Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (96303)	12/3/2010 5:04:58 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

Lorne, you say that like muslim terrorists wouldn't use children to hide explosives or even recruit children to be suicide bombers. There are examples of both. As long as a particular screening method is being used, everyone has to be eligible to be screened for it to be effective. If kids and grandmas are exempt, that is exactly who will be carrying the explosives. This vulnerable members of society simply better illustrate the intrusiveness of these methods for everyone. Groping a rape victim is wrong for whatever reason. And guess what, it's wrong to grope a 40 year old man who isn't modest and doesn't mind being touched. When we bring up the exceptions, the response from government bureaucracies is to make the exceptions rather than to address the core issue that the whole damn thing is f*cked up. The only answer is to go back to the 4th amendment...searches must have probable cause. Walking through a metal detector isn't invasive. Having a dog sniff you and your baggage isn't invasive, having to answer a couple of questions to see one's behavioral response isn't invasive. And they are all a hell of a lot more effective than the pornscan or gropescan.