No, of course you're not a whack job. My post didn't even come close to inferring that.
I just think you are overthinking this concept, and that you've been encouraged to do so by exposure to the "teachings" of others with questionable motives.
I didn't call you a conspiracist. However, I did make a reach in saying those whose agenda would be furthered by getting as many people in their boat as possible have gotten into your head, and are now wasting a small part of your life with their notions, their concepts. I know you didn't take up this entire subject from ground zero on your own.
But I'll indulge you, and allow you to either disprove my notions, or otherwise:
What do you see as the palpable, tangible advantage that our government achieves via these tighter TSA procedures that trouble you? Please describe in detail the benefit, as well as their motivation(s) in desiring said benefit. Cite references, show precedents, tell me whatever it is that you feel cements your perceptions. In other words, prove your case. SHow us that it's not just a bias or suspicion in your mind.
Here is the suggested attire for air travel.
Minus the weaponry.
so i walk thru a metal detector at the airport and im fine with that. or i walk thru a full body scanner and im totally fine with that. for me personally i find nothing wrong with that. it doesnt effect me, doesnt hurt me, its not something i care about. you say its taking away your liberties, thats great. im sure there were allot of people who felt metal detectors were taking away there liberties. im sure when they went up allot of people were screaming about there rights because they couldn't take there personal knifes on board. to me its not that big a deal.
it seems if this were something that was truly taking away your personal freedoms you'd be fighting for something more relevant like wearing a seatbelt. you know. the goverment forcing you to strap yourself in every single time you drive a car. i mean most people on average fly once a year yet you all drive cars every single day. so where is the big rally for the goverment taking away your freedom to drive without a seatbelt?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Jason, I am confident that the mandatory seatbelt law is just one more "loss of personal freedom" they will bemoan; in this case, the freedom to add to the death tolls and/or hospital cost load on the insured.
I don't get it either...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, November 29, 2010 10:10 AM
Quote:
Kevin Trudeau wrote:
lets not go overboard just yet. Would anyone be against full body scans if it was a prerequisite to attending a stadium concert?
.
No.
Because I still fail to see the reason it's a big deal. Imagine a large bomb going off at a concert, killings hundreds. Then scanners are implemented. People will bitch. It goes on for 10 years, then the scanners are removed. Then another bomb. People will ask- Why did we take the scanners away? And you will see that the same p[eople who bitched about them being there in the first place are going to be the first person to bitch when something happens after they're taken away. Some people just don't get it.
Ok, so you are ok with full body scans at airports and stadium concerts, because hundreds could be killed. I see your rationale...its all about the security.
Suppose someone blows himself up in line at a busy amusement park...killing dozens. Would you then be in favor of installing them at entrances to the park? Boom! A solitary suicide bomber blows herself up in Central Park, during a Simon and Garfunkel reunion. Dozens are dead and many more horribly maimed.....should there have been body scanners there too?
And yes, seatbelts...and while we are at it....helmet laws for motorcycles. If I want to ride a bike sans helmet, then let me. Of course, it is stupid. If I suffer a head injury, then not only does it void my insurance company's obligation to fix me....it refuses to require the state to sustain me as a worthless cripple. My family would have to sell everything, just to keep the respirator going, and when the money ran out.....I die. I would suffer the direct consequences of my own foolishness.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Quote:
Kevin Trudeau wrote:
lets not go overboard just yet. Would anyone be against full body scans if it was a prerequisite to attending a stadium concert?
.
No.
Because I still fail to see the reason it's a big deal. Imagine a large bomb going off at a concert, killings hundreds. Then scanners are implemented. People will bitch. It goes on for 10 years, then the scanners are removed. Then another bomb. People will ask- Why did we take the scanners away? And you will see that the same p[eople who bitched about them being there in the first place are going to be the first person to bitch when something happens after they're taken away. Some people just don't get it.
Ok, so you are ok with full body scans at airports and stadium concerts, because hundreds could be killed. I see your rationale...its all about the security.
Suppose someone blows himself up in line at a busy amusement park...killing dozens. Would you then be in favor of installing them at entrances to the park? Boom! A solitary suicide bomber blows herself up in Central Park, during a Simon and Garfunkel reunion. Dozens are dead and many more horribly maimed.....should there have been body scanners there too?
And yes, seatbelts...and while we are at it....helmet laws for motorcycles. If I want to ride a bike sans helmet, then let me. Of course, it is stupid. If I suffer a head injury, then not only does it void my insurance company's obligation to fix me....it refuses to require the state to sustain me as a worthless cripple. My family would have to sell everything, just to keep the respirator going, and when the money ran out.....I die. I would suffer the direct consequences of my own foolishness.
okay. so how many times a year do you get scanned at the airport. and how many times a year do you have to wear your seatbelt. i'd bet you wear your seatbelt 300x more then you get checked at the airport. so why not fight against the thing that actually affects your personal freedoms on a daily basis instead of the thing you hardly ever do.
i havnt been to concerts lately but mid 90's depending on what shows you were going to you were going thru metal detectors and police officers were patting you down. so umm yeah thast kinda allreayd been done before and no one really cared.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
ThatGuy85 wrote:WHITECAVY wrote:im scared to death to fly even when I do.
Then the terrorists have won. They have officially made us so terrified of flying that we willingly subject ourselves to these kind of tactics just so we "Feel safer". It will not detect someone with C-4 shoved up their ass. I suppose the next step is allowing full body cavity searches for anyone who wants to fly anywhere? Jesus Tap Dancing Christ this has gone way too far.
How many terrorists have we found/stopped at the check-in line? HOW MANY?
Zero.
Lol I should of clarified, I am NOT scared because of the terrorist, im scared the damn plane is going to crash from some kind of malfunction. I have been this way even before 9/11. I JUST HATE HEIGHTS period lolol.
~2014 New Z under the knife, same heart different body~
______________________
WHITECAVY no more
2012 numbers - 4SPD
AUTOMATIC!!
328 HP
306 TQ
I've been to some Detroit pistons games and had a metal detecting wand ran over me, but never been frisked there, or at any concert.
I choose to wear my seatbelt, not because it is the law, but because I believe it is safer to have it on vs. off. However, if I want to go the cheese shredder route out the front of my windshield, then I guess that is my business, not yours.
Same thing with the helmet. I wear it to be safer, not because it is the law. Since you guys don't seem to mind the government forcing you to do things to improve security, then I suppose you wouldn't care if the government dictated what you can and cannot eat/drink.
If the government were to enact prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, citing deaths from DUI, domestic violence issues, loss of job productivity, catastrophic health costs related to alcohol/ tobacco..,.thus affecting our national security......Would you be in favor of it, or have I found something that is a big deal to you....and encroaced on your personal freedoms?
And to cut you off at the pass Bill, marriage should not be a government issue. People want to get married....let 'em. No tax breaks for any married couple, no requirements that companies insure them.
,
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
More worry over nothing. I'm OK with safety laws, and don't find them to be a loss of "personal freedom", any more than I feel my rights are being trampled upon when I race my bike or car and am required to use the correct safety equipment. The pure fact is, I'd use the stuff even if it weren't mandatory, for I value my body. The motor vehicle laws regarding safety equipment are more about stopping morons form hurting themselves than anything else, for rational people will use items like seatbelts and helmets, even if not required.
Why stop morons from maiming themselves? Simple, really...it reduces the financial load on us non-morons.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:I've been to some Detroit pistons games and had a metal detecting wand ran over me, but never been frisked there, or at any concert.
I choose to wear my seatbelt, not because it is the law, but because I believe it is safer to have it on vs. off. However, if I want to go the cheese shredder route out the front of my windshield, then I guess that is my business, not yours.
Same thing with the helmet. I wear it to be safer, not because it is the law. Since you guys don't seem to mind the government forcing you to do things to improve security, then I suppose you wouldn't care if the government dictated what you can and cannot eat/drink.
If the government were to enact prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, citing deaths from DUI, domestic violence issues, loss of job productivity, catastrophic health costs related to alcohol/ tobacco..,.thus affecting our national security......Would you be in favor of it, or have I found something that is a big deal to you....and encroaced on your personal freedoms?
And to cut you off at the pass Bill, marriage should not be a government issue. People want to get married....let 'em. No tax breaks for any married couple, no requirements that companies insure them.
,
so what your saying kevin is you feel safer wearing a seatbelt so thats okay, but if someone feels safer having body image scanners then they are giving up everyeons freedoms? so basically. whatever you agree with is okay but whatever you disagree with is a personal violation. see where this becomes a grey area and not cut and dry. i mean you can be fined if you dont wear a seatbelt. isnt that the goverment encroaching on peoples rights regardless if you wear a seatbelt or not. i mean this is your car, your personal property they are telling how to drive. its not like an airplane that is owned by someone else with hundreds of strangers. this is your very own piece of property they are enstating laws on. arn't you outraged?
if you choose to become a cheese grater yes that is your choice. but realise it effects a heck of allot more people then just yourself.
if the goverment were to mess with food and alcohol and tobacco.... oh wait. dont you have to be a certain age to smoke or drink? isnt there certain alcohol and such that are banned from the u.s.? oh i guess the goverment is allready kinda doing that. and so far I havnt had an issue with it. but your post was saying if the goverment banned something , that is a little bit diffrent banning something complelty versus saying you need to walk thru this scanner versus walking thru that scanner.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Quote:
Kevin Trudeau wrote:
lets not go overboard just yet. Would anyone be against full body scans if it was a prerequisite to attending a stadium concert?
.
No.
Because I still fail to see the reason it's a big deal. Imagine a large bomb going off at a concert, killings hundreds. Then scanners are implemented. People will bitch. It goes on for 10 years, then the scanners are removed. Then another bomb. People will ask- Why did we take the scanners away? And you will see that the same p[eople who bitched about them being there in the first place are going to be the first person to bitch when something happens after they're taken away. Some people just don't get it.
Ok, so you are ok with full body scans at airports and stadium concerts, because hundreds could be killed. I see your rationale...its all about the security.
Suppose someone blows himself up in line at a busy amusement park...killing dozens. Would you then be in favor of installing them at entrances to the park? Boom! A solitary suicide bomber blows herself up in Central Park, during a Simon and Garfunkel reunion. Dozens are dead and many more horribly maimed.....should there have been body scanners there too?
And yes, seatbelts...and while we are at it....helmet laws for motorcycles. If I want to ride a bike sans helmet, then let me. Of course, it is stupid. If I suffer a head injury, then not only does it void my insurance company's obligation to fix me....it refuses to require the state to sustain me as a worthless cripple. My family would have to sell everything, just to keep the respirator going, and when the money ran out.....I die. I would suffer the direct consequences of my own foolishness.
So, let me ask you this- if you are one of the hundreds maimed at that reunion, what will you be saying? This- "It's ok I no longer have my left leg, since I don't care that there were no scanners there". Nope. You're going to be saying- "Where the hell were the scanners? I want retribution. Someone has to pay for this".
I'm with you that it's your choice to do unsafe or questionable things. I totally agree. You have the choice whether or not to fly, whether or not to ride a bike, whether or not to drive a car. Don't like the scanner? Don't fly. Don't like helmet laws? Don't ride. Don't like seatbelts? Don't drive. Who cares if it's seatbelts, helmets, scanners, wands, or a cavity search, it's all the same, and the people who bitch will only bitch for what's good for
them, not everyone involved. Wanna fix it all? Take away EVERY single safety and security measure ever implemented, let the population even itself out, let Darwinism take effect.
.
Hell, why not implant a gps tracking device in babies at birth? Using the same kinetic charging system that keeps those watches running, we'd be able to track missing children, like those three brothers in Michigan, or Natalie Halloway. Then, when the person turns 18, they can opt to have it deactivated.....no....lets keep it in, so we can track them if they get lost in the Himalayan mountains, or rob a liquour store. After all, if you aint doing nothing wrong, why are you afraid to hide?
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
because that is forcing something on a person that they may not want. if you dont want to body scan. you dont fly. you make that choice yourself. if you dont like them. dont use them. sure allot of people fly for work. if you dont want to fly. get another job. if some guys is afraid of heights i wouldn't expect him to get a job as a window washer on skyscrapers. if someone doesnt have a drivers liscence because they are afraid to drive i wouldnt expect them to get a job as a taxi cab driver. you have the CHOICE to be scanned or not. flyring is not a constitutional right.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Quote:
because that is forcing something on a person that they may not want
Like forcing a child to go to school, eat his vegetables, getting his flu shot, or going to bed at 8 o'clock? Seems to me that children can be forced to do a lot of things, as long as it isn't harming them.
And then, we could eliminate a multitude of crimes as well: No more cutting off your ankle gps device...no more counterfeit currency, as it would be digital cash only. No more voter fraud....No more a lot of stuff. If you've done wrong, they'll find you. Just think of how secure we'd all be!
And for those who don't want the chip...dont use it. After all, no one is forcing you to pay a 15% tax for not using the digi-currency.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
you guys hear about the guy who carried a loaded .40sw pistol in his laptop bag, through the xray, past TSA, and onto the airplane?
you guys hear about how the feds perform tests like these on the TSA, and that 70% of the time, they succeed in getting guns, or suspicious materials past TSA?
veil of security.
Then a veil is what it has taken to dissuade further attacks, if only based on the results. Hard to argue with the facts in this case.
though at what cost?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:though at what cost?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
What
cost? You find this to be a severe enough
cost to send you into patriotic fits of quoting? Spare us all the histrionics, and spare yourself the angst. It's a fcuking stroll through a security area. Take the stick out of your ass (they're just gonna find it up there anyway with the SCANNER) and enjoy the flight instead.
I swear. More and more people these days just can't stop themselves from finding useless things to work themselves into a lather over. WTF, ladies. Life is short. Perhaps try ENJOYING it.
nigga please, you walk your ass from Atlanta to BWI for work. society do
es fly. it's so prevalent that it is, along with all modes of transportation, a fundamental right. it's unjust search and seizure; the same as a police officer stopping you on the street an
d frisking you just because you were walking there.
th
at is the cost-- it's doing p
ractically nothing, it's doing -- 70 percent of the time; as test
ed by the federal government -- absolutely NOTHING to p
revent ANYTHING. it's costing money.
some
people's kids man...jesus...it's easy to spend money when it isn't yours...
i randomly bolded and underlined so i could be hip and cool like you.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:nigga please, you walk your ass from Atlanta to BWI for work. society does fly. it's so prevalent that it is, along with all modes of transportation, a fundamental right. it's unjust search and seizure; the same as a police officer stopping you on the street and frisking you just because you were walking there.
that is the cost-- it's doing practically nothing, it's doing -- 70 percent of the time; as tested by the federal government -- absolutely NOTHING to prevent ANYTHING. it's costing money.
some people's kids man...jesus...it's easy to spend money when it isn't yours...
i randomly bolded and underlined so i could be hip and cool like you.
sorry dude but flying is not a fundemental right. neither is driving.
wonder why all the bombers and such are coming from planes that come from outside the country? might be because we have higher security then those other countries. kinda like why i have a car alarm on my car. chances of it being broken into are small. but the chances of it causing a thief to just decide its allot less grief to just move on to another car without an alarm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
