QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie I'm with Gabe - what ever happened to a face-to-face with identification? I would be skeptical of anyone on a phone - with no identification. 2nd resident skeptic Mookie
QUOTE: Originally posted by trainman2244 Ok guys, 9/11 and starting a war is a crock of *** if ive ever seen it. roughly 2000 people died, and according to the goverment there is a death every 13 seconds, so, in that case 4 people die each minute, and 3120 people die each hour, and in that case, 74880 people die each day. 9/11 doesnt sound so horrible now, does it? (BTW: i was roughly rounding)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3 artmark & dthurman, Just because there were security concerns in WWII does not mean that we should follow the exact same path all over again. Remember that during WWII thousands of innocent US civilians were immorally incarcerated in the middle of nowhere just because they were Asian and on the west coast. Using your logic, should we not lock up all Middle-Eastern US civilians? After all, if it worked for WWII...right? You know what scares me more than any terrorist is my fellow citizens who see nothing wrong with trampling over hard-won rights to keep us all "safe". Bah! Paul A. Cutler III ***************** Weather Or No Go New Haven *****************
QUOTE: Originally posted by jarubel QUOTE: Originally posted by trainman2244 Ok guys, 9/11 and starting a war is a crock of *** if ive ever seen it. roughly 2000 people died, and according to the goverment there is a death every 13 seconds, so, in that case 4 people die each minute, and 3120 people die each hour, and in that case, 74880 people die each day. 9/11 doesnt sound so horrible now, does it? (BTW: i was roughly rounding) Just for the sake of nitpicking, if 4 people die each minute, wouldn't that mean 240 people every hour and not 3120?
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by jarubel QUOTE: Originally posted by trainman2244 Ok guys, 9/11 and starting a war is a crock of *** if ive ever seen it. roughly 2000 people died, and according to the goverment there is a death every 13 seconds, so, in that case 4 people die each minute, and 3120 people die each hour, and in that case, 74880 people die each day. 9/11 doesnt sound so horrible now, does it? (BTW: i was roughly rounding) Just for the sake of nitpicking, if 4 people die each minute, wouldn't that mean 240 people every hour and not 3120? 240 or 3120, what is the difference? After all, it is only innocent human life we are talking about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3 artmark & dthurman, Just because there were security concerns in WWII does not mean that we should follow the exact same path all over again. Remember that during WWII thousands of innocent US civilians were immorally incarcerated in the middle of nowhere just because they were Asian and on the west coast. Using your logic, should we not lock up all Middle-Eastern US civilians? After all, if it worked for WWII...right? You know what scares me more than any terrorist is my fellow citizens who see nothing wrong with trampling over hard-won rights to keep us all "safe". Bah! Paul A. Cutler III ***************** Weather Or No Go New Haven ***************** I'm looking at the post you refer to and I can't find where I said this was a correct path. I also cannot find a post under my authorship where I favor locking up innocent civilians. Can you point out where I may have said that or elude to such activities? What I am pointing out is how the outside world, unaware of fans and railroading at large, look at the photography of trains, nothing more. I further agree with CSS's assesments that bit by bit our rights are eroding. I'm not convinced that they'll return once things quiet down. Mitch
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by jarubel QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by jarubel QUOTE: Originally posted by trainman2244 Ok guys, 9/11 and starting a war is a crock of *** if ive ever seen it. roughly 2000 people died, and according to the goverment there is a death every 13 seconds, so, in that case 4 people die each minute, and 3120 people die each hour, and in that case, 74880 people die each day. 9/11 doesnt sound so horrible now, does it? (BTW: i was roughly rounding) Just for the sake of nitpicking, if 4 people die each minute, wouldn't that mean 240 people every hour and not 3120? 240 or 3120, what is the difference? After all, it is only innocent human life we are talking about. I'm not trying to trivialize or make light of the loss of innocent human lives. Just trying to get the facts straight. I didn't want to get into an arugement here. Personally I think the loss of 2000 lives in an act of terrorism is a tragic event. I also think any life lost is a terrible thing wether it be through terrorism accident or natural causes
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3 artmark & dthurman, Just because there were security concerns in WWII does not mean that we should follow the exact same path all over again. Remember that during WWII thousands of innocent US civilians were immorally incarcerated in the middle of nowhere just because they were Asian and on the west coast. Using your logic, should we not lock up all Middle-Eastern US civilians? After all, if it worked for WWII...right? You know what scares me more than any terrorist is my fellow citizens who see nothing wrong with trampling over hard-won rights to keep us all "safe". Bah! Paul A. Cutler III ***************** Weather Or No Go New Haven ***************** I'm looking at the post you refer to and I can't find where I said this was a correct path. I also cannot find a post under my authorship where I favor locking up innocent civilians. Can you point out where I may have said that or elude to such activities? What I am pointing out is how the outside world, unaware of fans and railroading at large, look at the photography of trains, nothing more. I further agree with CSS's assesments that bit by bit our rights are eroding. I'm not convinced that they'll return once things quiet down. Mitch OK, I probably shouldn't, but here is my two cents: I am not saying this makes the erosion of civil liberties the correct or incorrect course of action. But, as to the claim that we will not get our liberties back once the danger passes, a close look at our nation's history repeatedly indicates that, during times of crisis, our civil liberties are constrained and, as soon as the crisis is over, the liberties are returned and everyone criticizes the decision to take them away. Go back as far as 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams’ Administration. During times when war with France and Napoleon seemed eminent, a variety of laws were passed that not only substantially reduced civil liberties but were actually designed to hamper the formation of Jeffersonian Republicanism (the taboo of taboos in terms of civil liberties). As soon as Napoleon was defeated (his first defeat, where he was exiled to Elbe) the Acts were revoked. During the War of 1812, marshal law was actually declared in parts of America. After the war, things returned to normal. In the Civil War (and more particularly during Reconstruction) habeas corpus was suspended and a Republican-dominated Congress almost wrote the Presidency and the Supreme Court out of existence. After reconstruction, things were back to normal. Does anyone remember the first—and more severe—“Red Scare.” This was probably one of the most severe restrictions of civil liberties in our history. What exactly was Debs guilty of when he ran for the Presidency from behind bars? However, once it became clear that the Bolshevik Revolution was confined to Russia, the 1920s roared. During WWII, there was this shameful incident of American concentration camps. Very soon after the war, Americans were ashamed of this act and vowed not to do them again. I also seem to remember a prohibition against talking pictures of trains. Post WWII, J.E. Hoover—when he wasn't wearing women's dresses—engaged in one of the most systematic illegal government surveillance of American citizens in this country's history (maybe he just had a bee in his bonnet). The retrenching of our civil liberties after 9/11 is far from original in our country's history. I am not saying that makes it right. Many of the aforementioned historical retrenchments of American civil liberties are an absolute opprobrium. Nonetheless, I think the contention that we wont get them back when the danger has clearly passed is a rather facile and unsupported claim. Now, if you want to talk about the opened-ended/secretive nature of the Patriot Act, the considerable discretion given to on-the-ground officials who enforce the Act, and the potentials for abuse of this power, you might get a different tenor out of me. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe OK, I probably shouldn't, but here is my two cents: I am not saying this makes the erosion of civil liberties the correct or incorrect course of action. But, as to the claim that we will not get our liberties back once the danger passes, a close look at our nation's history repeatedly indicates that, during times of crisis, our civil liberties are constrained and, as soon as the crisis is over, the liberties are returned and everyone criticizes the decision to take them away. Go back as far as 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams’ Administration. During times when war with France and Napoleon seemed eminent, a variety of laws were passed that not only substantially reduced civil liberties but were actually designed to hamper the formation of Jeffersonian Republicanism (the taboo of taboos in terms of civil liberties). As soon as Napoleon was defeated (his first defeat, where he was exiled to Elbe) the Acts were revoked. During the War of 1812, marshal law was actually declared in parts of America. After the war, things returned to normal. In the Civil War (and more particularly during Reconstruction) habeas corpus was suspended and a Republican-dominated Congress almost wrote the Presidency and the Supreme Court out of existence. After reconstruction, things were back to normal. Does anyone remember the first—and more severe—“Red Scare.” This was probably one of the most severe restrictions of civil liberties in our history. What exactly was Debs guilty of when he ran for the Presidency from behind bars? However, once it became clear that the Bolshevik Revolution was confined to Russia, the 1920s roared. During WWII, there was this shameful incident of American concentration camps. Very soon after the war, Americans were ashamed of this act and vowed not to do them again. I also seem to remember a prohibition against talking pictures of trains. Post WWII, J.E. Hoover—when he wasn't wearing women's dresses—engaged in one of the most systematic illegal government surveillance of American citizens in this country's history (maybe he just had a bee in his bonnet). The retrenching of our civil liberties after 9/11 is far from original in our country's history. I am not saying that makes it right. Many of the aforementioned historical retrenchments of American civil liberties are an absolute opprobrium. Nonetheless, I think the contention that we wont get them back when the danger has clearly passed is a rather facile and unsupported claim. Now, if you want to talk about the opened-ended/secretive nature of the Patriot Act, the considerable discretion given to on-the-ground officials who enforce the Act, and the potentials for abuse of this power, you might get a different tenor out of me. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29 I'm still wondering though, how did the person who reported you to the FBI know who you are?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jsoderq Actually terrorists do take pictures of their targets. There were many pictures of New York found after 9/11.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.