US mid-term elections and the political divide

Message

dsigma6 · #31 Post by **dsigma6** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:36 pm

"I support your war of terror."- Borat

John McCain for President!

Say no to Hillary...please!

#32 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:38 pm

dsigma6 wrote:Say no to Hillary...please!

Don't just necessarily say "no" to the bad candidates but instead say "yes" to the good ones. It sounds like a cliche but Bill said "no" to Hillary for a night out and ended up with Monica Lewinsky.

christopher_wolf · #33 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:47 pm

AlphaKilo470 wrote: It sounds like a cliche but Bill said "no" to Hillary for a night out and ended up with Monica Lewinsky.

I don't know, to me, that seems like going from "blatent mediocrity" to "younger, blatent mediocrity."

#34 Post by **draco2527** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:18 pm

K. Eng wrote:
tomh009 wrote:Anyway, the point I would like to make is that I believe that almost everyone will support the individual soldiers. The question is whether or not one supports the government decision to send those troops to fight a war in a foreign country.
Exactly. The members of the armed forces deserve respect, even despite the misgivings one might have about the current conflicts. They're doing their jobs and making signficant sacrifices.

My discontent is directed solely at the elected officials in Washington D.C.

Ditto!..and I will shut up now...

RUSH2112 · #35 Post by **RUSH2112** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:09 pm

AlphaKilo470 wrote:
dsigma6 wrote:Say no to Hillary...please!
Don't just necessarily say "no" to the bad candidates but instead say "yes" to the good ones. It sounds like a cliche but Bill said "no" to Hillary for a night out and ended up with Monica Lewinsky.

While I do want to agree with you, unfortunately in our system, it does come down to the lesser of two evils. I will not be voting for Hillary because, based on my observations, she is a socialist. McCain, I think, would make an amazing, Mount Rushmorian President, even though I disagree with him on a few issues. Another person I would like to see run is Mitt Romney.

The Bush Administration may have given the Republicans a bad name, but I do not think that voters should take that as an indication of the entire party's capabilities.

I would vote for a Libertarian candidate if we had one that was viable (heck, even if we just *had* one). The problem with our two party system is that third parties tend to drain votes from one side or another, and have no shot at actually winning (I sometimes wonder if Nader is a Republican who pretended to be GP)[/list]

#36 Post by **K. Eng** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:28 pm

RUSH2112 wrote:The Bush Administration may have given the Republicans a bad name, but I do not think that voters should take that as an indication of the entire party's capabilities.

It's not just Bush. The Republican Party has become rife with powerhungry, irresponsible people. A few examples:

Tom DeLay - Indicted for conspiring to launder illegal corporate contributions for use by Republican candidates. Allegations that he took bribes from Jack Abramoff.

Bob Ney - Pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges concerning accepting bribes from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Mark Foley - Sexually harassed pages.

Rick Santorum - Created a dummy residence in a PA school district so that he could get reimbursements from that school district for his childrens' schooling via a cyber charter school.

Curt Weldon - Claims there were WMD found in Iraq, but refuses to discuss the particulars.

Now DeLay, Ney, and Foley are off the table as far as elections are concerned, but I have serious doubts about the Republican party, since it was the party that promoted them and helped them attain their positions of power.

I can't in good faith support the Republicans -- they've lost focus and perspective on doing a good job for the U.S.

#37 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:50 pm

I really don't think it's the Bush administration so much as the media that's giving the republicans a bad name. Was there as big of a media circus for Gerry Studs, a man who actually did round the bases with an underage boy, as there was for Foley? Why doesn't anyone seem to care that in Massachusetts, one senator waffles on every issue while the other can't even lead a girl out of a submerged car? Why would one political party talk more about gay rights than about the economy or war? Why can't the mainstream leftists seem to realize that the troops in Iraq are the only thing keeping the terrorists there and not here?

I acknowledge that the Republicans have their faults, many of them but at the same time, I think it's worth noting that unlike some opposition, at least they have some priorities set straight.

Oh, and while I'm here, even though I'm swerving on the road somewhat, this whole media circus about the Democrats only needing 3 or 4 seats to take Congress is a bunch of baloney. Has it occurred to any of these wishful thinkers that the Democrats also have to keep all their current seats? I'm not ruling out the possibility of a democratic congress but I am asking that somebody look a little deeper into the issues and get numbers from somewhere other than inside their trousers.

#38 Post by **Kyocera** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:33 am

K. Eng wrote:
tomh009 wrote:
Anyway, the point I would like to make is that I believe that almost everyone will support the individual soldiers. The question is whether or not one supports the government decision to send those troops to fight a war in a foreign country.
Exactly. The members of the armed forces deserve respect, even despite the misgivings one might have about the current conflicts. They're doing their jobs and making signficant sacrifices.

My discontent is directed solely at the elected officials in Washington D.C.

Yeah, I have a similar feeling about the Police Department. While I support the individual officers personally, I really don't think they should be to overly proactive about crime or "fighting the war on drugs" and what the hell are they doing training for terrorists attacks in the U.S. (that whole 9/11 thing was a Bush/Cheny conspiricy, everyone with a brain knows that sheesh)....and don't even get me started on the big waste of time in fighting "the meth/drug war" man what a waste of time that is. Police should probably sit in their cars and eat donuts, and "wait" till an actual crime occurs, then drive there, take some notes, maybe draw a chaulk outline around the the bodies, and put all the notes in a file. Yeah, it's a big waste of time, but like I said I really support the individual police officers/state troopers, but what they are doing is really a waste of time brought about by out of control local and state governments who don't have a clue of what really needs to be done to deal with the virtually non-existant crime/terror problem in the U.S.

You guys are right there is no tali ban, there is no jihad, al qaeda, bin ladin, Sadaam Husein was just a really really misunderstood wonderful man. The many americans getting their heads cut off (oh you guys didn't see those videos did you, search the Ogrish.com beheading archive) never happened. There should be no proactive steps toward protecting this country, we should wait until some more people get blown apart in one of our cities, then I guarantee you'll be the first ones blaming someone, either the police, the military, the current administration. These attacks are not over friends, that is a sure bet, it's just a when and where game now, if you'd feel better about fighting an insurgency here in the U.S. just give it time. Obviously they can bring it here.

#39 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:21 am

Kyocera wrote:You guys are right there is no tali ban, there is no jihad, al qaeda, bin ladin, Sadaam Husein was just a really really misunderstood wonderful man.

Virtually all the people I know, whether they be for or against the war in Iraq, are aware of the threat that Al Quaeda and its Taliban allies pose to the United States. Nobody is claiming Saddam Hussein is a wonderful man either. I find it extremely irritating that people assume that those who are against the Iraq war think Saddam is a nice man. Everyone knows he mistreated (to put it mildly) the citizens of Iraq. That's

The many americans getting their heads cut off (oh you guys didn't see those videos did you, search the Ogrish.com beheading archive) never happened. There should be no proactive steps toward protecting this country, we should wait until some more people get blown apart in one of our cities, then I guarantee you'll be the first ones blaming someone, either the police, the military, the current administration.

There's a difference between taking proactive steps to protect the US, and full blown invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the bombing of US embassies in Africa.

The US should secure its borders, screen immigrants and cargo, and work with allied nations to detect and dismantle terror networks. Attacking countries that are contained or don't threaten the US just takes resources and people away from the real fight.

Of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, NONE of them were Iraqis.

These attacks are not over friends, that is a sure bet, it's just a when and where game now, if you'd feel better about fighting an insurgency here in the U.S. just give it time. Obviously they can bring it here.

This is unrealistic. Given proper screening of immigrants and cargo, it should be easy to keep out undesirable persons. Any Islamic extremists foolish enough to attempt to start an Iraq-style insurgency in any part of the US would be facing off against a heavily armed and extremely hostile civilian populace. For example, if they walked into North Philadelphia or Camden, they'd be shot just for looking at the wrong people the wrong way.

I don't have a problem with fighting terrorism. I just believe that Iraq was the wrong target. There were no WMD in Iraq, no ties to Al Queda, and no ties to 9/11 hijackers.

#40 Post by **Kyocera** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:53 am

This is unrealistic. Given proper screening of immigrants and cargo, it should be easy to keep out undesirable persons. Any Islamic extremists foolish enough to attempt to start an Iraq-style insurgency in any part of the US would be facing off against a heavily armed and extremely hostile civilian populace. For example, if they walked into North Philadelphia or Camden, they'd be shot just for looking at the wrong people the wrong way.

I don't have a problem with fighting terrorism. I just believe that Iraq was the wrong target. There were no WMD in Iraq, no ties to Al Queda, and no ties to 9/11 hijackers.

About %10 - %15 percent of all cargo coming in via sea port is inspected/x-rayed, whatever (if you believe the 60 minutes story steve croft did a while back, where he interviewed the port authority employees) that's a real drop in the bucket. People are smuggled in this way. I'm not sure what you consider Weapons of Mass Destruction, but there were huge caches of chemical weapons in Iraq (Sadaam used them on his own people), and warheads to deploy them. Chemical weapons are about as nasty as it gets, they are designed for mass casualties, not like bullets.

Good to hear the people in Philly are ready for the terrorists, but I'm not sure why they should be if there is nothing to worry about.

Keep trying though

dsigma6 · #41 Post by **dsigma6** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:47 pm

K. Eng wrote:Rick Santorum - Created a dummy residence in a PA school district so that he could get reimbursements from that school district for his childrens' schooling via a cyber charter school.

Hypocrisy seems to be the foundation of his campaign, but I still won't push the button for Casey Jr.

#42 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:47 pm

Kyocera wrote: I'm not sure what you consider Weapons of Mass Destruction, but there were huge caches of chemical weapons in Iraq (Sadaam used them on his own people), and warheads to deploy them. Chemical weapons are about as nasty as it gets, they are designed for mass casualties, not like bullets.

Huge caches? The Director of National Intelligence says otherwise:

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf

500 assorted munitions containing degraded chemicals, and the possibility that other munitions might be floating out there.

The fact of the matter is that huge caches of chemical weapons were not found after the 2003 invasion was complete.

Good to hear the people in Philly are ready for the terrorists, but I'm not sure why they should be if there is nothing to worry about.

Philadelphia is awash in small arms and ammunition, most of it illicit. In the poor areas of the city, this has become a problem as gang members and others are willing to pull weapons to settle arguments. People aren't carrying weapons to fend off terrorists - they're carrying weapons unfortunately for the purpose of threatening those who disrespect them. Any "insurgent" wandering around territory that belongs to a gang would probably be warned off or shot at.

#43 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:58 pm

dsigma6 wrote:
K. Eng wrote:Rick Santorum - Created a dummy residence in a PA school district so that he could get reimbursements from that school district for his childrens' schooling via a cyber charter school.
Hypocrisy seems to be the foundation of his campaign, but I still won't push the button for Casey Jr.

Casey is a strange character -- he's virtually the same as Santorum on gun control and abortion, but he is fairly liberal on economic and environmental issues.

I'd vote for a Libertarian candidate if there was one. I don't especially favor Casey, but I'd rather have him in office than Santorum.

#44 Post by **Kyocera** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:16 pm

K. Eng:

Huge caches? The Director of National Intelligence says otherwise:

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf

500 assorted munitions containing degraded chemicals, and the possibility that other munitions might be floating out there.

The fact of the matter is that huge caches of chemical weapons were not found after the 2003 invasion was complete.

Wow, I thought there were no weapons of mass destruction at all found anywhere

dsigma6 · #45 Post by **dsigma6** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:08 pm

Kyocera wrote:Wow, I thought there were no weapons of mass destruction at all found anywhere

Just stuff left over from the 80's..

This conversation has been repeated nearly every day, on every news channel...You guys haven't had enough of it?

edit: Oh goody, my obscure signature has found relevance in this thread!

#46 Post by **Kyocera** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:15 pm

Dan

This conversation has been repeated nearly every day, on every news channel...You guys haven't had enough of it?

I'm completely sick of it

and politic's in general right now. Luckily there's beer.

#47 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:44 pm

Kyocera wrote:Wow, I thought there were no weapons of mass destruction at all found anywhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

The government concluded as much. 500 munitions from the pre-1991 war that are degraded beyond the ability to be used can hardly be considered WMD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Surve ... rt_Addenda

In January 2005 the group announced the conclusion of its search. The ISG stated that while it had "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003," they acknowledged "the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

#48 Post by **K. Eng** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:48 pm

dsigma6 wrote:This conversation has been repeated nearly every day, on every news channel...You guys haven't had enough of it?

edit: Oh goody, my obscure signature has found relevance in this thread!

No, I haven't had enough of it yet. Not until this war is ended, and this country puts more resources into fighting the real terrorists.

#49 Post by **BillMorrow** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:55 am

K. Eng wrote:Since the US midterm elections are next week, I was thinking about the current political divide in the US.

Is there common ground anymore?

I support same-sex marraige (or at least civil unions). Many of my friends do not, based on religious grounds. I've debated the issue based on legal principles and logic, with no success.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but I want the Iraq campaign to end soon. I know people who insist that Iraq was a terrorist haven before the war. My congressman, Curt Weldon, insists that WMD were in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary.

I welcome new immigrants, so long as they arrive legally and want to participate in a free society. Some of my friends don't care if illegals stream accross the border. Some of my friends hate the new Hispanic immigrants simply b/c they are not white and speak Spanish, even though these immigrants work hard and contribute to society.

I can't ever remember a time when I felt so divided from people of different opinions. Many of these people I've known for a long time, and they are good people generally, but I can't help but feel contempt for what I perceive as their ignorance.

These are troubled times.

my thoughts:

i am a middle of the road, non-theocratic, reasonable and fair minded ike/ronnie republican..

gay marriage..? are you KIDDING ME..?

they have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages..

i FULLY support embryonic stem cell research..
also cloning research and i am pro-choice..

i do not like war but i like less bowing toward mecca five times daily.. thus i support winning in iraq and the middle east..
i do NOT feel we must impose western democracy on everyone..
i feel we MUST finish the job in iraq.. pottery barn..! we broke it and now we own it..

if we allow dissention now it will be another vietnam and iran / syria will rule..
per Teddy R., walk softly and carry a big stick..

i think there should be a work permit program for mexicans and canadians but no "anchor baby" automatic citizenships..
and no amnesty..

i also hope that all voters will vote for the man rather than vote the "party line" except nov. 7th.. don't let charlie and nancy get control.. because teddy and john K come along with them..

one more thought..
the lyrics from a popular song of the early 20th century..

name: God Bless America..

"stand beside her and guide her, thru the night with the light from above"

which means to me NOT complain but offer up a better plan if you have one..
otherwise, like the miranda warning goes: "you have the right to remain silent".. use it..! don't give aid and comfort to the enemy..
don't become another "hanoi jane"..

#50 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:31 am

I don't support abortion unless it's in the case of rape or eminent death. If purposely killing a baby outside the womb is murder; even if it's premature, the what makes it different inside the womb? If a person doesn't want a baby, then she needs to either not fool around or at least be responsible enough to excercize birth control measures. Beside, what's worse: taking a pill and having your parter wear rubber or having some doctor whom you've just recently met poking around your naughty bits with a coat hanger? (okay, that's exagerated but none the less, my point stays the same)

I support stem cell research. As long as abortion is legal, we might as well keep the discarded fetuses from going to waste and get those stem cells. However, I beleve the industry should be closely watched to prevent the advent of a bigger black market and doctors who make livings on trying to force women into abortions.

An issue not mentioned is organ donation. I think that selling organs should be legal. It's legal to give an organ. It's legal for a group of doctors to make money putting that organ to use. In essence, the only person on the giving side who doesn't get any compensation is the donor himself. I believe the legalization of organ sale would shorten waiting lines, help people in need of money and overall have a positive effect on the medical system. The main argument against organ sales is that homeless people will sale organs in mass but how exactly is that bad? The bum needs money and some poor sap in a bed needs an organ; win win situation!

As for the war, let's just call it "preventative maintenance" but the start is not totally relevant now. We need to focus on finishing the job and making Iraq safe in the future and keeping the terrorists out of our country. After we've finished that job, then we can focus on how to avoid these situations in the future. Babbering on and on about the killings or whatever is getting us nowhere. When it comes down to it, if deaths in a war surprise you, then you're just plain ignorant.

As I've already stated, I think the government has better ways to spend the money they've forced me to giv them than to worry about gay marriage. If it must be discussed, let it be at the local level.

For immigrants, if you can't get a green card, learn English and pay taxes, you should have no rights. I am, however, in favor of programs in which an immigrant can work to become a citizen but I would still want the program to require he become fluent in English and pay taxes once he's on his own. Our country's official language is English and that's what most people speak here so if you want to be active in the workforce, you must accept the fact that you can't get everyone around you to adapt to your specific need. You also need to accept that if you aren't a citizen, you have no right to ask for benefits from the government at no cost when that same government charges for them to tax paying citizens.

As for voting, I still keep my original statement because simply saying no to one person still leaves room for another crappy person to fill the void. It's important to have your game plan made and your specifics set straight.

christopher_wolf · #51 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:45 am

AlphaKilo470 wrote: I support stem cell research. As long as abortion is legal, we might as well keep the discarded fetuses from going to waste and get those stem cells. However, I beleve the industry should be closely watched to prevent the advent of a bigger black market and doctors who make livings on trying to force women into abortions.

I would like to see some evidence backing up the claim of doctors forcing women to have abortions for their monetary gain. That's more than just a little far-fetched.

One of the problems with selling organs is simply the enticement aspect of the monetary gains; which means that poor people could start selling their organs to earn money. In most of the medical world proper, that isn't really considered squeaky clean.

#52 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:14 am

The ways cars and electronics are sold isn't always squeaky clean. As long as the organs themselves are clean and the person knows what they are doing, it should be fine. If I'm breathing what might be my final breaths of air in a hospital bed and listed on an organ waiting list or if I'm a healthy (enough) street bum who wants to try turning things around but needs some money or somewhere in between, I really don't want legislated morality in my way. Besides, the hospitals, doctors and other middle men are already making money from the organ so why does the donor have to get stuck in the shorts?

As for the doctors forcing women into anything, I'm not saying that's happening but it's a possibility if things are allowed to go out of hand.

christopher_wolf · #53 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:19 am

AlphaKilo470 wrote: As for the doctors forcing women into anything, I'm not saying that's happening but it's a possibility if things are allowed to go out of hand.

And I am saying that is pretty far fetched to begin with given that just about all doctors are not into that at all. Period. It isn't as if it is the Consultant industry that is making to look make a quick buck off prolonging the problem and then leaking out the solution slowly to extract money; that isn't the idea behind medicine and health care. It is pretty disturbing to me that something like that seems to be a forced misconception upon a growing number of people. So much so that it becomes a pretty low insult to those in the medical and health care professions who already work hard enough.

#54 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:26 am

I'm not trying to go with any mis perceptions here and I don't intend to insult anyone. I'm just saying that that some bunches have a bad apple or two. Wouldn't it be naive to think that 100% of the people in an area are totally good? Liability insurance would have a much lower profit margin if that was the case but this is starting to get off topic. I advise that if you want to continue this conversation, we split into a new thread.

christopher_wolf · #55 Post by **christopher_wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:33 am

Ehhh, I am not interested in going OT for just that even though there has been more back-and-forths than just that, especially on the Iraq war and those are still in the thread. I can't see how that is going Off-Topic given the amorphous thread topic.

Bad apples are one thing, bad medical practice is quite another and is far more serious. Until I have seen actual malpractice cases that demonstrate a trend of abortion doctors forcing women into it, it remains un-proven.

dsigma6 · #56 Post by **dsigma6** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:33 am

AlphaKilo470 wrote:Our country's official language is English

While I agree with your sentiments, English is not officially the language...Though it certainly should be.

JHEM · #57 Post by **JHEM** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:31 am

The war in Iraq is being fought for one reason and one reason only, Bush's vanity! There is no, nor has there ever been, political, military or moral justification for US troops being in Iraq. The "reasons" put forth by the current administration to support the war were based on outright lies and deceit.

If the US government truly wanted to punish the nation that was home to the majority of the 9/11 terrorists, and also the nation that establishes and funds the schools worldwide that teach terrorism masked as Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism, they should have invaded Saudi Arabia!

George W. Bush is the Slobodan Milošević of the 21st Century! If there is any real justice in this world, Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, et. al.) will eventually find themselves before the Hague facing trial as war criminals and for crimes against humanity.

How many innocent Iraqi civilians have to die before Bush has his pound of flesh? The 30,000 he so cavalierly bandies about as the total civilian death toll? The 50,000 reported by the Iraqi Ministry of Health?

Rather than a source of national pride, the Iragi "War" should be seen as a national embarassment for which ALL US citizens should feel shamed.

Want to support our troops? BRING THEM HOME! There is NO valid, reasonable justification for the death of even one US serviceperson in Iraq, let alone the thousands that have already died.

But now, like Brer Fox and the tar baby, we're so deeply committed to supporting the current Iraqi administration and we've so completely disrupted the country that leaving would result in civil war that would lead to Iraq's complete demise as a national entity.

It's all sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors to keep us distracted from the real problems in the world and the USA that the Bush administration can't, or won't, address:

Nuclear arms in North Korea!

Iran develioping nuclear arms and calling for the elimination of Israel!

Genocide in Darfur!

Our inability to secure our borders!

The "dumbing down" of our schools!

The tax burden imposed on the American middle class for the benefit of the wealthy.

[/rant]

James

dsigma6 · #58 Post by **dsigma6** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:03 am

JHEM wrote:George W. Bush is the Slobodan Milošević of the 21st Century!

I don't think your first amendment rights cover that statement, at least not if Bush decides to change them.

edit: I just spoke with my Father who said he voted straight ticket...I asked him why he didn't vote for so-and-so, and he said they're losers...He's not the most informed voter, but his attitude reflects ignorance (Sorry Dad!) that we need to get past. I wish they could show 30 second spots on TV that just listed the issues, instead of avoiding them and talking about "macaca" comments and tie-ins with the mob.

DIGITALgimpus · #59 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:27 pm

K. Eng wrote:Howard Stern is a really crude person, but I've heard him interviewed on public radio (I think it was either Fresh Air or Radio Times on 91FM), and he's a surprisingly thoughtful guy.

Many like to forget this, but he is a professional broadcaster. On 9/11 he was widely considered to have given the best informational radio broadcast on the air. It's considered by many to be a hallmark of good radio news.

Just because they guy has a crude sense of humor, doesn't mean he's incapable of being anything else.

George Carlin is similarly criticized the same way. Yet he can get very intellectual when he wants and use it to offend and make his audience feel insecure.

Foolish people try to act smart. Smart people try to appear foolish to let others reveal themselves.

DIGITALgimpus · #60 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:30 pm

Kyocera wrote: About %10 - %15 percent of all cargo coming in via sea port is inspected/x-rayed, whatever (if you believe the 60 minutes story steve croft did a while back, where he interviewed the port authority employees) that's a real drop in the bucket. People are smuggled in this way. I'm not sure what you consider Weapons of Mass Destruction, but there were huge caches of chemical weapons in Iraq (Sadaam used them on his own people), and warheads to deploy them. Chemical weapons are about as nasty as it gets, they are designed for mass casualties, not like bullets.

Don't forget almost 0% of airline cargo is inspected before boarding. You could hide pretty much anything in a FedEx package. And the right people could use it to smuggle things onto the tarmac, right past airport security. Or go the old fashion method with an explosive device.

Bottom line: despite hundreds of millions of dollars and the best minds in government they can't keep weapons out of maximum security prisons. They can't do it for airplanes. It's just fact. Debating this is just stupid.

US mid-term elections and the political divide

Re: US mid-term elections and the political divide

Who is online