Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tac on June 04, 2002, 03:12:27 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&568&e=15&u=/nm/20020604/bs_nm/attack_lawsuits_dc_4
-
Funny, the Israels said the reason they've been so successful in deterring hijacking for years and years is because they look for terrorists, not weapons.
Incidently, I'm pro-profiling as of 9/11/01 if you couldn't tell.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, I'm pro-profiling as of 9/11/01 if you couldn't tell.
In this case profiling would mean that those five guys would be selected for thorough search.
They were denied entry outright without any justifucation - that is unfair prosecution.
At least that is what I gather from the article - which may not be complete or entirely accurate.
miko
-
LOL Great troll, Tac, but to expect us to believe that someone as conservative as you are, even, could somehow justify the denial of public conveyances based solely upon ones ethniticity is just too much of a stretch, even for you. LOL good try tho, bud.
-
I watched a guy interviewing black guys about profiling Mid-Eastern people as potential terrorists soon after 9/11. They all agreed that it was okay. Then the interviewer asked them about profiling young black men who are driving nice cars. They all got sheepish grins and said "Okay, you got me".:rolleyes:
-
Was this "Committe" even around before 9/11 ?
They and the ACLU can blow it out their terrorist lovin arses ...
If they don't like it, don't fly
-
ACLU
American - I'm for that
Civil Liberties - I'm for that too.
Union - OK, got me there. I guess I'm sort of anti union.:rolleyes:
Can't for the life of me figure out why any American would be against an organization who's only purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights. Explain that one to me please?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
LOL Great troll, Tac, but to expect us to believe that someone as conservative as you are, even, could somehow justify the denial of public conveyances based solely upon ones ethniticity is just too much of a stretch, even for you. LOL good try tho, bud.
My man, you're talking to someone that gets a nice glass of milk at some airports, whose baggage is inspected TWICE at customs and who is so lucky to like dogs so much he "bumps" into them in most airports.
Funny thing is, I get special treatment after I show my Colombian passport ;)
And I really dont mind.. I know its not against me personally, nor a stereotype problem, and it sure as heck aint an ethnic issue. Its security. And frankly I'd be worried if they didnt take such measures.
From my point of view, these people suing are nothing but scumbags that see a way to get a quick buck. You gringos have a serious P.C. problem (oh my, is "gringo" not PC? Baaa! :D ) and your enemies, both external and internal are making good use of it.
Be warned.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I watched a guy interviewing black guys about profiling Mid-Eastern people as potential terrorists soon after 9/11. They all agreed that it was okay. Then the interviewer asked them about profiling young black men who are driving nice cars. They all got sheepish grins and said "Okay, you got me".:rolleyes:
Why? Are young black men prone to driving their cars into tall buldings killing thousands?
The PC hysterics and the US obsession with minority rights never ceases to amaze me. Take a look at all hijackings since 1970. How many hijackers were not arab men?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The PC hysterics and the US obsession with minority rights never ceases to amaze me.
I'm with you man, I don't think minorities should have rights either.
-
OR they should have the same rights as the rest of us...
-
I'm not against profiling per se, but it has it's dangers.
Focusing on a particular type can leave you open to attacks from people who don't fit the profile. One of the recent suicide bombers in Israel had bleached blonde hair, and wasn't challenged largely because of that.
The best example would be the Lod airport massacre in Tel Aviv in 1970. The Israeli authorities were so focused on Arab terrorists, 3 Japanese members of the JRA on a joint operation with the PFLP were able to fly in to the airport carrying violin cases with guns in them. They were able to get into position, and open fire on the crowds. They only finished when they ran out of ammo. 28 people were killed.
-
Yeah, I agree completely. Same thing happened when the Palestinians started to use female suicide bombers. I dont think anyone expected that. It goes to show how important it is to think outside the box when fighting against these people.
One rumor that was flying around after 9-11 was that the next attack would be carried out by Philipinos, since the Al Queida has strong ties to some Philipine moslem terrorist group.
I think this discussion is rather silly though. We all do our own profiling several times a day. Anyone who has been on an airliner and seen an arab guy leave his seat heading for the bathroom knows what I'm talking about. Some call it predjudices, I call it common sense.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I think this discussion is rather silly though. We all do our own profiling several times a day. Anyone who has been on an airliner and seen an arab guy leave his seat heading for the bathroom knows what I'm talking about. Some call it predjudices, I call it common sense.
You don't speak for all humanity, you only speak for yourself.
And ya I call it prejudice.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ACLU
American - I'm for that
Civil Liberties - I'm for that too.
Union - OK, got me there. I guess I'm sort of anti union.:rolleyes:
Can't for the life of me figure out why any American would be against an organization who's only purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights. Explain that one to me please?
Because they are not what they say they are.
Who would be against
N - National
S - Socialist
D - German
A - Worker's
P - Party
A pretty and lofty name means nothing, it's what the organisation does, that counts.
-
This isn't about profiling as much as it's about airline employees being biased against people of color. Read the article. AFTER these guys were profiled for searches, AFTER they were found to be OK they were STILL denied access to the passenger jets. You can't deny access based upon a person's skin color at a boarding ramp of an airline any more than you can deny service to African American people at Denny's.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Because they are not what they say they are.
Who would be against
N - National
S - Socialist
D - German
A - Worker's
P - Party
A pretty and lofty name means nothing, it's what the organisation does, that counts.
Hmmm... the ACLU defends the Constitution. Can't see anything objectionable there... unless... you don't like the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... the ACLU defends the Constitution. Can't see anything objectionable there... unless... you don't like the Constitution.
no, they are not.
-
Originally posted by mietla
no, they are not.
Good solid argument there... okay... you convinced me.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... the ACLU defends the Constitution. Can't see anything objectionable there... unless... you don't like the Constitution.
You mean, the ACLU is out there fighting for it's agenda don't you Sandman? Does this mean every case the ACLU loses is a blow to our civil liberties?
My opinion of the ACLU is, it goes after controversial issues to get more press and make money through settlements out of court. That's just the way I see it. I'm sure there are some good, decent lawyers in the ACLU as there are in any law firm.
Always figured the ACLU for being a big organized law firm. Does anyone know the loss/win ratio of the ACLU in court? How many ACLU cases end up in court? Just curious.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
You mean, the ACLU is out there fighting for it's agenda don't you Sandman? Does this mean every case the ACLU loses is a blow to our civil liberties?
My opinion of the ACLU is, it goes after controversial issues to get more press and make money through settlements out of court. That's just the way I see it. I'm sure there are some good, decent lawyers in the ACLU as there are in any law firm.
Always figured the ACLU for being a big organized law firm. Does anyone know the loss/win ratio of the ACLU in court? How many ACLU cases end up in court? Just curious.
Les
ACLU is all about money today. They, like Unions of old, had a place in history, now they just exploit the constitution in the quest for the Holy Dollar.
-
About Money?
The ACLU is supported by grants, membership dues, and charitable contributions. They have about 60 staff attorneys, and 2000 volunteer attorneys. They pick cases that will impact the law, and preserve liberties in the process of erosion. Please point out how this "agenda" is detrimental to the rest of us who haven't had to worry about our rights?
-
The ACLU is in the political arena, politics equals money, money equals grants, non-profite donations, which equals a paycheck. There are thousands of non-profit orgs that hide behind this curtain on both the left and the right...its up to us as individuals to call roadkill when we see it, if you can't see past that veil of opportunistic capitalism, too bad for you ;)
Thought you might appreciate this "artwork" ;)
(http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/graphics/aclu/art.jpg)
-
Cute, but if I were an attorney with the skills to appear and argue before the Supreme Court, and I was more interested in money than Civil Rights, the ACLU would not be a very wise career path.
BTW, the ACLU is second only to the Justice Department in appearances before the SC.
AND! This INTERNET we all enjoy remains uncensored due to the ACLU.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
AND! This INTERNET we all enjoy remains uncensored due to the ACLU.
That's a good thing? We ALL enjoy that? News to me!
Freedom of speech, reminds me of the woman that recently wrote a book about having sex with children can be a good experience if given the right circumstances :rolleyes:
-
What's amazing is that guys like Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie can read an article (presumably) where five people who had darker skin than the airline officials they were dealing with were denied access to airplanes based solely upon the color of their skin-Hell, two or three of these gentlemen of color weren't even Arabic for Christ's sakes- and THEN Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie start lambasting the ACLU for having the NERVE to protect the civil rights of these five gentlemen of color. (BTW, several of these guys are seeking an apology rather than compensatory damages, but of course you know that because you read the article, right?)
Somebody help me out here. I'm trying really hard to understand how these three oft-proclaimed Conservatives can claim to be such great American patriots yet somehow condone the actions of business establishments (such as airlines) who refuse service based upon skin color. Seriously, explain to me how you feel discrimination for discrimination's sake is justified.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
That's a good thing? We ALL enjoy that? News to me!
Freedom of speech, reminds me of the woman that recently wrote a book about having sex with children can be a good experience if given the right circumstances :rolleyes:
OK Rip, Who we gonna make the deciderer (sorry cheap Bush joke) of which speech is free? Who's gonna set the limits? Who's gonna limit the limiters?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Rip, Who we gonna make the deciderer (sorry cheap Bush joke) of which speech is free? Who's gonna set the limits? Who's gonna limit the limiters?
Sounds like you have a case for creating a non-party aligned non-profit organization. ;)
-
I would, only one already exists. ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I would, only one already exists. ;)
LOL, keep telling yourself that. ;) When you get the blinders off that "One party mentality" then come talk to me.
Ripsnort (Vote the issues, not the party!)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ACLU
American - I'm for that
Civil Liberties - I'm for that too.
Union - OK, got me there. I guess I'm sort of anti union.:rolleyes:
Can't for the life of me figure out why any American would be against an organization who's only purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights. Explain that one to me please?
Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.
The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.
That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.
The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.
That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO
-Sikboy
You posted that so elonquently ! Wish I had the brains to say that the way you did! Great post!
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.
The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.
That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO
-Sikboy
Ahh ya nutjob!
Well saying the ACLU assumes guilt is like saying a defense attorney assumes the police were wrong. DUH! Thats their job. The political left is not always the direction that they pull either. They defend all rights, and especially those that are threatened. This means that they are always working for those issues and people that are on the fringes of our society, because those are the ones most in danger of losing their rights. They have defended the rights of NAZI's, the KKK and Left Wing radical groups. Left or right makes no difference. And as to who's wearing the blinders Rip, don't stand sideways when you shave.
:cool:
-
The ACLU is an advocacy group. They defend freedoms wether they are in the public interest or not. You can be pretty sure there will be people out there (mainly government agencies) trying to restrict those freedoms.
The ACLU argues for things that are unpalatable to most, like the right of neo-nazis to hold parades, the right of the KKK to march with hoods on, the right of the KKK to keep their membership lists secret, etc. Without the ACLU those rights would be eroded for everyone.
I'm a right-wing conservative, and I don't agree with many of the causes the ACLU stands for, but I think the ACLU is a very good counterbalance to the tendency of governments to limit and control freedoms.
I think if the ACLU was truely about money, they wouldn't touch right wing causes, pornography etc. The natural supporters (and donors) of the ACLU are the left, and seeing the ACLU defending the KKK must cost them donations.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
What's amazing is that guys like Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie can read an article (presumably) where five people who had darker skin than the airline officials they were dealing with were denied access to airplanes based solely upon the color of their skin-Hell, two or three of these gentlemen of color weren't even Arabic for Christ's sakes- and THEN Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie start lambasting the ACLU for having the NERVE to protect the civil rights of these five gentlemen of color. (BTW, several of these guys are seeking an apology rather than compensatory damages, but of course you know that because you read the article, right?)
Somebody help me out here. I'm trying really hard to understand how these three oft-proclaimed Conservatives can claim to be such great American patriots yet somehow condone the actions of business establishments (such as airlines) who refuse service based upon skin color. Seriously, explain to me how you feel discrimination for discrimination's sake is justified.
Typical liberal discusion. Someone criticises your position, call him a racist. He'll feel bad and go away...
"Not me. I'm a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me".
Read again my post Elf. All I said is that ACLU is not what they claim to be.
Btw, I agree with Target that the free speach is just that, free. Like in uncensored in any way.
Sure there are issues with some material not being suitable for the children, but it is parents responsibility to guard their kid and control their access to the media.
I'm surpraised that you did not call be Hitler for using NSDAP to poke at ACLU.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ahh ya nutjob!
Well saying the ACLU assumes guilt is like saying a defense attorney assumes the police were wrong. DUH! Thats their job.
It's wierd Tahgut, I think you just reverse engineered my post and used it as a reply :)
Originally Brilliantly Deduced by Sikboy
[The ACLU] must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?"
Originally Plagerized by midnight Target (in clear violation of Sikboy's civil liberties)
The political left is not always the direction that they pull either.
Originally Analysed with godlike prowess by Sikboy
[The ACLU is] about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left)
Many. Not all.
I'm not saying that what the ACLU does is bad. I think that it plays a necessary role in our lawmaking process. Defense attorneys suffer from the same bad PR. They aren't "Looking for the truth" Either. They are just trying to get their clients out of trouble. And when you pit them against prosecutors, (who are also uninterested in the truth so far as I can tell) you wind up with the closest thing we can find to justice.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by mietla
Typical liberal discusion. Someone criticises your position, call him a racist. He'll feel bad and go away...
"Not me. I'm a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me".
Read again my post Elf. All I said is that ACLU is not what they claim to be.
Btw, I agree with Target that the free speach is just that, free. Like in uncensored in any way.
Sure there are issues with some material not being suitable for the children, but it is parents responsibility to guard their kid and control their access to the media.
I'm surpraised that you did not call be Hitler for using NSDAP to poke at ACLU.
Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?
Sorry if my post was accusatory in nature, BTW. No offense was intended.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
It's wierd Tahgut, I think you just reverse engineered my post and used it as a reply
-Sikboy
Reverse Engineering is a tried and true process we lefty libs often use:
Soviet Tu-4 (Look familiar?)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?
Sorry if my post was accusatory in nature, BTW. No offense was intended.
and none taken...
As I said:
"Not me. I'm a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me". :)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?
I think we're better off.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
What's amazing is that guys like Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie can read an article (presumably) where five people who had darker skin than the airline officials they were dealing with were denied access to airplanes based solely upon the color of their skin-Hell, two or three of these gentlemen of color weren't even Arabic for Christ's sakes- and THEN Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie start lambasting the ACLU for having the NERVE to protect the civil rights of these five gentlemen of color. (BTW, several of these guys are seeking an apology rather than compensatory damages, but of course you know that because you read the article, right?)
Somebody help me out here. I'm trying really hard to understand how these three oft-proclaimed Conservatives can claim to be such great American patriots yet somehow condone the actions of business establishments (such as airlines) who refuse service based upon skin color. Seriously, explain to me how you feel discrimination for discrimination's sake is justified.
Well, at first I wasn't going to respond to this post Elfenwolf, but I kinda feel like my honor is at stake here, seeing how I'm the only one you mentioned who hadn't responded yet.:)
I admit it took a few beers to get up the guts, hehe. Also, you had me ROFL the first part. Was even going to post a snappy reply, but wasn't sure how you or anyone else in here reading this would take it.
So, rather than trying to justify discrimination, I'll just say I did read the article from the ACLU's website. Here's the question I have for you. If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do? I know what I would do. I'd refuse to take off until things were settled on the ground. Better to take off without uncomfortable passengers from the get-go, don't you think? Heck, I'm not even a pilot, but if I was, that's the way it would be, even if there weren't bad guys aboard. I look upon this as a safety issue. Has nothing to do with discrimination.
Always enjoy reading your posts Elfenwolf. Keep up the good work.
Les
:)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do?
My thought when I read that example, was that I would take the uncomfortable person off the plane. That made the most sense to me. Irational people shouldn't fly anyhow, it leads to air rage, which in turn leads to cranky flight attendents who yell at me, and then unionize and demand raises, whcih forces pilots into a sympathy strike, and then my ticket prices go up. Screw that. The lady should have waited until the next flight, or bought a ticket on "Aryan Airlines" or something, where she wouldn't have to deal with those dark skinned people.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Leslie
If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do? I know what I would do. I'd refuse to take off until things were settled on the ground.
Les
:)
LOL No fair using logic, Les. But yeah, a pilot's first duty is the safety of his passengers, so I agree. And yes, these gentlemen could have been more gracious and realised the extenuating circumstances of 9-11 cause all of us to undergo stricter airline security, but they didn't. Understanding and politeness are rapidly disappearing from American society I guess.
Thanks for reading my posts in the same spirit I write them. I like throwing out the ol' liberal vs conservative bait once in a while, but it's tough because the people on these BBs are well thought out and very bright and articulate for the most part. Rather I agree or not I respect the 'cervs who post here, and I've always said I'd rather have a conservative for a neighbor than a liberal because conservatives take better care of their yards...and those plastic pink flamingos are cool.
Les.