RkFast Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Whats the over/under AFTER a terrorist attack at an NFL event DEMANDING why there arent "more stringent securitym easures in place"? I say three seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I doubt it. 509333[/snapback] Doubt it all you want, but I was. Just because a stadium attack hasn't happened in America--yet--doesn't mean it hasn't happened anywhere else. If it's something we can protect ourselves against, and it's a minimal intrusion on our liberty (we are still talking about an extra fifteen minutes in line as the sacrifice, right?), why not? Hey, what if at Atlanta 1996 or Munich 1972 the security actually checked the folks walking into the Olympic Village? Doesn't seem like such a horrible idea now, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 And you know this how...? http://www.ucomics.com/cornered/2005/11/18/ CW 509330[/snapback] That cartoon was entertaining & makes a great point: I agree, a lot of supposed security measures lull us into a false sense of security. However, while stadium security checks may not provide all the security we'd ever want, the checks do provide some added measure. So unless one is incredibly impatient (15 minutes?!) or is trying to sneak in alcohol 'cause he's cheap (see my earlier post on that), I think the tradeoff of mild inconvenience on a Sunday afternoon for _some_ security is better than no security. Cf. my earlier post re: Atlanta and Munich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 That cartoon was entertaining & makes a great point: I agree, a lot of supposed security measures lull us into a false sense of security. However, while stadium security checks may not provide all the security we'd ever want, the checks do provide some added measure. So unless one is incredibly impatient (15 minutes?!) or is trying to sneak in alcohol 'cause he's cheap (see my earlier post on that), I think the tradeoff of mild inconvenience on a Sunday afternoon for _some_ security is better than no security. Cf. my earlier post re: Atlanta and Munich. 509847[/snapback] The checks provide *NO EXTRA SECURITY,* that's my point. If they did, fine, go for it. But they don't and, as pointed out by a previous poster, could actually do more harm than good since a terrorist can easily do something to the crowd of people waiting to get into the gate. So not only are they costing taxpayer dollars, not only are they an intrusion into personal liberties, but they don't improve security one ioota. THAT'S why I'm against them. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Doubt it all you want, but I was. Good thing there's a lot of people who agree with you. It's also nice to see the government protecting Kentucky's bingo halls. I was starting to worry about terrorists playing bingo. http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4019597 CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Good thing there's a lot of people who agree with you. It's also nice to see the government protecting Kentucky's bingo halls. I was starting to worry about terrorists playing bingo. http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4019597 CW 510046[/snapback] After reading that, I'm more concerned about who will protect us from the Kentuckians. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambler Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Good thing there's a lot of people who agree with you. It's also nice to see the government protecting Kentucky's bingo halls. I was starting to worry about terrorists playing bingo. http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4019597 CW 510046[/snapback] What's next? The Girls Scouts being accused of money laundering for terrorists? It's nice to know the US Constitution is being used for a doormat the last 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I have actually found it easier to sneak beers into the stadium with the new pat-down rules. Before, they would see four guys in their mid-to-upper 20's entering the stadium, and they would give us the body search, checking every waistband, armpit, pocket, hat, and sock. Now it is a quick one-two around the midsection and you are good to go. Before they had more time to "profile" the suspicious beer drinkers and give them some extra attention. Now, with everyone getting a taste, it seems like they just want to give you a quick pat and keep the line moving along. Hooray security!!! Please note, I don't sneak beers in because I want to get absolutely creamed. I enjoy having a beer with the game, so why leave some cold ones in the cooler in the lot and pay $7.50 inside when you can bring the cold ones with you? I was out in LA all week before heading down to SD for the Bills game, and I went to the USC-Fresno St game Saturday night. The LA Coliseum decided not to sell alcohol this year for the first time. I never realized how much I enjoyed having a brewski while at a game. I found my hand in the shape of holding a can, only to look down in horror when I remembered my hand was empty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Somebody needs to go back to school and learn about their country. 507627[/snapback] Really. That had to be satire...no? Could ANYONE be ignorant enough to type "People think they have the right to change the Constitution, but they don't" and believe it? Sheesh. Bettere kill those pesky amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Really. That had to be satire...no? Could ANYONE be ignorant enough to type "People think they have the right to change the Constitution, but they don't" and believe it? Sheesh. Bettere kill those pesky amendments. 511369[/snapback] Around here, it's hard to tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 If you don't like it, you don't have to go to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 If you don't like it, you don't have to go to the game. 511630[/snapback] BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, one of America’s founding fathers, wrote that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I bet Mr. Franklin was an idiot too though, right? EDIT: I'm not saying you called me an idiot for my beliefs, although others in this (and the previous) thread have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, one of America’s founding fathers, wrote that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I bet Mr. Franklin was an idiot too though, right? 511636[/snapback] I'm actually kind of curious to hear what Franklin would think on this subject. Since it's not the government performing the "pat downs" I'm not sure he'd have a big problem with it. I agree with your premise, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I'm actually kind of curious to hear what Franklin would think on this subject. Since it's not the government performing the "pat downs" I'm not sure he'd have a big problem with it. I agree with your premise, though. 511638[/snapback] Good point, although I don't believe that business can impose whatever rules they want either (as others have said in this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, one of America’s founding fathers, wrote that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I bet Mr. Franklin was an idiot too though, right? EDIT: I'm not saying you called me an idiot for my beliefs, although others in this (and the previous) thread have. 511636[/snapback] This offends me, why are they calling you an idiot, and not me! Well, I agree with Mr. Franklin, but I'm really not thinking about my own safety. To those of you out there with kids (I dont have one)- would you like it just to be even a bit safer for them to be there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Good point, although I don't believe that business can impose whatever rules they want either (as others have said in this thread). 511641[/snapback] Blame the lawyers - it's really their fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 do they mind the hunter that has his rifle in the gun rack in the truck rear window . you can not bring that gun on to school property . would they stop you from bring it in to the parking lot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 you can not bring that gun on to school property One of the places you're most likely to need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 lots of problems in the albany schools . albany NY 64th most dangerous city to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 but the pat downs DO NOTHING to improve safety. All it does is stop beer smuggling. ......Which is probably the REAL reason that they follow through with the friggin' pat downs.... Not all the time. Three years ago I snuck in seven beers to Arrowhead Stadium. I had two in each pocket, two in my belt and one under my stocking cap. My hat was totally in the shape of a beer, I was just too drunk to care. I got patted down and still walked into the game with every beer. That is proof they are a waste of time. None the less walking in to the stadium with a beer shaped stocking hat was still pretty funny. Good times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts