«

»

NO TRAIN FOR YOU.

Are you one of the hundreds – if not thousands – of people who have inadvertently ended up on the no-fly list? Do you really need to travel, and want to take the train instead? Well guess what, dillhole? NO TRAIN FOR YOU. Asshole Senator Chuck Schumer needs to look busy, so he’s doing this now:

A senator on Sunday called for a “no-ride list” for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation’s train system.

Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide.

“Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public,” the New York Democrat said at a news conference.

If you think TSA at an airport is bad, wait’ll you get a load of Amtrak TSA.

Seriously, when are we going to stand up and tell these ruling class nitwits that we’ve had enough security theater? Do morons like Schumer really not see that with every move like this, they guarantee that even dead, bin Laden is still winning the game?

13 comments

No ping yet

  1. Manwhore says:

    Haha anyone riding Amtrak is suspect of some nefarious activity. Most Amtrak travelers are mules at best, but that the government wants to rob the failing system of more money is a classic Obama admin flounce.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Rann says:

    Just another way to inject more control and monitoring into our lives, bit by bit, get us used to one thing before moving on to the next… before you know it you’ve got a microchip sewn into your hand, every car looks like a new VW Beetle, and we’ll be expressing our joy-joy at being an Oscar Meyer Wiener.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Hal_10000 says:

    Schumer is such a tool. I remember LImbaugh’s saying about him: the most dangerous place in America is between Schumer and a camera.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    That’s the end game: control our lives… Sheep are easier to sheer when they are penned.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. HARLEY says:

    and lead to the slaughter house too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Kimpost says:

    A classic case of fearmongering in my opinion. In that sense the terrorists have already won. We are so afraid now, that we are willing to accept anything – or so it seems.

    I basically want to be able to run down a train platform ,at last minute, jump on a train and buy a cash ticket on-board. If that’s compliant with new safety regulations, then fine. If not, go to hell.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Rann says:

    Oh, I dunno. Sometimes I think the only thing the terrorists have really won at is turning “The terrorists have won” into a catchphrase…

    But on a serious note, I think stuff like this would have happened or been tried eventually without the terrorists. The whole terrorist thing is an excuse, not a cause. Looked at it like that they haven’t so much won as become “useful idiots”. There are some people that, given power, will always seek out ways to expand that power and preserve that power for people they agree with that come after them, and by some strange coincidence a lot of these people choose to go into politics.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Kimpost says:

    I agree with you on outcome, but not on objective. Regardless of terrorism I think fear drives much of these things. Were it not for terrorists, it would have been protection against crime, or against occasional lunatics. All major political parties seem to adhere to the same principles of fear (or safety, depending on outlook). Which in many ways is ironic, since there’s a good argument to be made of that we – by large – are safer now than ever.

    In US, I see no or little difference between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. There’s some libertarian opposition, but it’s quite small, really. We’ll see a more regulated society, where our everyday steps will be traceable, where our DNA will be collected at birth, where we’ll need personal – identified – tickets to travel, not only by flight, but by sea, subway, train, you name it.

    Regular people just don’t seem to care that much.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Hal_10000 says:

    When I hear things like this, it makes me realize that, to many in our political sphere, the War on Terror is just an excuse for things they’ve wanted. That they’ve always had these powers they wish government had. And anytime something happens, it’s time to dip into their legislative bag of holding and pull out he next intrusion into our lives.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Mississippi Yankee says:

    “We have always been at war with Eurasia”
    [1984]

    And all the comments such as:

    When did this war start?
    Who is in it?
    Wow, it is not even on the news!

    won’t change a thing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. AlexInCT says:

    I agree with you on outcome, but not on objective. Regardless of terrorism I think fear drives much of these things. Were it not for terrorists, it would have been protection against crime, or against occasional lunatics.

    Not that I disagree with your point on this Kimpost, you are absolutely right, but I think that most people would have pushed back a lot harder against this intrusion and expansion of government control of our lives, without the terrorists and their silly games there to help. This is plain and simple the “Don’t let a crisis go to waste” mentality in action. The end game in any government that feels its role is to protect people from themselves, in the name of “social justice”, of course, ultimately and always ends up with said government basically turning on the people and treating all of them as children first, and as serfs or slaves next. It’s the logical evolution of the utopian “heaven on earth” ideology: which isn’t anything but another dangerous religious movement gone mad.

    Oh yeah, that and Schumer is an ass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    Don’t let that crisis got to waste!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Rann says:

    I will say, as was observed on the old blog, the Bush admin’s response to possible terrorist threats was always at least targeted. Dude tries to blow up a plane using his shoes, they start checking peoples’ shoes. That sort of thing.

    The Obama admin’s approach has been much more blatantly “Don’t let an excuse to blatantly expand control and monitoring go to waste”. Terrorist threat to cargo planes? Start groping people boarding passenger planes.

    I think the Republican approach to this subject is… well-intentioned, and with the side effect of greater nanny-statism largely unintended. This doesn’t excuse it, but it’s one of those things where it’s possible that you could get someone on that side to realize it’s a bad thing and maybe it needs to stop. It’s far easier to see the Democrat approach as being more sinister because there’s so little connection between the impetus and the result. The answer is always “more control”, and there’s little regard for what kind of control, how to target it, the necessity of it, and whether it will actually make anyone safer, as long as there’s just more.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.