Isadore is for a full on police state.

isadore;569320 wrote:No I believe we have become a nation of whiners. This whole issue is a prime example of it. A minor inconvience caused by necessary safety measure produces a national trauma. As I wrote previously, I have been patted down on more than one occassion, it did not leave me scarred physically or emotionally, It was a MINOR INCONVIENCE.

As you posted previously, were you subject to the new regulations? Anyone that has been to a concert has been "patted down", that action isn't the issue at hand.

I call horsecrap on all of it, it only started November 1.

Why don't you educate us on your recent trip?

More stellar press for the TSA:

http://gizmodo.com/5695522/tsa-screening-soaks-bladder-cancer-survivor-with-his-own-urine

Manhattan Buckeye;569388 wrote:As you posted previously, were you subject to the new regulations? Anyone that has been to a concert has been "patted down", that action isn't the issue at hand.

I call horsecrap on all of it, it only started November 1.

Why don't you educate us on your recent trip?

Hey dufus, the TSA is not the only police agency that does pat downs. and some others are much more thorough and hands on.
but if it saves lives so be it.

believer;569343 wrote:Complete bullshit. The number of airports does not matter. The methods do.

Israel relies on highly trained and professional security agents to scrutinize passengers from the minute they enter the airport to that point where they board the airplane. Cars are met outside at an armed security check point, and upon entering the terminal, each passenger is stopped and personally interviewed before check-in with a battery of questions by plain-clothed security personnel.
http://www.thepilot.com/news/2010/nov/21/a-smarter-approach-to-security/
“As best I could tell, things went pretty smoothly as long as you were (a) Israeli, (b) traveling with an Israeli, or (c) traveling with some kind of well-established tour group.”

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/israeli-airport-security/

Not to cover two airports but hundreds. Israel can concentrate resources. Put the best and brightest there, not worry about ethnic profiling. Even at that the 2002 incident where an Israeli Arab smuggled a pocket knife through their supposedly airtight security and used it in an attempt to attack the cockpit of an El Al flight headed for Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security
Hell Americans would be whining about the questioning and profiling, and the competence of theTSA agents and on and on.

isadore;569414 wrote:Hey dufus, the TSA is not the only police agency that does pat downs. and some others are much more thorough and hands on.
but if it saves lives so be it.

Agreed, but it is the only the one that this thread is about. But then again, I suppose I'm the dufus (isn't it doofus?).

I Wear Pants;569374 wrote:Isadore is for a full on police state.

you resent the fact that I don't want to give a free pass onto our planes to those who " gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight.” against “the closest thing left to imperialists”

Manhattan Buckeye;569417 wrote:Agreed, but it is the only the one that this thread is about. But then again, I suppose I'm the dufus (isn't it doofus?).

the question asked was whether I had experienced pat downs and I had.
its from the Latin dufium.
which gives us the plural which could be used at this site, a herd of dufi.

"Hell Americans would be whining about the questioning and profiling, and the competence of theTSA agents and on and on. "

That's a strange argument, given that people here have been saying that we SHOULD be doing that. I'm still guessing you've never flown, and definitely haven't flown overseas. I'm all for profiling passengers that buy one-way tickets purchased through suspect funds, and if you've ever left the U.S. you'd know that you get questioned about why you are entering into the foreign country. And even if you are as American as apple pie, when you come back to the U S of A you still get questioned by the customs agents. For some reason people haven't been griping about that.

Can someone explain to me this? TSA and or Homeland Security are so concerned about safety of this country.

I just traveled by vehicle in the last 2 week to Canada not one but twice, was not ask to get out and be scanned or pat-down nor was my vehicle searched, plus I was traveling with a an individual from Europe. So one American and one European showed them our passport and sent on our way.

Make it mandatory for everyone traveling state side and or abroad to have a passport available for conformation and citizenship. Positive side is look at the revenue this would create for the government t continue a protecting our country.

Anyone have a problem with that ?

Also…. Nothing wrong with &#8220rofiling” ..do it.



I think birth certificate would also be good but then Obama would not be able to leave the country………

Manhattan Buckeye;569434 wrote:"Hell Americans would be whining about the questioning and profiling, and the competence of theTSA agents and on and on. "

That's a strange argument, given that people here have been saying that we SHOULD be doing that. I'm still guessing you've never flown, and definitely haven't flown overseas. I'm all for profiling passengers that buy one-way tickets purchased through suspect funds, and if you've ever left the U.S. you'd know that you get questioned about why you are entering into the foreign country. And even if you are as American as apple pie, when you come back to the U S of A you still get questioned by the customs agents. For some reason people haven't been griping about that.

the Israeli questioning is much more lengthy, involved. And the profiling is much more ethnically based than just considering one way tickets and suspect funds.
Now an Israeli version of Jihad Jane would really present a problem for them.

So you're for literally anything as long as some agency tells you it's to prevent terrorism?

I Wear Pants;569464 wrote:So you're for literally anything as long as some agency tells you it's to prevent terrorism?

I am for using the procedures established by agencies created and controlled by popularly elected government to safeguard the lives of Americans from attacks by terrorists or as you would describe them as not necessily bad guys using " gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight,” “against a nation that “is the nearest thing to imperialist.”

Pistole weighs in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101121/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_airport_security

I'm guessing those comments won't be met with a positive response.

good. I hope he keeps the courage of his expressed convictions.

isadore;569485 wrote:I am for using the procedures established by agencies created and controlled by popularly elected government to safeguard the lives of Americans from attacks by terrorists or as you would describe them as not necessily bad guys using " gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight,” “against a nation that “is the nearest thing to imperialist.”

You said yourself that these screenings are unnecessary as we have been 100% effective in preventing the loss of American lives in terrorist attacks since 9/11 without them.

justincredible;569537 wrote:You said yourself that these screenings are unnecessary as we have been 100% effective in preventing the loss of American lives in terrorist attacks since 9/11 without them.

After we had been invaded in the War of 1812 we had iron chain strung underwater in our harbors and large smooth bore cannon pointed out to sea. Since then we have not been successfully invaded. But it was not just because of these measures we remained safe. We advanced our defenses with new technology to meet new threats. Now people like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab have presented new threats to our citizens and we are adjusting to them.

You're right. This is for our own good.

" We advanced our defenses with new technology to meet new threats."

If touching a person's junk is a new technology, I suppose we're all Andy Stitzers.

Prediction: Napolitano won't keep her job over this.

justincredible;569586 wrote:You're right. This is for our own good.

yep, it is. glad you finally see the truth, it will set you free from those paranoid delusions that you are in a police state.

Manhattan Buckeye;569594 wrote:" We advanced our defenses with new technology to meet new threats."

If touching a person's junk is a new technology, I suppose we're all Andy Stitzers.

Prediction: Napolitano won't keep her job over this.

alot more likely to keep her job than she would after a plane explodes and 220 people die.

isadore;569578 wrote:After we had been invaded in the War of 1812 we had iron chain strung underwater in our harbors and large smooth bore cannon pointed out to sea. Since then we have not been successfully invaded. But it was not just because of these measures we remained safe. We advanced our defenses with new technology to meet new threats. Now people like Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab have presented new threats to our citizens and we are adjusting to them.

Maybe it's because we're really far away from anyone who would want to or legitimately could invade us.

isadore;569605 wrote:yep, it is. glad you finally see the truth, it will set you free from those paranoid delusions that you are in a police state.

As opposed to the paranoid delusions that you're going to die at all times unless someone touches everyone's junk at the airport. Yeah, we're the crazy ones.

isadore;569320 wrote:No I believe we have become a nation of whiners. This whole issue is a prime example of it. A minor inconvience caused by necessary safety measure produces a national trauma. As I wrote previously, I have been patted down on more than one occassion, it did not leave me scarred physically or emotionally, It was a MINOR INCONVIENCE.

I cannot reconcile myself to classify it as "necessary", when there are other options that could have been (or could be) used.

CenterBHSFan;569659 wrote:I cannot reconcile myself to classify it as "necessary", when there are other options that could have been (or could be) used.

And would arguably be more effective.