JT wrote:
You don't have a problem with
this guy being mirandized and
all lawyered up do you?
I mean is this guy a terrorist enemy
combatant or a criminal?
this guy being mirandized and
all lawyered up do you?
I mean is this guy a terrorist enemy
combatant or a criminal?
Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on
Windows Vista
03 January 2010 14:51:02
03 January 2010 14:51:02
TJ wrote:
I know this probably isn't the right spot to be asking but:
I am a highschool student trying to figure out how to massively print issues very cheaply. This is extremely unprecedented but I really need some help, I'm desperate.
I am a highschool student trying to figure out how to massively print issues very cheaply. This is extremely unprecedented but I really need some help, I'm desperate.
Using
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.16 on
Windows XP
03 January 2010 21:30:40
03 January 2010 21:30:40
Lucente wrote:
JT,
I don't have a problem with us following our own rules in prosecuting this guy. In fact, I think it is better that we do. I have confidence the judicial system will get a conviction.
~tjl~
I don't have a problem with us following our own rules in prosecuting this guy. In fact, I think it is better that we do. I have confidence the judicial system will get a conviction.
~tjl~
Using
Google Chrome 4.0.266.0 on
Windows Vista
04 January 2010 00:52:03
04 January 2010 00:52:03
Lucente wrote:
TJ,
I am not sure I know exactly what you are asking. What are you trying to print? You can e-mail me at tlucente(at)limanews.com with details of what you are looking for, if you like.
~tjl~
I am not sure I know exactly what you are asking. What are you trying to print? You can e-mail me at tlucente(at)limanews.com with details of what you are looking for, if you like.
~tjl~
Using
Google Chrome 4.0.266.0 on
Windows Vista
04 January 2010 00:53:21
04 January 2010 00:53:21
TomDavenport wrote:
So, you want to arm the passengers?!...and you expect a positive outcome from this "solution"?!?!?!? Anyone with a carry permit should be allowed to bring a gun or gunsssssssss onto a plane? Tom, I realize that it is your job to choose an 'opinion' that will elicit the loudest response/backlash in your readers...basically you're here to upset people and be confrontational to generate buzz....but there is no way you honestly think this is a good idea. C'mon man!
Firstly, you complain about the plodding slow pace of security and the wasted time spent searching american citizens. What the heck do you think is going to happen if we allow guns and ammo on the concourse?!?!?!?!?! Now, we have to check all passengers for guns, we have to inspect and verify thier carry permits (think these won't be forged?), we have to check thier ammo...and what if we have a passenger who has an expired or otherwise improper permit...or someone has the "wrong" ammo??...now we have someone at the gate with an illegal firearm...don't think that'll take time to deal with?
And that's just from a preliminary boarding standpoint. Let's get on the plane. Maybe we have 4 or 5 folks out of 250 carrying a weapon on a plane. For starters, the terrorists no longer have to worry about sneaking a weapons on the plane, guns are already there...it's much easier now to take the weapons from the passengers. Generally, we are talking about passengers with no real hand-to-hand combat training...I know 3 guys with carry permits and not a one of them could fight out of a paper bag...probably why they decided to get the gun permit!....and I'm not being ridicuouls here...it's easy to think a trained terrorist could possibly take a weapon from one of these guys.
OK. So now a terrorist (or more likely small group of terrorists) jumps up to hijak/destroy the plane, or wrest a gun from a passenger....you want these four passengers to draw and start shootin' em up right? Is just one guy going to fire on the terrorist? No. Anyone with a gun is going to start shooting...in a tiny space...loaded with innocent people, adults and children...and all bullets are going to be true and hit the terrorist(s) right? Just like the movies? NO! You know what you call 250 innocent men, women and children in a plane full of bullets? collateral damage.
Having a discussion about how to improve security is great and helpful. But when you suggest such obviously moronic ideas as arming civilian passengers you lose credibility TOm. This is ridiculous. And you know it.
Firstly, you complain about the plodding slow pace of security and the wasted time spent searching american citizens. What the heck do you think is going to happen if we allow guns and ammo on the concourse?!?!?!?!?! Now, we have to check all passengers for guns, we have to inspect and verify thier carry permits (think these won't be forged?), we have to check thier ammo...and what if we have a passenger who has an expired or otherwise improper permit...or someone has the "wrong" ammo??...now we have someone at the gate with an illegal firearm...don't think that'll take time to deal with?
And that's just from a preliminary boarding standpoint. Let's get on the plane. Maybe we have 4 or 5 folks out of 250 carrying a weapon on a plane. For starters, the terrorists no longer have to worry about sneaking a weapons on the plane, guns are already there...it's much easier now to take the weapons from the passengers. Generally, we are talking about passengers with no real hand-to-hand combat training...I know 3 guys with carry permits and not a one of them could fight out of a paper bag...probably why they decided to get the gun permit!....and I'm not being ridicuouls here...it's easy to think a trained terrorist could possibly take a weapon from one of these guys.
OK. So now a terrorist (or more likely small group of terrorists) jumps up to hijak/destroy the plane, or wrest a gun from a passenger....you want these four passengers to draw and start shootin' em up right? Is just one guy going to fire on the terrorist? No. Anyone with a gun is going to start shooting...in a tiny space...loaded with innocent people, adults and children...and all bullets are going to be true and hit the terrorist(s) right? Just like the movies? NO! You know what you call 250 innocent men, women and children in a plane full of bullets? collateral damage.
Having a discussion about how to improve security is great and helpful. But when you suggest such obviously moronic ideas as arming civilian passengers you lose credibility TOm. This is ridiculous. And you know it.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 08:47:06
04 January 2010 08:47:06
HappyG wrote:
Janet Napolitano told Maureen Dowd that passengers are a line of defense. What did she mean by that? Because a Dutchman got lucky and prevented this attack, doesn't mean it will happen again. The fire distracted the terrorist, and gave passengers time to stop his attack. The next time, maybe only a gun will stop and attack. I would rather be close to a man with a gun, than a man relying on his fists for survival. You don't take knives to gunfights if you want to win. Americans have the right to defend themselves. Just ask Janet.
BTW, I don't think just anyone should be able to carry, but do believe airline employees should have that right. And, perhaps a sharp shooter or two...
BTW, I don't think just anyone should be able to carry, but do believe airline employees should have that right. And, perhaps a sharp shooter or two...
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 10:16:32
04 January 2010 10:16:32
TomDavenport wrote:
I don't disagree that passengers are a line of defense...if placed in this position I think we all would be eyeing an opportunity to neutralize or disrupt the terrorist...but in these close quarters, your own body/fists/ability to wrestle-subdue should be the weapon of choice.....firing bullets in a 20 foot wide pressurized tube stacked with people should not be considered...I think you guys watch too many movies...panicky, reactionary gunshots at moving targets surrounded by innocent people, from multiple shooters, will never end pretty.
We could have a meaningful discussion about whether or not we should place trained and armed military professionals/enforecement officials on the planes...people trained to fire-on, fight/counter in close quarters...but allowing anyone with a permit to carry a gun on board is ludacris; again, Mr. Lucente knows this.
We could have a meaningful discussion about whether or not we should place trained and armed military professionals/enforecement officials on the planes...people trained to fire-on, fight/counter in close quarters...but allowing anyone with a permit to carry a gun on board is ludacris; again, Mr. Lucente knows this.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 11:33:46
04 January 2010 11:33:46
HappyG wrote:
From Tom's post: Passengers who have licenses to carry concealed weapons should be permitted to carry them on airliners provided they have the proper ammunition for airline use. That might limit the amount of guns on board.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 11:55:47
04 January 2010 11:55:47
TomDavenport wrote:
well, now we're splitting hairs and being protracted....what exactly is "the proper ammunition for airline use"? rubber bullets? What caliber? What grain? You are essentially going to be firing at point blank range within the plane...so will the ammunition be lethal? If not lethal to an adult, to child? an infant? will it maim? disfigure? And we still haven't addressed the very real possibility of a terrorist obtaining one of these weapons from a passenger....and we aren't always talking about a camel-scented turban-wearer now are we.....we could have an american citizen, hell even a military officer, with a carry permit, go terrorist (recall Mr. Hasan at Ft. Hood?).
Bringing guns into the situation is just pouring gas on the fire...to many negatives outweighing any John Wayne-type imaginated good. This is not the thinking man's solution; it's just macho bluster and fantasy.
Bringing guns into the situation is just pouring gas on the fire...to many negatives outweighing any John Wayne-type imaginated good. This is not the thinking man's solution; it's just macho bluster and fantasy.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 15:39:45
04 January 2010 15:39:45
TomDavenport wrote:
Kind of an interesting article on "airline use" ammo...
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/air_marshals_warn_their_bullets_are_too_powerful/
Even frangible bullets are deadly (more so actually)...and that's intent of a gun right? That what we want in a metal closet full of 300 people? How about this.....let's mount automatic turret guns in the ceiling of the coach cabin and put a panic button on every passenger seat...then any passenger who sees a terrorist can rain down gun fire throughout the plane....same thing.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/air_marshals_warn_their_bullets_are_too_powerful/
Even frangible bullets are deadly (more so actually)...and that's intent of a gun right? That what we want in a metal closet full of 300 people? How about this.....let's mount automatic turret guns in the ceiling of the coach cabin and put a panic button on every passenger seat...then any passenger who sees a terrorist can rain down gun fire throughout the plane....same thing.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 15:47:25
04 January 2010 15:47:25
HappyG wrote:
There are bullets that can't penetrate an airline body, but can penetrate soft tissue. Chances are that the person carrying the gun will be the one using it. If there was a guy with a bomb strapped to him, I'd rather see a passenger shoot him, than be the sitting duck. And, if one person is also a casualty, that is still better than hundreds or thousands. You are anti gun, so no argument will be satisfactory.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 16:47:23
04 January 2010 16:47:23
JT wrote:
Thomas don't you think it would
have been better if this Abdulmutallab
had been taken right away to gitmo
and interrogated, seems to me that
now if we get any info from him, the
legal system will have to make deals.
have been better if this Abdulmutallab
had been taken right away to gitmo
and interrogated, seems to me that
now if we get any info from him, the
legal system will have to make deals.
Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on
Windows Vista
04 January 2010 18:11:43
04 January 2010 18:11:43
JT wrote:
TomDavenport, I have a CCW permit
that's a CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS
permit, a terrorist wouldn't know which
passenger was armed or not
Although this time the guy had a bomb,
a gun would be useful against boxcutters
or such,but not a bomb.
George Will on 'This Week with George
Stefanofolus' said that al-Qaeda should
figure out by now that we are on to them
and their airplane schemes...I think he has a
point on that one.
that's a CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS
permit, a terrorist wouldn't know which
passenger was armed or not
Although this time the guy had a bomb,
a gun would be useful against boxcutters
or such,but not a bomb.
George Will on 'This Week with George
Stefanofolus' said that al-Qaeda should
figure out by now that we are on to them
and their airplane schemes...I think he has a
point on that one.
Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on
Windows Vista
04 January 2010 19:44:48
04 January 2010 19:44:48
Lucente wrote:
Tom Davenport,
I do not write things to elicit a response. I state my opinion and I believe it. I follow John Adams' advice: State your opinion boldly and defend it ardently.
It always amazes me that anti-gun liberals always jump to the conclusion that because someone is carrying a gun, there will be a shootout. That is simply not true.
Every year, between 1 million and 2 million crimes are stopped because someone had a gun. In most of those cases, a shot is never fired. Often, the site of a gun, ends a criminal act.
Have you not noticed that the location of almost every mass murder in this country happens in gun-free zones, schools, airplanes, etc. Why is that? Because criminals are pretty confident that the victims will not be armed. The very act of permitting properly licensed individuals to carry firearms on an airplane will deter many attempts to commit such acts. Heck, even just permitting the pilots to be armed would go a long way toward deterring terrorist acts.
Also, there are special bullets for airplane use to prevent a hull breach. It is the bullets that air marshals use.
Clearly, watch lists and body searches are not doing the job. If you want safe airplanes, stop forcing the passengers to be victims.
~tjl~
I do not write things to elicit a response. I state my opinion and I believe it. I follow John Adams' advice: State your opinion boldly and defend it ardently.
It always amazes me that anti-gun liberals always jump to the conclusion that because someone is carrying a gun, there will be a shootout. That is simply not true.
Every year, between 1 million and 2 million crimes are stopped because someone had a gun. In most of those cases, a shot is never fired. Often, the site of a gun, ends a criminal act.
Have you not noticed that the location of almost every mass murder in this country happens in gun-free zones, schools, airplanes, etc. Why is that? Because criminals are pretty confident that the victims will not be armed. The very act of permitting properly licensed individuals to carry firearms on an airplane will deter many attempts to commit such acts. Heck, even just permitting the pilots to be armed would go a long way toward deterring terrorist acts.
Also, there are special bullets for airplane use to prevent a hull breach. It is the bullets that air marshals use.
Clearly, watch lists and body searches are not doing the job. If you want safe airplanes, stop forcing the passengers to be victims.
~tjl~
Using
Google Chrome 4.0.266.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 23:11:01
04 January 2010 23:11:01
Lucente wrote:
JT,
I don't think this guy has any information of any kind of intelligence value. I do believe we should not permit terrorists (who are basically criminals) from abandoning our core principles. If we do that, then they win.
~tjl~
I don't think this guy has any information of any kind of intelligence value. I do believe we should not permit terrorists (who are basically criminals) from abandoning our core principles. If we do that, then they win.
~tjl~
Using
Google Chrome 4.0.266.0 on
Windows XP
04 January 2010 23:13:26
04 January 2010 23:13:26
TomDavenport wrote:
Because I'm against allowing , check that..ENCOURAGING, passengers to discharge lethal ammo into a tiny space full of innocent american citizens I'm anti-gun?!?! I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-preventable death! I'm anti-unacceptable risk! It might surprise you that I own multiple guns, like most adult male residents of Allen County.
"Every year, between 1 million and 2 million crimes are stopped because someone had a gun. In most of those cases, a shot is never fired. Often, the site of a gun, ends a criminal act."
Firstly, prove those figures. Cite your source "journalist". More importantly, you are NOT dealing with a freaking burgler or pick-pocket here Tom...we're talking about people that have sworn an oath to god to carryout murder....not only are these terrorists prepared to die to complete thier task...they EXPECT TO...they are PLANNING ON DYING!!! It's a suicide mission. Get it? You think you're going to stop them by pulling up your windbreaker and flashing your Glock at them? They are not afraid of your gun...they are not afraid of your pointing it at them...you will HAVE TO FIRE that weapon to stop them.....get real here.
And you all continually ignore the obvious high potential for collateral damage here...heck, you're more concerned about stray shots striking the plane hull than striking a 9 year old kid (you can argue that piercing the hull would be catastrophic...maybe, maybe not...but that bullet is going to tear the hell out of that 9 year old girls' head, that's a gaurantee). Thankfully, reactionary wannabe heros and attention-seeking small-town newspaper editors aren't making these decisions.
"Every year, between 1 million and 2 million crimes are stopped because someone had a gun. In most of those cases, a shot is never fired. Often, the site of a gun, ends a criminal act."
Firstly, prove those figures. Cite your source "journalist". More importantly, you are NOT dealing with a freaking burgler or pick-pocket here Tom...we're talking about people that have sworn an oath to god to carryout murder....not only are these terrorists prepared to die to complete thier task...they EXPECT TO...they are PLANNING ON DYING!!! It's a suicide mission. Get it? You think you're going to stop them by pulling up your windbreaker and flashing your Glock at them? They are not afraid of your gun...they are not afraid of your pointing it at them...you will HAVE TO FIRE that weapon to stop them.....get real here.
And you all continually ignore the obvious high potential for collateral damage here...heck, you're more concerned about stray shots striking the plane hull than striking a 9 year old kid (you can argue that piercing the hull would be catastrophic...maybe, maybe not...but that bullet is going to tear the hell out of that 9 year old girls' head, that's a gaurantee). Thankfully, reactionary wannabe heros and attention-seeking small-town newspaper editors aren't making these decisions.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
05 January 2010 08:39:03
05 January 2010 08:39:03
HappyG wrote:
Where do you get legal gun carriers are being encouraged to fire weapons in a small enclosed space? Having weapons discourages the wannabe bombers. And, why do you expect collateral damage? It is possible that gun owners are respectful of their guns, and know how to aim them, without shooting a bystander. Of course, there is a lot of collateral damage on the streets, because the shooters could care less about who gets caught in the crosshairs. Your emotionalism is overriding your common sense. Most logical Americans would rather shoot themselves, than harm a child. What liberal gobbledeguck!
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
05 January 2010 10:20:58
05 January 2010 10:20:58
Susan wrote:
Mr.Davenport, as Tom Lucente's wife, your statement, "Thankfully, reactionary wannabe heros and attention-seeking small-town newspaper editors aren't making these decisions," is downright offensive to me. You know absolutely NOTHING about Tom Lucente. He is no "wannabe hero", his 22 years of service to this country including the 15 months he spent deployed for this current war we're in right now is proof of that. Every time he writes a column which gets people to THINK and fight for their rights and their freedoms, he's even more of a hero. While you're sitting there hurling insults and losing your temper, he's doing his job keeping the public informed and going to law school so that he can keep on fighting for YOUR right to the freedoms that all Americans are entitled to, including your freedom of speech, allowing you to come here to his own blog and share your differing opinion and attack his professional and personal character in the process. A lesser man would have just deleted you from the blog and been done with it. Just remember, you've been allowed to speak your mind, throw insults, and have a differing opinion from Tom and you are still here. Be thankful that this man is dedicating his life to making sure you always have that right.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows Vista
05 January 2010 17:10:25
05 January 2010 17:10:25
JT wrote:
I have to agree with TomDavenport about
the suicide bombers, they charge straight
into machine gun fire. This happened to my
son on his first tour in Iraq, a suicide bomber
in a car charged his barracks dispite heavy
gunfire, he still managed to set his
bomb off, BUT the point of my story is the
gunfire prevented the killer
from getting close enough to kill anyone.
"you will HAVE TO FIRE that weapon to stop them"
and TomDavenport's very own words says it all
the suicide bombers, they charge straight
into machine gun fire. This happened to my
son on his first tour in Iraq, a suicide bomber
in a car charged his barracks dispite heavy
gunfire, he still managed to set his
bomb off, BUT the point of my story is the
gunfire prevented the killer
from getting close enough to kill anyone.
"you will HAVE TO FIRE that weapon to stop them"
and TomDavenport's very own words says it all
Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on
Windows Vista
05 January 2010 19:41:55
05 January 2010 19:41:55
TomDavenport wrote:
Ms. Lucente,
Sorry you're offended, but as long as your husband elects to inject himself and his inflammatory opinions into important national subjects, I think you're going to be offended A LOT. You must fail to realize that your husband CHOOSES to publish his opinions, and CHOOSES to moderate a blog that encourages debate of his opinions. You aren't always going to like the response you get, so I would suggest you toughen your skin, or convince your husband to leave the arena of public opinion.
"While you're sitting there hurling insults and losing your temper, he's doing his job keeping the public informed"
I'm not losing my temper, just making my argument. And whatever your husband is doing, it most certainly is NOT defined as 'keeping the public informed'. It more accurately can be characterized as spewing unreasearched, unsubtabtiated, opionions, talking-points, half-truths and mainuplative dialogue to create 'buzz' around himself and attract attention (see above paragraph).
"A lesser man would have just deleted you from the blog and been done with it."
No. A COWARD would have done that. Lucky for your husband that he has cosen to through his hat into political discussion(s) in a region that is very conservative and, therefore, mostly freindly to his right-wing (I'm sorry, "Libertarian"
agenda. Apparently you've yet to receive any serious response from someone who does NOT share this agenda, and chooses to challenge it. (again, see paragraph 1).
In all sincerety, I do appreciate your husband's service to this country. It is the most unselfish and patriotic thing an American citizen can do (in my opinion). However, this service does not grant him a) a degree in science, b) freedom to regurgitate half-truths, controversial opinions or any debate in the public media free of response or disagreement. c) automatic respect, admiration or freedom of critique from every undertaking he embarks on following that service.
However, as a brave American hero, I'm sure Tom is proud that he has a strong wife to fight his battles for him.
Sorry you're offended, but as long as your husband elects to inject himself and his inflammatory opinions into important national subjects, I think you're going to be offended A LOT. You must fail to realize that your husband CHOOSES to publish his opinions, and CHOOSES to moderate a blog that encourages debate of his opinions. You aren't always going to like the response you get, so I would suggest you toughen your skin, or convince your husband to leave the arena of public opinion.
"While you're sitting there hurling insults and losing your temper, he's doing his job keeping the public informed"
I'm not losing my temper, just making my argument. And whatever your husband is doing, it most certainly is NOT defined as 'keeping the public informed'. It more accurately can be characterized as spewing unreasearched, unsubtabtiated, opionions, talking-points, half-truths and mainuplative dialogue to create 'buzz' around himself and attract attention (see above paragraph).
"A lesser man would have just deleted you from the blog and been done with it."
No. A COWARD would have done that. Lucky for your husband that he has cosen to through his hat into political discussion(s) in a region that is very conservative and, therefore, mostly freindly to his right-wing (I'm sorry, "Libertarian"
In all sincerety, I do appreciate your husband's service to this country. It is the most unselfish and patriotic thing an American citizen can do (in my opinion). However, this service does not grant him a) a degree in science, b) freedom to regurgitate half-truths, controversial opinions or any debate in the public media free of response or disagreement. c) automatic respect, admiration or freedom of critique from every undertaking he embarks on following that service.
However, as a brave American hero, I'm sure Tom is proud that he has a strong wife to fight his battles for him.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 08:19:08
06 January 2010 08:19:08
TomDavenport wrote:
OK JT. I give. you're totally right. You've convinced me...your 1850s approach to a 2010 problem has won out. In fact, I think we should hand out 9mm pistols at the boarding gate to every passenger (wait, I mean every caucasion American passenger, not named Abduhl...or Reed). In addition we should place a life-size cardboard cut-out of Bruce Willis at the fron of each plane. I read somewhere that 1 million to 2 million terrorist attacks are deterred everyyear by the site of an american movie tough guy.
Write your congressmen guys, make it happen...lock and load!
Write your congressmen guys, make it happen...lock and load!
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 08:24:35
06 January 2010 08:24:35
HappyG wrote:
Davenport, Susan isn't fighting Tom's battles for him. Tom is gone most of the time, working or studying, and can't be here. And, she wasn't even defending his stand, but rather, defending him from insults that have nothing to do with Tom's opinions. Instead of debate, you have insulted everyone who disagrees with you. Could it be because you have tunnel vision? With people like you, no wonder this country is in such a mess. And yes, I can insult too, but prefer proper debate, which isn't coming from you.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 08:38:38
06 January 2010 08:38:38
TomDavenport wrote:
I'm really not sure why you are so upset, I assume you simply cannot deal with having someone take a strong stance in opposition. I've not used foul language, I've not called anyone derogatory names or made threats. What's apparent is that this blog and its patrons are not equipped to deal with being called out, corrected, and exposed. I guess the term 'debate' here means "let's all have a pleasant chat about things we all agree on". In case you forgot, the board's moderate rutinely attacks, sometimes viciously, those with whom he disagrees, or topics he doesn't understand (i.e. scientists largely). Appears to be the ol' dish out, but not take syndrome. So, OK, I'll leave. When the inability to refute an opposing argument begins to involve a family call to arms, I'd say give and take has ended. It is somewhat surprising to me that my few posts here have produced so much whining, and playing vicitm...poor poor Tom being so attacked by the nasty mean liberal man. Better grow some thicker skin guys, this country IS in a mess and these arguments are only getting louder. Best of luck.
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 13:24:27
06 January 2010 13:24:27
HappyG wrote:
Uh, Tom, the whining and insults are coming from you. Reread your posts. Read the other posts on these threads. Debating and debasing are not the same thing. I have thick skin. What a baby you are, to hit and run. I was up for the fight...
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 16:30:21
06 January 2010 16:30:21
Susan wrote:
Tom Davenport, I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with my husband's opinions. I disagree with a lot of his opinions myself and I let him know it. We have a great deal of spirited debate. My problem is with people (like you) who are incapable of debating civily and sticking to the topic of debate instead of hurling personal insults. IF you were truly a scientist as you claim to be, I would expect much more professional and mature behavior from you. IF you were truly a scientist, I would think you would do the research, formulate your opinion and defend it fairly. You don't seem capable of that. No, you're no scientist.
As for fighting Tom's battles. He has never needed anyone to fight his battles for him. He wouldn't consider anything you said to be a "battle" that even needs to be defended against because he really doesn't care what your personal opinion of him is. He's got a tough skin and he knows that dealing with people like you comes with the job. As his wife, however, I DO care when people make false assumptions and try to damage his character when they know nothing about him and are only resorting to those childish tactics because they have no intelligent legitimate facts to debate with.
Nobody is running you off of here. If you choose to leave, it's because you can't handle people standing up for themselves and refusing to put up with your immature style of "debate".
As for fighting Tom's battles. He has never needed anyone to fight his battles for him. He wouldn't consider anything you said to be a "battle" that even needs to be defended against because he really doesn't care what your personal opinion of him is. He's got a tough skin and he knows that dealing with people like you comes with the job. As his wife, however, I DO care when people make false assumptions and try to damage his character when they know nothing about him and are only resorting to those childish tactics because they have no intelligent legitimate facts to debate with.
Nobody is running you off of here. If you choose to leave, it's because you can't handle people standing up for themselves and refusing to put up with your immature style of "debate".
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows Vista
06 January 2010 18:36:53
06 January 2010 18:36:53
Susan wrote:
What do you think, HappyG... troll alert?
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows Vista
06 January 2010 18:38:10
06 January 2010 18:38:10
HappyG wrote:
Naw, just another scientist with tunnel vision...
Using
Internet Explorer 8.0 on
Windows XP
06 January 2010 19:18:46
06 January 2010 19:18:46
JT wrote:
We don't get many scientists around
hope he sticks around.
I have a friend who is also a scientist
and she thinks almost exactly like
TomDavenport does...She's an atheist
and she believes that Obama is godlike.
Frightening sometimes the way they
think.
hope he sticks around.
I have a friend who is also a scientist
and she thinks almost exactly like
TomDavenport does...She's an atheist
and she believes that Obama is godlike.
Frightening sometimes the way they
think.
Using
Internet Explorer 7.0 on
Windows Vista
07 January 2010 18:01:25
07 January 2010 18:01:25






![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png)

[COLUMN] Armed passengers better than a watch list
The Christmas Day attempt by an Islamic militant to blow up an American airliner is further proof that the Obama administration lives in a fantasy world when it comes to terrorism.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Candy Crowley last week on the CNN program "State of the Union" that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that "the system worked."
"We have no suggestion that he was improperly screened," she said with a straight face.
For those keeping score at home, Napolitano said that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian Muslim, was able to board Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam with explosives in his underwear after being "properly screened."
Oh, by the way, he was in the government's Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database and there was intelligence information before the attack that a Nigerian was plotting to blow up an American plane. He was also on the United Kingdom's security watch list and denied a visa in that country in 2008.
Additionally, his own father, a prominent Nigerian banker and former government official, warned the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, in October that his son had developed radical views and might have traveled to Yemen. Yet, officials did not revoke his two-year multiple-entry visa, which was issued in June 2008.
So, "the system worked"? If that is "proper screening," I would hate to see improper screening.
By Monday, Napolitano had backed away from her statement and admitted that the system failed. Also, President Barack Obama, after three days of silence on the matter, admitted there were "systemic failures" and made some vague pledge to "insist on accountability at every level." After his lack of response for three days, Obama was trying to paint himself as a reformer of a failed system put in place by President George W. Bush.
After a year in office, Obama should really stop blaming Bush for every failure of his own administration.
The fact is the system did not work.
That is because Obama and his administration refuse to accept the fact that militant Islam is dangerous to U.S. security.
When Obama finally deigned to make a comment about this latest terrorist attack against the United States, he refused to mention the word Islam or terrorism and actually used the term "allegedly" when describing the attempted bombing. He also made the ludicrous claim that the bombing attempt ... er, "alleged bombing attempt" ... was an "isolated incident" despite the fact that Abdulmutallab had extensive contact with a terrorist group calling itself al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed responsibility for the botched attack.
Obama simply does not understand that nature of the war in which he is engaged. This is why the system failed.
Screeners with the Transportation Security Administration operate as though every person traveling is a suspected terrorist. While this has the benefit of making everyone feel equally miserable about the way they are treated when flying, it does nothing to increase air travel security.
While liberals think it is a dirty word, the fact remains, security officials have to profile travelers based on national origins, race, age, religion and sex. When a 20-something Muslim man is trying to board an international flight with no luggage and uses cash to purchase his ticket, there ought to be red flags.
When an 80-year-old American woman from the Midwest tries to board a plane, there is no reason to strip-search her.
It is time to put an end to all these different watch lists. They do not work, obviously. They can only catch people already known to be threats, and then only those who are accurately identified at the airport.
Finally, of all the layers of security that failed, the one that did not fail was the human system. Fellow passengers ultimately thwarted the attack. It is time we stopping forcing airline passengers to be passive sheep waiting for slaughter. Passengers who have licenses to carry concealed weapons should be permitted to carry them on airliners provided they have the proper ammunition for airline use.
One armed passenger would do more to end a terrorist attack than all the watch lists in the world.
category | Column
author | Lucente