Even that response doesn't make any sense, and is exactly the kind of cost that terrorists - to the extent that they even exist as a coherent force - want to visit upon their targets. What good would barriers have done? They'll just drive down a different street next time, it's not like London is suffering from a shortage of sidewalks crowded with pedestrians with a couple of lanes of traffic down the middle.
...they shouldn't have shot him dead then? He was only armed with a knife at that point, and while clearly an extremely dangerous and murderous person, didn't actually need to have been shot three times in the chest in order to stop him.
I'm not suggesting that the police officer who fired on him acted in anything other than the way he was trained to, but if he was still alive, we could have asked him what on earth he thought he was up to. I'd expect that he'd just turn out to be a nutcase, who would have found some other reason to kill people randomly, if he hadn't have found radical Islam first.
but it may not be unreasonable to limit cash to petty-cash levels.
You're talking about people's daily lives. It is unreasonable. I suggest that you talk to people on welfare before you make assumptions about how they'd be happy living their (already very limited) lives.
They believe more in the 'love & embracing' of the downtrodden, meek, weak etc.
That'll explain how the so-called 'Christian Right' are so into welfare, and women's reproductive rights. I guess love and embracing means different things to different people.
I'd love to see your cites and stats re "police standoffs gone wrong" in 2016.
According to the Washington Post, 963 people were killed last year in the U.S by police. I filtered that down to people that had guns, in order to kinda hit your 'standoff' thing, and got 518 people. I assume that if someone has been killed, then it's a standoff 'gone wrong', but I suppose there's no clear definition of what it means for a standoff to 'go wrong'. You might argue that if the bad guy got killed, maybe the standoff went right, so let's instead use the number of police killed in action. That's 46 officers for the year 2016, according to the BBC.
Now, how many people were killed by islamic terrorists in 2016 that arrived here by plane from one of the 'banned' countries?
It's none, isn't it? There were terrorist attacks for sure, but Omar Mateen was 'self-radicalised' and was from New York, Dahir Ahmed Adan was from Somali (the country is on the list), but he didn't kill anyone, Ahmad Khan Rahami was from Afganistan (not on the list) and didn't kill anyone, and Abdul Razak Ali Artan (also from Somali) also didn't kill anyone. Names from here.
So, you are more likely to be a police officer killed in the line of duty, than by a terrorist that's arrived from one of the banned countries.
Furthermore, as you no doubt very well know, Trump himself has publicly stated on more than one occasion that the ban is about religion. This is why it has been struck down in the courts, because there is no other basis for his choices. There's certainly no public safety basis, that's for sure.
This is why I have been for replacing welfare-to-bank-account with a credit card like system where the money isn't capable of being withdrawn from, just spent.
That would achieve nothing, other than making people on welfare's life even more miserable than it already is. You might even drive some people to hate the system enough to want to blow it up...
multiple suitcase sized bombs
So, it's not just one. And he's completely right in every point. As has been pointed out elsewhere, since this isn't about public safety, it must be about something else. So, if you crack down on laptops from countries that you don't really care about, you now have more of an excuse to thoroughly search laptops from countries that you do. The countries that aren't on this list are the ones we should be talking about.
None of this makes any sense. Buses, and trains, also seem like pretty good terrorist targets, as do shopping malls, busy markets, schools, universities, etc etc.
It's certainly not about public safety, which means it must be about something else. Some vast conspiracy, I expect.
You have to open the laptop in question up too, and this all costs money. Contrary to popular belief, it's not the case that "even if you save one life" any cost is justified. Of course, if the baggage does contain a bomb inside a laptop, it would probably be set up to go off if you (say) turn the device on, in which case you need a full bomb disposal team, and the only safe way is a controlled explosion. You'll have to evacuate the airport, because it's not safe to move the laptop to a safe area, and you'll presumably end up doing significant damage to the baggage handling area too.
So false positives are also a very big concern.
Open Classroom schools of the 1970s
Look out. They're bringing those back over here in NZ. It's a total farce. One disruptive child can bring the whole place to its knees.
You're slightly confused about what 'left wing' means.
You're also very strangely upset about the teen magazine CoverGirl having a boy on the cover. I don't really want to try to understand why, but you probably should.
You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).