I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Racial Profiling in airports
-
"The problem is that such a system doesn’t exist in America. Now I would support your Israeli system. However, it should not just be applied to blacks (when driving cars) or Arabs (when riding airplanes). This should be similar to the National Instant Check (as a member of the NRA you should know this). Instant Checks require only a few minutes, and they are the most comprehensive checks ever run on firearm purchasers, superior to any conducted under waiting periods. "
That’s a good idea…i think in Israel if you pass the background check, then you carry a card and you can go through security.
“* = What we may call “hard” profiling uses race as the only factor in assessing criminal suspiciousness: an officer sees a black person and, without more to go on, pulls him over for a pat-down on the chance that he may be carrying drugs or weapons.”
That’s bull crap. I cannot say I am pro that. Now if that man looks like a man they are looking for, than ok…but total random? Hell no…walking in the street isn’t a threat to society.
" “Soft” racial profiling is using race as one factor among others in gauging criminal suspiciousness: the highway police, for example, have intelligence that Jamaican drug posses with a fondness for Nissan Pathfinders are transporting marijuana along a section of the northeast corridor. A New Jersey trooper sees a black motorist speeding in a Pathfinder and pulls him over in the hope of finding drugs.“”
Well I’m for the legalization of drugs, but for the sake of debate i’ll say this…Now if the statistics are overwhelming, as in that overwhelming that it would be worth wasting the time tearing up a car, then do it. I don’t have the numbers so I could not tell you if that act would be justified. If numbers tell you that it is “smart” to check this kind of profile, then I say do it. For instance, if after the Oklahoma city bombing, a bunch of more Ryder trucks full of bombs all white militia dudes, pulling those trucks over are essential. You follow me?
-
Yeah, I can agree with you on that about hard and soft profiling. :wink: You can’t be completely color blind in that case of soft profiling where you know when and where the hitch is taking place.
-
Yes I agree…
looks like we brought peace to this thread w/;out spilling any blood ;)
unless Falk is coming!
-
case closed! 8)
-
boooo Horten!!!
I agreed to Moses in his opinion even before he had to coin the terms of hard and soft profiling….
cuts his finger and here is the blood shed :) :)
-
yeah whatever! :roll:
You just want to disagree with me, and make me look like a racist! :o
-
haha, that’s the funniest darn thing I ever heard :lol:
-
That tops all the dumb things i say???
-
That and saying Ike was a bad president double ouch :wink:
-
tell me how he was so great!
-
#1: After the inauguration, it soon became clear that Eisenhower’s policy was not to go on the offensive in the Korean War, but to end it.
#2: Eisenhower was able to secure an armistice with N. Korea and China without the use of nuclear weapons, which might’ve brought about WWIII.
#3: Advised against Vietnam, knowing what consequences it held. But was favorable to the path of Containment to stop flow of “Reds.”
#4: Didn’t send troops to Hungary knowing it might result in WWIII (for an army general he was quite dovish). He believed that Communism was a bad system that would someday collapse on its own. (Even I have to agree with him against those Soviets)
#5: Turned down recommendations by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he launch a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviets while the United States still had more atomic bombs. (Yeah, I guess preventing nuclear annihilation is a sign of a good president)
#6: First president to involve the United States in Middle Eastern politics. Supported Egypt in subsequent war with embargo on NATO allies (!). Rejected such gunboat diplomacy.
#7: Eisenhower supported other countries in Africa and Asia as they struggled to win their independence. (You like this part Horten, he rejected claims to help the French try to put down Algerian independence)Good sized list. Only covers foreign policy in first term. Like to go into domestic policy?
Eisenhower may not be best president, but it’s wrong putting him on the same level as that damnedYankee Grant. He helped prevent nuclear war on more than one occasion.
-
his advisors did most of his thinking…kinda like regan. when the most important ones died in the end of his administration, he stopped really doing anything!
-
Eisenhower was a good president. :) An vital part of presidency is choosing the right administrators for the correct cabinet positions. Don’t forget that George Washington had to appoint his own staff because he could not commit to being everywhere at one. None of this was ever written in the United States Constitution; nevertheless Mr. Washington knew the tough challenges governing a entire nation would bring. Imagine how much more presidents have to oversee today.
-
Profiling should be done by country of birth.
-
Profiling should be done by country of birth.
And Ike should have saved hungary.
-
“his advisors did most of his thinking…kinda like regan.”
How could this be considered bad thing? Really would you like someone like Bush (Jr.) running most of the country or his competent, capable secretaries and administrators?
“Eisenhower was a good president. An vital part of presidency is choosing the right administrators for the correct cabinet positions. Don’t forget that George Washington had to appoint his own staff because he could not commit to being everywhere at one. None of this was ever written in the United States Constitution; nevertheless Mr. Washington knew the tough challenges governing a entire nation would bring. Imagine how much more presidents have to oversee today.”
Well, it nice to see someone agree, even if it does happen to be TM. Choosing the right Cabinet is key to any president, just look an Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and Jimmy Carter for those who didn’t.
“Profiling should be done by country of birth.”
I can’t really agree with this statement here.
“And Ike should have saved hungary.”
Sure, Ike could’ve send in troops into Hungary, but in a period of high tensions, that probably would’ve led to World War III right then and there. Again, in Vietnam and Korea, Americans didn’t go up against Russian troops (except for Volunteers and Weapons expertise), but a war against the Soviets themselves could’ve triggered nuclear devastation. Especially, if the Military Planners planned to launched pre-emptive first strike attacks, which they were planning to do.
Suggested Topics
