
My bad I miss spoke, I was multi tasking... not very well apparently. All I meant was that there are very few things that by themselves should make a person a potential threat, like waving a weapon around. Being a member of a certain religion, race or sex shouldn't qualify a person as a potential threat by its self.hangfour wrote:What? There are Caucasian Muslims, Chinese Muslims (about 20 million of them), Indonesian Muslims (202 million), Indian Muslims ... I could go on and on. Perhaps the poster meant Arabs (not Muslims) as only a small percentage of Muslims are Arabs.Now at an airport, the only thing that makes you suspicious is your race? I disagree with this, race is not enough of a basis to profile someone as a threat, there are so many more factors than race that they should be paying attention to.
loadedliberal wrote:What I think we need is behavioral profiling.
And their intelligence agency is in on it, too. I think.A-R wrote:loadedliberal wrote:What I think we need is behavioral profiling.
I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever I've heard the argument to use "Israeli style profiling" this is exactly what is being referrenced. As I understand it (from reading a few articles - I'm not expert), the Israelis use behavorial profiling AND good-ol' fashion judge-a-book-by-its-cover profiling to determine who gets extra-special security screening.
I think Straus being reelected so he could kill campus carry again is proof positive of that.Excaliber wrote:It's also another obvious reminder that elections have consequences.