Uh... Equal Rights Amendment?...I actually think your point was a bit weak, you can't really stir up enough racial bias to divert us from the preamble, especially when its foundation so deeply overtones this subject.
Uh, yeah. I guess I forgot when that one got ratified.
Oh, it didn't? Whooah.
No, just making it a hassle to access that right.
So I just want to be clear here - you'd rather see people die than inconvenience a few people getting through baggage check, right?
I've always been in favor of not pissing someone off when they are holding a weapon... I'm pretty sure that guy doesn't appreciate members of his race being singled out based on variables they have no control over.
You're right, we wouldn't want to offend, nay, stop the people who are trying to kill us.
Feel free to slit our throats, rape our wives, because, after all, we don't want to piss you off.
It's a right, but like any right, it can be abused. If that right is abused, action must surely be made. But the right to freedom of speech is probably the easiest right to abuse; all you really have to do, in terms of textbook example, is go into a crowded theater and yell "fire!" Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of people going into crowded theater's and yelling "fire!" are 12 year old girls who listen to My Chemical Romance. But, is there any sort of crackdown on 13 year old girls? Are we cutting their tongues off? It'd be an over-reaction to do such. And an unjust one, at that.
I fail to see how we can put freedom of speech on par with suicide bombing airplanes, but whatever floats your boat...
Most certainly. America seems to be getting the most carried away in this racial profiling business. Kind of like we assumed all socialists to be enemies during the bulk of the 20th century, or the Japanese-American's to be tyrannical during WWII, or all Southerner's/Northerner's in the Civil War, all British during the Revolution, and so on. America seems to have a problem in generalizing and type-casting in times of war and distress.
Yeah, not pissing off Muslims.
How's that working out for France right now?
Oh, yeah. Silly.
Again. You're confusing "acts of terrorism" with "casualties". And don't give me some sort of bullshit spiel to the likes of "acting on terrorism means creating casualties!" I'm talking acts of terrorism. This entire thread is talking acts of terrorism. Not casualties. Is the United States trying to decrease the number of casualties from say, 5,000 in a given period of time to 3,000 in a given period or time, or are they trying to eliminate the number of acts of terrorism? Casualties are casualties... It'd be preferable to eliminate ALL possible casualties. But we're going straight for the jugular... Eliminate ACTS of terrorism and you eliminate CASUALTIES of terrorism. We're just not going about eliminating terrorism in a very civilized or intelligent manner.
So by what you've said above...we should eliminate casualties by not pissing off the gunmen when they point the gun at our head?
Am I following you here?
It's just as retarded as racially profiling when we've seen court case after court case dealing with civil liberties in regards to race, and we've spent decades working for racial equality, have had to watch some of the greatest activists in the history of time die for these rights (Ghandi, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, etc, Robert Kennedy, etc.) and so on.
We're not going to start putting Muslims in camps, Christ. This is airport security.
Ok, so, we're seperating one racial group from another, and treating them differently in a public facility... How is this not elitest.
Airplanes are
private companies (not counting the recent federal bail-outs). The NFTA and airport security aren't, but again, I don't see how you can say that we don't have the right to screen people based upon this system.
And it totally is race related.
Congrats on finally reading the first post in the thread.
If the majority of terrorists were black, we'd be treating blacks differently. If the majority of terrorists were Native American, we'd be treating Native Americans differently. It's RACIAL PROFILING. PROFILING based on RACE. How is it not RACIAL? So, statistics or no statistics, it is most deffinately in relation to race.
Bingo! Give the man a cigar!
There is no probable cause to back these searches up other than social generalizations, and these generalizations happen to be based upon race and religion.
Err...yeah.
Except for all terrorist attacks against the U.S. since 2001.
Not much of a trend though, right?
The JFK terrorists should be tried (for their crimes, not their race), sentenced to life, and made an example of--even though we'll be complete hypocrite and give them the death sentence. But oh well, such is life.
Personally, I'd line them up outside the airport, and televise them being executed by firing squad.
Or, better yet, behead them, and distribute DVD copies of it across the globe.
Never mind, I'll try not to use clever satire.
I'd settle for a logical argument, but it doesn't look like I'll see any of that either...
