no need, Bander was right that I need smiley thingies. I was being ironic, that's all. Profiling the majority of American citizens? No, I really do not advocate that.

I do not fear nor hate white Christian males, just pointing out my fear of unlimited powers to "check out" private citizens due to things that make Paul scared.

However, without research (I try to NOT google) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there have been maybe a few dozen deaths on our soil due to terrorist activities, but maybe several times that amount from " safe" looking citizens who went off their meds...

but my point is even that is not enough for me to desire profiling of either group.

frankj1 wrote:

^ with your mom.

ZRX1200 wrote:

How do you sleep at night, Paul?

banderl wrote:

Are you now Paul's mouthpiece?

banderl wrote:

to further clarify, I was referring to not googling the answer to how many terrorist related deaths on our soil since 9/11 vs deaths caused by equally crazed white Christian males here since that date...I think we both know the answer to that one too, and it isn't going to make the case that you want look good, ie to profile coffee-light skinned Americans. Yet I am not seriously calling to do it to white male Christians, I was lampooning the concept of allowing the police to do so to any group, and asking for you to explain why not do your profiling to the far more life-threatening group if you must do it at all? I mean, if profiling saves lives, then at least limit it to the ones doing the most killing, no?

My concern is that we rushed and continue to rush into a police state begun with Homeland...not started by a liberal fool btw, but probably the fool you voted for twice...and sold the idea by promising security.

I have no need to further break things down in an easier way for you to digest as long as you are unable to refrain from immature name calling if a fellow American with the same rights as you dares to differ in opinion.

If you can maintain dignity, I'll be at the grown up table...

frankj1 wrote:

Yes I voted for him twice....and with the Dems record it was an EASY decision to make. Do I agree with the creation of Homeland Security?.....NO especially the politically correct way in which it was implemented!!! I have a question for you, if a white male 6'4 and 250 commits a robbery murder do you put all your resources looking for a Black male who's 5'10 and 175? Grown up table.....that's rich. Lmao

TMCTLT wrote:

glad you laughed, was trying to be funny.

The answer is, no. i would not look for a small Black male (blackmail?) I would not put all my resources into any single "type" search either.

In return, let me ask you this: if there seems to be a faaaar greater chance of being shot in a mall, restaurant, theater etc by a white mass murderer than by a "middle east ethnicy looking guy", why would you profile the mid east guy and not the white guy?


Here in flyover USA we're allowed (and do carry) to protect ourselves and others and while doing so send a BIG mssg to thumpers that these are NOT SOFT TARGETS where you can commit crimes trouble free.....


My answer is I don't like the precedent of profiling at all, especially based on how it has worked historically elsewhere in countries from which many of our citizens already fled.

So you prefer the alternative approach that IS used ( make excuses for their behavior and flat out lie ) about their motives when the Nadal Hassan's of the World do their EVIL? After all this is only....work place violence :-"

Didn't like my first famous quote from a great American? Try new Hampshire's...Live Free or Die

frankj1 wrote:

Profiling is OK sometimes and in some circumstances. I'm glad when they kill the bad guy - no drawn out trial and publicity.

tonygraz wrote:

Keep talking like that and the groupthink might actually start liking you.

Thunder.Gerbil wrote:

Make that five killed. USN petty officer Randall Smith passed away Saturday morning.

99cobra2881 wrote:

exactly my reaction! TonyG currying favor?

frankj1 wrote: