You're just spamming because you're angry that you don't have a response to any of the logic or facts I post. For instance, this repeated spam about how I love drugs, despite the fact that I've clearly stated I find them harmful to people's lives. Despite the fact that I've stressed how legalization/decriminalization don't increase usage rates where it's done. Despite the fact that the "drug war" costs billions, gets thousands killed, and enriches murderous drug cartels. Despite the fact that I've explained the reasons for finding the "drug war" irrational, unproductive, and harmful, you post ad hominem attacks accusing me of being a drug user.

You refuse to acknowledge the costs of the drug war. You refuse to acknowledge that drug laws don't stop people who want to abuse drugs from abusing them. You refuse to acknowledge that drug usage rates have remained the same in most nations which legalized/decriminalized and barely changed in others.

As always, on this topic as with that topic, you refuse to respond to what I've posted. There's no need to keep spamming. I've responded to you. You've refused to respond to me, presumably out of cowardice. It's here for anyone to read.

I've merely written at such length to respond to everything you've said and every point you've clumsily and illogically tried to make. I respect others, so I read what they write and respond to what they actually said. I'll heed your advice and try to 'stop writing novels' if you heed mine, stop being a coward, stop spamming, and actually respect your fellow forum posters enough to respond to what they said. So long as you respond to nothing I've said, I feel that it is necessary to try to explain it more simply, as if to a small child. It's one thing to not agree with a response. But another entirely to never get any responses, despite so much spam.

Yes, clearly the absense of attacks on a well guarded military vessel is parallel to the absence of attacks on the civilian population. Clearly, those with the intentions of terrorizing a civilian population will attack destroyers as often as they attack civilians.

(Yes, I'm aware of the Cole, but none of the rights-violating new regulations have anything to do with that or would have prevented it if they were in place at the time. The two are unrelated. Rules of engagement modifications were what the Cole needed, and they can be modified without violating anyone's rights.)

See how that works? There's no parallel. There have been barely ANY attempts at all, and not a single one of them was from a trained or funded terrorist. If the terror networks you fear so much you want to abandon the Bill of Rights to protect against are as motivated and threatening as you claim, where is the evidence of it? One attack more than a decade ago carried out by Saudis with box cutters?

You can't think of any way to defend against Saudis with box cutters beyond ignoring the law and invading nations which weren't involved in that attack? Clear thinking. Rational argumentation.

You have to argue from something at all.

Again, your requirements for evidence are laughably ridiculous. As in the case of toxins causing cancer and organ failure in rodents and small mammals, you have faith in government and the .1% chance that humans are unaffected! Nothing is evidence to you if it's not more than 99.9% conclusive proof!

No, I can't prove beyond 99.9% certainty that terrorists aren't as idiotic and brain dead as you presume they are. But despite this lack of absolute proof, we all know that they're not all as dumb as you claim. We all know that if there were thousands of terrorists, who we know have millions of dollars, determined above all else to harm us, they'd be making use of the countless other ways to harm and kill thousands of us.

But... virtually none of them are. And the very few that do try are poorly, when at all, "trained." And completely inept. Not exactly the strongest indication of a massive terror threat that warrants invading foreign nations without the means to help us. (And we don't even invade the ones with all the America haters.)

The virtually complete lack of wannabe hijackers and terrorists in general is evidence of my point. You just don't like it.

The underwear bomber was horribly "trained." Not even enough to be a threat to anyone but himself. Not exactly a justification for sexually assaulting women and children.

A TSA agent got a fake bomb through security twice. It's in the news today. More evidence that the TSA is grossly ineffective, on top the fact that terrorists have shown virtually no evidence of trying to attack more aircraft. My point isn't solely that next to nobody is trying to attack us, but also that current regulations and violations of rights are ineffective at combating attempted terrorism. You completely ignore this second part of my argument here because you embrace everything the TSA does, which is 100% ineffective at its stated goal while violating the law and subjugating the population further.

Most DHS searches are complete wastes of money, and 0 of them have ever stopped terrorism. They'd be screaming about it from rooftops if they had. You didn't get into the mess because 100% of the facts surrounding it 100% back up everything I'm stating and claiming in this thread.

You got jokes. Because you have nothing to say in response to what I actually posted.

For supposedly opposing the tyrannical authoritarianism of Obama, you neocons are quick to excuse literally any violation of lawful rights if it's supposedly in the name of security. You literally don't have one word in defense of current regulations nor agreement with my opposition to them. You literally refuse to say anything on the topic. You accept literally everything authority forces upon you in the name of security and have absolutely no thoughts concerning whether it's effective or not.

I used absolute language for clear and literal truth.

Again you're dishonest, making up claims about how I denied a "real threat" because I questioned how significant the threat is considering how rarely and how ineptly it attacks us. You ignore my questions and make false claims of what I said, because what I actually said is obviously too difficult for you to respond to.

I more than questioned TSA's measures to "protect" air traffic. They're awful and bypassed all the time. Again, you ignore this point and support ineffective and unlawful policies without response to the fact that they're not protecting anybody.

It's not a fact that new TSA sexual assaults haven't stopped a single attack? You've claimed this 3 times?

That's great. Now if you present any sort of argument, or present any sort of evidence, in support of your position, we'll be talking! Blanket "I disagree with everything you say" statements don't communicate anything but angst. You think TSA sexual assaults on Americans have stopped attacks? Based on what evidence? Why do you hold this view? You're just professing your faith.

Not in a long time. Some years ago we made a politics family, but literally everyone but Justinian I was inactive and/or horrible at the game. I was going to play a little recently, but wasn't particularly drawn in, and I don't have the time to be half as active as I used to be. I started playing during a beta round, but haven't played in a long time.

I preferred IC without the fleet-readiness type changes which changed the way the game is played more than they achieved their intended goals.

There is no problem for Kemp calling them backwards, yet david killed goliath with a rock, a slug fired from a 9mm Beretta kills as does a slug from an Ak-47. Dynamite and the recipe to make it has been aroind a hundred years or more, even a dunce can find how to make napalm on the interweb, and sophisticated attacks need not have high tech.

Ask Russia about that.

Actually navy ships are easy targets in the initial phase. Few guards are armed and they are widely dispersed. Usually you can get beneath the deck and then cause trouble, in my analysis of naval ships.

Since when at port they also allow civiliams on board many a symbolic terrorist strike coule be done with a lot of ease. Especially when the navy guys disembark for shore leave.

"You're making the unsubstantiated claim that there is this HUGE terror threat of tons of people with nothing better to do than harm us. But you have no evidence of this threat, and little evidence of the inept and untrained threat that very rarely does attempt to attack us."

I have never seen a libertarian explain, or attempt to explain, by what right he takes a flying bomb over my head without my permission.   It seems to come to an appeal to authority, in that, if the FAA is willing to allow him to buy a ticket to do so, I the citizen have no say in my own safety.

Some of us remember how the flying commuter population (hereinafter, "asshats") let us all down on September 11, 2001.
That's the day the asshats, instead of doing the natural, obvious, and rational thing, grabbed the carpet and allowed thousands of Americans to be murdered. 

I mean it is the obvious, natural, obvious, and totally sufficient thing, isn't it Kemp?  You're urging us to rely on it totally.  Just totally trust the asshats to swarm the terrorists and we'll all be ok.

Thing is, the asshats didn't do that on September 11, 2001.

I believe in something called "freedom", Kemp.  I believe I am free not to trust you asshats ever again.  You already failed 4 separate times in a manner totally predictable to our enemies.

All you asshats have a debt to pay off.  You're NOT innocent people harming nobody else.  You're GUILTY, you're not even SORRY about it, and you DEMAND to be allowed to do it again without any adult supervision.

Not going to happen, asshat.  My RIGHT not to be struck by a hijacked aircraft trumps your covenience.  My RIGHT to life and liberty trumps your preference for customer service.

I already said what worked flawlessly without any possible violation of rights: ban commuter air travel.

That's not good enough, then, get in line and be searched.

My RIGHTS are not dependent on whether I prove to YOUR satisfaction that I am reasonable not to trust you and the other 399 people you never met before on your flight.  I have them without your permission.  I will not surrender them to make your life easier.

So to recap: failing to search the 9/11 hijackers before boarding had nothing to do with the successful hijacking of the airliners, and its not the passengers fault they didn't beat up the 9/11 hijackers to stop the hijacking.  Oh yeah, and from now on, let everybody board without being searched, because they'll beat up the hijackers to stop the hijacking.  OF COURSE they will.