Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

New "Clear Bag" Policy at Folsom

skibum said:
Another person who can't back their arguments up with actual data, and laughs off requests to do so.
Click to expand...
It's kind of splitting hairs. I agree that the outside is much more susceptible and has the potential of a huge number of casualties, but being inside the stadium during a game has much more visibility (tv audience) and therefore reach to cause fear. The latter is more important to terrorists. Either way, the new measure don't do ****. If someone wanted to cause havoc, outside or in, they could do it pretty damn easily no matter what kinds of bags are allowed.
 
The discussion of inside or outside the stadium is silly. In Paris, they wanted to get in the stadium, and were hoping to cause a stampede out of the stadium to waiting gunmen. When the first part of the plan failed (due to inability to gain entrance) they attacked outside the stadium.

I don't think the bags help either case.
 
skibum said:
Another person who can't back their arguments up with actual data, and laughs off requests to do so.
Click to expand...

Don't make it sound like you are throwing out all kinds of facts other than "it hasn't happened yet".... Your debating using the Donald Trump method.

I'm not going to embark on a research project here to see what may be available to link for you on the internet. You can google away if you'd like. You, are not worth my time.

My opinion is based on my company having consulted with one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world (here in Colorado) on a Sensor Network that they developed specifically for the Rio Olympics, but also other large sporting events as well as concerts. It ultimately wasn't deployed in Rio (that I'm aware of). However, as part of this project, I was privy to several presentations addressing this need. Granted, it was the Defense Contractor's slide decks and their data may be slanted to sell these things. But they weren't trying to sell US, just explaining what they were trying to address and where in the technology wheel they were looking for some assistance.

I am convinced that our Government feels that increased security is warranted for large sporting events. There's people in the intelligence community who feel it's "going to happen". That, or one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world is spending a lot of money for nothing.
 
TimmyDUBs said:
It's kind of splitting hairs. I agree that the outside is much more susceptible and has the potential of a huge number of casualties, but being inside the stadium during a game has much more visibility (tv audience) and therefore reach to cause fear. The latter is more important to terrorists. Either way, the new measure don't do ****. If someone wanted to cause havoc, outside or in, they could do it pretty damn easily no matter what kinds of bags are allowed.
Click to expand...

The Live TV audience makes this a prime target, in my opinion.
 
Ok, I had gotten on my soap box andwritten this diatribe, but decided to spare all of you. At the end of the day I have the same thing to say about this as to most every security measure implemented to help prevent terror attacks or decrease the likelyhood of unsavory types being in places where they might offend me or do harm.

I AM SAFE ENOUGH
 
buffaholic said:
Don't make it sound like you are throwing out all kinds of facts other than "it hasn't happened yet".... Your debating using the Donald Trump method.

I'm not going to embark on a research project here to see what may be available to link for you on the internet. You can google away if you'd like. You, are not worth my time.

My opinion is based on my company having consulted with one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world (here in Colorado) on a Sensor Network that they developed specifically for the Rio Olympics, but also other large sporting events as well as concerts. It ultimately wasn't deployed in Rio (that I'm aware of). However, as part of this project, I was privy to several presentations addressing this need. Granted, it was the Defense Contractor's slide decks and their data may be slanted to sell these things. But they weren't trying to sell US, just explaining what they were trying to address and where in the technology wheel they were looking for some assistance.

I am convinced that our Government feels that increased security is warranted for large sporting events. There's people in the intelligence community who feel it's "going to happen". That, or one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world is spending a lot of money for nothing.
Click to expand...
I would be OK if they were actually increasing security. This clear bag policy doesn't do that. Actually training the Argus people to provide real security and not just tell cops or a supervisor about a problem would be something. This is nothing but an irritant to people.
 
buffaholic said:
Don't make it sound like you are throwing out all kinds of facts other than "it hasn't happened yet".... Your debating using the Donald Trump method.

I'm not going to embark on a research project here to see what may be available to link for you on the internet. You can google away if you'd like. You, are not worth my time.

My opinion is based on my company having consulted with one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world (here in Colorado) on a Sensor Network that they developed specifically for the Rio Olympics, but also other large sporting events as well as concerts. It ultimately wasn't deployed in Rio (that I'm aware of). However, as part of this project, I was privy to several presentations addressing this need. Granted, it was the Defense Contractor's slide decks and their data may be slanted to sell these things. But they weren't trying to sell US, just explaining what they were trying to address and where in the technology wheel they were looking for some assistance.

I am convinced that our Government feels that increased security is warranted for large sporting events. There's people in the intelligence community who feel it's "going to happen". That, or one of the largest Defense Contractors in the world is spending a lot of money for nothing.
Click to expand...
Lets just say that have almost zero respect for most of the decision making ability of literally anyone in DHS that might be thinking about ordering this ****. And I am deeply cynical about any government contractor that has a profit motive to sell **** to them. I am not exaggerating when I say it is literally the most poorly managed department of federal government. And that's saying a lot; most of them can't find their ass without a map.
 
Buffnik said:
What bothers me is not actual security measures. What bothers me are hassles to give an illusion of security but have no real value to security & also allow abuses of personal privacy & Liberty with no tangible payoff. It's a bad path for a free society. Because what's the answer when something does happen? More symbolic crap that doesn't make us more safe but makes us less free.
Click to expand...
I agree with your initial statement, but you lost me at personal privacy, free society and Liberty. It is not a right as an American to go to football games. You do so with the understanding that you need to abide by the rules set forth by the institution, even if that means forfeiting some of your personal privacy or civil liberties.
 
TSchekler said:
I agree with your initial statement, but you lost me at personal privacy, free society and Liberty. It is not a right as an American to go to football games. You do so with the understanding that you need to abide by the rules set forth by the institution.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing on legal rights or the Constitution. There's a spirit to a free society. We lose a lot with these types of things. Our society changes and our norms become very intrusive if people want to travel or gather.
 
Buffnik said:
I wasn't arguing on legal rights or the Constitution. There's a spirit to a free society. We lose a lot with these types of things. Our society changes and our norms become very intrusive if people want to travel or gather.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant by Americana - we can't give up our lifestyle to these losers.
 
Took a pic of the full policy cards they had at the luncheon. When I got home and showed it to Nikita, she was not pleased.
Clear Bag Policy.jpg
 
Darian3Hagan said:
What a joke looks like I will just watch the games from my coach...oh wait.
Click to expand...

directv-android-tablets.png
 
My binoculars have a tight curved case. Last year at MHS in Denver I told them it was my clutch bag. The guy paused, gave me a look, but realized I had him there. Same size as clutch. Plan to do the same this year.
 
buffalo1 said:
My binoculars have a tight curved case. Last year at MHS in Denver I told them it was my clutch bag. The guy paused, gave me a look, but realized I had him there. Same size as clutch. Plan to do the same this year.
Click to expand...
I will be rooting for you. If you get them in I'll lead the slow clap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top