Nigerian tried to blow up the plane

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I blame Bush for the HSA/TSA, not for this terrorist incident. The incident would have occurred with or without the HSA/TSA.

The existing intelligence & law enforcement community was already responsible for homeland security. The fact that certain information was allegedly not being shared between these agencies doesn't prove that a brand new agency needed to be created. Sounds more like a failure to hold certain individuals accountable. Instead the Bush Admin did something that they knew would be deemed more impressive: Create a new agency.

It's just like the business world, every time you create a new department or business unit, you've created a bunch of people who feel the need to justify their positions by creating new programs & policies.

I think your corporate analogy is inaccurate. It was previously like a number of separate companies had merged forming a number of subsidiaries with little executive structure on top to manage the subs in a common direction. DHS was supposed to create that "executive structure" as well as make the top "executive" a cabinet level position. In theory the idea was, in my view, a good one. In practice it has not achieved its objective.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

I think your corporate analogy is inaccurate. It was previously like a number of separate companies had merged forming a number of subsidiaries with little executive structure on top to manage the subs in a common direction. DHS was supposed to create that "executive structure" as well as make the top "executive" a cabinet level position. In theory the idea was, in my view, a good one. In practice it has not achieved its objective.

They have a cabinet-level position, but other than that............

Does the DHS actually have any authority over the FBI in certain matters?

[Avatard]

How convenient. First they start charging for checked bags, and now they want to limit or eliminate carry-on?

Funny how every time the terrorists do something, the government's immediate reaction is to impose some legislation that either grossly inconveniences us, costs us money, or both.

I think the terrorists are driving capitalism now. Ain't that grand (and ironic)?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Avatard

How convenient. First they start charging for checked bags, and now they want to limit or eliminate carry-on?

Funny how every time the terrorists do something, the government's immediate reaction is to impose some legislation that either grossly inconveniences us, costs us money, or both.

I think the terrorists are driving capitalism now. Ain't that grand (and ironic)?

so you are only for over legislation when it doesnt inconvieniance you? Interesting

[Homeslice]

Now it's being revealed that this guy was on the general watch list because his father warned the US Embassy several weeks ago about him. So why not simply give a secondary screening to anyone on that list (a swab test would have most likely detected the explosives)? Why does the TSA need to make things more strict for the rest of us? Remain seated for the last hour, don't use laptops, yeah like that's going to accomplish anything. Bunch of fucking idiots who just create some new rules to act like they're "responding" and "doing something".

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

So why not simply give a secondary screening to anyone on that list (a swab test would have most likely detected the explosives)? Why does the TSA need to make things more strict for the rest of us?

They wouldn't because of his last name. Especially with recent Muslim rioting in western Europe plus he was coming from Denmark where you had that cartoon controversy where the artist was murdered. They rather finger fuck grandmas in wheelchairs.

The TSA may not be the dumbest government program ever but it sure ranks up there in the top.

[Avatard]

Originally Posted by Dave

so you are only for over legislation when it doesnt inconvieniance you? Interesting

I'm only for legislation when it's warranted to curb otherwise uncontrolled Capitalism which can erode and undermine our Democracy, and personal sovereignty.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Avatard

I'm only for legislation when it's warranted to curb otherwise uncontrolled Capitalism which can erode and undermine our Democracy, and personal sovereignty.

Jesus fucking christ, when will you grow a brain and learn that the United States of America is not a fucking democracy? Not once in the U.S. Constitution is the word "democracy" used.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Jesus fucking christ, when will you grow a brain and learn that the United States of America is not a fucking democracy? Not once in the U.S. Constitution is the word "democracy" used.

It simultaneously fitting and ironic, that you would come down on the side of the founding fathers, who established this country as a Republic, as opposed to a direct Democracy.

Considering that the framers chose this path specifically because they believed the "average guy" (that would be you), could not make informed decisions on their own.

I guess you loves you some Big Government after all.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Jesus fucking christ, when will you grow a brain and learn that the United States of America is not a fucking democracy? Not once in the U.S. Constitution is the word "democracy" used.

About the time that you learn that a republic is a specific form of representative democracy.