From: Mxsmanic on
BubbaGump writes:

> I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, but if it is then just
> discard the term "right-wing conservative" and suggest a better one.
> I'm basically talking about the type of person who likes to restrict
> the freedom of other people.

There are just as many liberals who want to do that as conservatives.

In fact, most people in positions of authority want to control others and
limit their freedoms. That's what attracts them to positions of authority.
Such positions, by their very nature, attract all the control freaks in the
world. Politics and law enforcement are typical domains that fall under this
heading.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on
BubbaGump writes:

> Heightened airport security
> restricts our ability to carry things on board and frees out ability
> to remain alive.

Well, that's half-right. It restricts our ability to carry things on board.

> Lowered airport security frees our ability to carry
> things on board and restricts our ability to remain alive.

It all depends on what kind of security it is. Unfortunately, the emphasis is
almost always on bogus security--the kind that is highly visible and
bothersome--and almost never on _effective_ security, the kind that is
discreet and effective.

> There is one important difference: choice. I'm not sure if
> "conservative" or "liberal" are the right words, but there are two
> types of people. One type leans towards restricting the freedom of
> the individual because this type thinks they know better, while the
> other leans towards freeing the individual to choose his or own
> destiny.

Not so. The only difference I've seen is that conservatives readily admit
that they want to control others because they think they know best, whereas
liberals claim that they need to control others "for the common good," which,
by a strange coincidence, always exactly matches what the liberals want people
to do.

> I would like it if we had the choice of an airline or two
> with really low security restrictions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Newby on

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam(a)crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:0shl13ho23nbeb5j9ddeso5bh8rm4d96h7(a)4ax.com...
> In message <131laprne3jn155(a)corp.supernews.com> "Newby"
> <nobody(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam(a)crazyhat.net> wrote in message
> >news:4btk13lvpuphcid28vgq4jd1v06epcqvgo(a)4ax.com...
> >> In message <blrk139hcjr69u6pnnbvafbqica9tj9ks6(a)4ax.com> BubbaGump
> >> <BubbaGump(a)localhost> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hotel bars of soap are small, and if they're the wrong brand then they
> >> >might irritate my skin. I like my soap. Will I be suspected as a
> >> >terrorist if I try to carry-on soap?
> >>
> >> Why not check it?
> >>
> >> Chances are not, but if you approach them up front and say "is this
> >> allowed" rather then look like you're sneaking it, the worst that will
> >> happen is that you'll be asked to discard it.
> >> --
> >> Insert something clever here.
> >
> >A bar of soap in a sock makes a rather formidable weapon; much like a
> >leather 'sap'.
>
> Or a pen.
> --

Or a tightly rolled magazine, or a compact disc (CD), or a long bootlace, or
anyone of a dozen or so things that pass, unnoticed, by TSA everyday.



From: Mxsmanic on
Newby writes:

> Or a tightly rolled magazine, or a compact disc (CD), or a long bootlace, or
> anyone of a dozen or so things that pass, unnoticed, by TSA everyday.

You'd think that with so many convicted felons working for TSA, they'd be able
recognize the potentially dangerous stuff more easily.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: DevilsPGD on
In message <131lr0gh0kjed8b(a)corp.supernews.com> "Newby"
<nobody(a)nowhere.net> wrote:

>Or a tightly rolled magazine,

You don't even have to sneak these through security, the airline will
provide one free of charge if you forget.
--
Insert something clever here.