Raoul DeGroot
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2438
Location: Son Quest |
crash wrote:
what raoul said
i get tired of hearing people suggest that changing our foreign policy would solve all our terrorist trouble. as if al-qaida would close up shop if we withdrew from afghanistan and iraq and stopped bankrolling the israeli state.
our foreign policy plays a large part in creating anti-american terrorists, but changing it isn't going to stop the ones that are already radicalized.
But it would solve a lot of our terrorist troubles. A little delayed reaction yeah, but it'd make a huge difference. You are really close to putting yourself in the middle of a circular argument there. |
Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:13 pm |
|
|
Bicycle
Joined: 17 Nov 2008
Posts: 409
|
Who is it, exactly, who is asking for all these safety procedures? Did we vote for this shit? Can we vote ourselves out of this shit? What can any of us do aside from complain about it? Some people buy guns but these motherfuckers got lazers and sub-bass speakers that can knock down buildings
somewhere mr dibbs is pouching a razor blade in his upper lip and walking through airport terminals to prove that he can. Sage is taking babies hostage. Bored kids in rural towns make bombs for fun. Some bored kids turn into sociopathic adults who might possibly see all this heightened security as a challenge. Who doesn't enjoy a challenge? My empathy still sorta works and ive no desire to ever kill anyone but ill be damned if my imagination doesn't take flight when I read these sorts of articles |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:52 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
My "solution" would be to go back basic screening they used to do... metal detectors and pat downs that don't involve grabbin the cock n balls
I don't see this as a big problem like it's made out to be... you're already getting on fucking plane and I'm way more worried about that fucker crashing then being hijacked... I'm more worried that I'll be sitting next to a crying baby on the flight then a terrorist attack...
The more "security" they add does nothing to make me feel better about a plane ride...
I'm willing to take the risk of something... go back, stop the booby touching and the ball cuffing... and quit making me take my shoes off too assholes... the lines would go much faster...
I'm pretty sure if there is another terrorist attack they will either
a) find some other vehicle than an airplane
b) figure out a way to get past security anyway.
Maybe the TSA guy who is screening people is a terrorist...
Shit has crossed the line, this is bullshit and people should be pissed |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:28 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
crash wrote:
i get tired of hearing people suggest that changing our foreign policy would solve all our terrorist trouble. as if al-qaida would close up shop if we withdrew from afghanistan and iraq and stopped bankrolling the israeli state.
our foreign policy plays a large part in creating anti-american terrorists, but changing it isn't going to stop the ones that are already radicalized.
somewhat agree, but it has nothing to do with airport security getting out of control... see reason's a) and b) above... |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:36 pm |
|
|
Raoul DeGroot
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2438
Location: Son Quest |
|
 |
|
I can't quite understand where you dudes are coming from being all pissed 'because you have to take off shoes!'
Hoooly shit, we didn't fight WWII so we'd have to take our shoes off in an airport and lose like 4 minutes of travel time.
Can you guys try and not mention the ridiculous entitled shit that you may believe, because it makes it much harder for me to take seriously the possibly legitimate fear of getting your balls handled.
The metal detector is still the primary method for most people who go through, you know.
A.What other vehicle are they going to find? A bus that can be stopped with a fucking bag of nails or a road block?
A train that rides on tracks and cannot ram into buildings?
You arent thinking this through. Obviously people blow up other stuff all the time, but blowing up things on the ground takes a shitload of explosives to make a major impact. They can do it in Israel or Colombia through sheer frequency -where they have a steady supply.
In the US you need to make a big impact and quick, or else you've shot your load and nobody cares and your network is swiftly exhausted. Planes are the best target currently. Plus you can bring them doiwn with a handful of c4 instead of a vest for a bus. or a carload for a train. Explosive decompression not happenin at ground level.
B.They're going to figure out a way past security anyway so why bother? Why bother with any of it? Getting on the plane takes so loooonnng. Not worth it.
You are one dummy american spoiled wehwah limp dick, bro. It's really not just about how much risk you're willing to take buddy, sorry.
But wait... Fuck I can't believe I've been letting my doctor cradle my balls all these years. I'm never gonna get a hernia! I'm outraged! |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:56 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
Raoul, you're an asshole... ok, maybe bitching about having to take my shoes off is a bit extreme, but promoting more airport security is also...
You see all these security measures as somehow helping things and worth it in the effort to prevent future attacks, I do not... I see it as violating personal space unnecessarily...
Public transportation is not the only method for "terrorism". I'm not even trying to get into that debate, my point is the airport security thing is way overblown and if it's giving people some sense of real security I would believe it's a false sense of security anyway...
Last edited by adic on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:15 pm |
|
|
Raoul DeGroot
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2438
Location: Son Quest |
Why are you so pissed that you might get your nutsack touched like once a year? That's better than your usual rate. |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:25 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
Getting my balls played with has nothing to do with it...
It's the fact that government is mandating/supporting it...
I'm starting to think your a TSA agent in disguise |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:29 pm |
|
|
IAmNiki
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 1602
Location: North Smithfield, RI |
I'm going to have to side with Raoul on this one. Unless the female security person is licking her lips and doing some heavy panting while she pats me down, this just wouldn't make me feel very uncomfortable. Same with the body scan. |
|
Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:44 pm |
|
|
breakfast
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 2887
|
|
|
|
Raoul DeGroot wrote:
breakfast wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:
You guys know that the radiation from the scanner is roughly equivalent to the rads you pick up in about 2 minutes of actually sitting in the airplane during a flight....
Actually, the issue is that no one knows that, because it has yet to be adequately studied - there IS, however, some concern that the concentration and distribution of X rays people are receiving may be too intense, and capable of increasing mutation rate in skin, blood, and germline cells. Of course, the assertion that it's unsafe is currently speculative, but unfortunately, so is any belief in the absolute safety of this thing.
The distribution argument seems the most plausible, but what's your measure of when the studies becomes adequate? You're a scientist. Tell us the signs of compelling evidence. And the red flags for scanty ev.
I can't feign expertise, but I think compelling evidence that these systems have been inadequately tested can be found in this letter written by members of the University of California molecular biology and biophysics departments:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010
That being said: touch my dick all y'all want, airport security. So far, user reviews have been pretty positive. |
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:11 am |
|
|
Charlie Foxtrot
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY |
Personally I'm for dogs. Cheaper and far less invasive, also recommended by a variety of security experts. |
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:12 am |
|
|
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21332
|
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121,0,5604032.story |
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:31 am |
|
|
firefly
Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3989
Location: Montreal |
futuristxen wrote:
Why don't you have to go through this kind of thing when you want to get on a bus or train or subway?
If we were only so lucky:
|
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:02 pm |
|
|
Raoul DeGroot
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2438
Location: Son Quest |
Sage Francis wrote:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121,0,5604032.story
I think it's always been that you can just leave the airport at any time before you begin the screening process, but you could never just opt out after you had begun screening.
Which makes sense. |
|
Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:41 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Wed May 22, 2013 5:00 am
|
|
|
|
| |
