Re: Cell Phone Jammers are Illegal in USA

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On May 12, 10:01=EF=BF=BDpm, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "Jim" wrote:
>
> >> Did you ever wonder what would happen if you answered, "No?"
>
> > I'm of a mind that it doesn't bother me if they want to inspect my bagg=
age
> > of anything that they want to inspect. I'd rather they put me through t=
he
> > minor inconvenience of checking my stuff so that they just might discov=
er
> > something dangerous in someone else's stuff. If they're going to let me
> > though with out checking me out, that means there's a greater possibili=
ty
> > that someone will get through with something they're not supposed to ha=
ve.
>
> Absolutely agree. =EF=BF=BDI fealt that way long before 9/11. =EF=BF=BDMa=
ny years ago when I
> first started college I got a part time job doing campus security. =EF=BF=
=BDOne day I
> saw a guy using a coat hanger to open a car window so I questioned him. =
=EF=BF=BDHe
> said it was his car. =EF=BF=BDWhen I asked for ID he got angry so I asked=
, "Suppose
> someone else was messing with your car. =EF=BF=BDWould you want me to que=
stion them?"
> He took out his driver's license and student ID (with a somewhat better
> attitude).
>
> > Terrorist thrive on the fact that US citizens demand their freedom to d=
o
> > what ever they want to do...
>
> I don't know how true that is. =EF=BF=BDTerrorists strike more frequently=
 in places
> where their freedom is far more curtailed than in the USA. =EF=BF=BDWhen =
they do
> strike, marginal security gives them an edge. =EF=BF=BDThat is why we nee=
d to actually
> DO something about our security -- not just talk about it while giving ou=
t
> $billions in no-bid contracts to pals of Bush / Cheney. =EF=BF=BDFortunat=
ely, with the
> recent arrival of adult supervision in Washington, all that is about to
> change.
>
> > Mankinds natural state is to be free. And that's a good thing. But that
> > presumes that there is no bad intentions to do free people any harm. =
=EF=BF=BDThat's
> > the loophole. How do we remain free yet keep people who would use that
> > freedom to harm us? I
>
> don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to inspectio=
ns
> then demand my "rights".
>
> Yep. =EF=BF=BDAs long as the person doing the inspection isn't doing so w=
ith unmerited
> malice toward me, I'm fine with a little inconvenience. =EF=BF=BDI just r=
esent the use
> of "terrorism" as an excuse to bully people based on race. =EF=BF=BDThat'=
s why I can't
> stand the kind of crap that people like Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Glen=
n
> Beck and Michelle Malkin spread like maneur on the breakfast table.
>
> > My rights will still be there if I need them but during these times, th=
e
> > enemies of this country are at least on guard.
>
> There's another side to that argument, Jim. =EF=BF=BDI think the famous F=
ranklin
> saying goes, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." =EF=BF=BDI cherish=
 my privacy
> enough to resent like hell the idea that Bush ordered his minions to list=
en to
> my phone conversations and those of millions of other US citizens. =EF=BF=
=BDBefore we
> defend this as a measure to protect America, remember that the eavesdropp=
ing
> specifically targeted members of political groups who opposed Bush but we=
re
> never in any way thought to be possible terrorists. =EF=BF=BDThe previous
> administration was worse than Nixon. =EF=BF=BDObama can check my bags at =
the airport
> if he wants. =EF=BF=BDBush should have had his bags checked for stolen si=
lverware when
> he left the White House.
>
> > Those that have nothing to hide ummmm have nothing to hide ... and as
> > inadaquate as shat they do might seem, it's better than pre 9/11 and it
> > could be a lot more restrictive than it is.
> > Ver ar yough pepperrs.? =EF=BF=BDHugh kinnot crodss de borderr widout y=
ough
> > pepperrs!!!
>
> But sir, we *cook everything* with peppers!!! =EF=BF=BD:^)
>
> --
>
I specifically responded to your post in a non political way.

You know I disagree with you on political matters.

As a matter of fact most of the people who frequent this group
disagree with you on politics.

And you know that.

I said that I wouldn't talk about matters political and so did you.

I haven't.

You have.

You persist

It serves no purpose but to stoke the fire.

It's been really nice here.

Do what you will.