Go figure. I can understand being frustrated when someone won't just drop their own perspectives and bend over to agree with yours.
Good point, and indeed that's the sort of thing that Americans are probably concerned about, not sharing the intense conspiratorial suspicion of the government, the agency and its workers, than many critics of the policy are building their rhetoric on.
Which is the kind of question that would be asked by critics frustrated with the fact that their personal preferences are not prevailing over everyone and everything. They want to know how such a small minority could make enough noise (perhaps even making up reports, or presenting the same report multiple times - not sure about that) to change the way things are through casting around unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt.
That's a great word... perhaps that's a better way of describing some of what I've been talking about: "Histrionics."
Absolutely.
That's a significant concern. From what I can see in the media and elsewhere, it seems to me that a lot of critics of the policy are so invested in their personal preference that nothing will mitigate that angst - that in some cases, perhaps, the angst itself has become a form of comfort.
Has anyone seen this yet?Several pages back.
Without knowing the reason why this person was selected for additional screening - and it's likely that the reason won't be made public - there's no way to know if the intent was to cause an 'international incident' or a completely random patdown. If you're patting down every seventeenth person, you don't exempt one just because they're "somebody". You'd be invalidating the entire point of random.
I said nothing of the sort, but clearly that would be so much easier for you to argue against what I actually did write. Please stop with the self-serving deceptive distortion of what people who disagree with you write, and stick with trying to defend your position. Thanks.
