I Wear Pants;570506 wrote:You're way too much fun. I'll try to avoid this thread for the rest of the night.

You can tell me how I'm a monster because I'd rather not low paid government employees be feeling up children tomorrow.

they dont search children, but terrorists do blow them up. And not because as you wrote they have no other way to oppose the United States but because they are murderous scum.

So if a teenage girl decided "eff this, I'm refusing the body scan" she wouldn't be subjected to the search?

I Wear Pants;570513 wrote:Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you isn't capable of rational thought. Again, immature.

just indifferent to the safety needs of the American people.

I Wear Pants;570517 wrote:So if a teenage girl decided "eff this, I'm refusing the body scan" she wouldn't be subjected to the search?

and if a terroist got on her plane, exercising the only method he had oppose American policy, she would be robbed of her life.

Right because if someone disagrees with you they have to be wrong right? Is it impossible that you are in fact wrong or that *gasp* there isn't even a clear cut "right" and "wrong" as far as the situation goes and both sides of the argument have valid concerns?

isadore;570519 wrote:and if a terroist got on her plane, exercising the only method he had oppose American policy, she would be robbed of her life.

You told me they don't search children.

Are you now saying you were incorrect in saying that?

I Wear Pants;570520 wrote:Right because if someone disagrees with you they have to be wrong right? Is it impossible that you are in fact wrong or that *gasp* there isn't even a clear cut "right" and "wrong" as far as the situation goes and both sides of the argument have valid concerns?

As opposed to some I see our enemies as bad guys, who deserved to be killed.
they are enemies of our nation and their efforts to kill our citizens should be prevented even if it gives us some minor inconviences.

I Wear Pants;570510 wrote:Watch it with that questioning authority. That's the path to terrorism.

Of course. If you object to the government, the terrorists win.

isadore;570512 wrote:No its not sound.

Okay, LOGICALLY, prove it.

Also, I didn't say it was sound. I said it was "just as sound" as the gate rape. Actually, it would be MORE secure, since even if someone snuck something on the plane that got past the TSA's fondling fingers, the contraband would still be drastically limited in terms of how it could be used to harm others. Sounds pretty safe, don't you think?

And what are a few more rights given up for that intense safety, right?

isadore;570512 wrote:Those people capable of rational thought and understanding of the safety needs of the American people.

Who determines THOSE people? Sounds like a giant circle jerk.

isadore;570512 wrote:I misspell quite a few words.

It's okay. I don't hold it against you. Just was something I noticed.

isadore;570512 wrote:No the large majority of members of our nation find it minor inconvience to put up with for their safety.

Actually, MOST put up with it because they don't have a choice. Not because they're A-OK with it in any way.

isadore;570512 wrote:Notice when Jefferson listed our unalienable rights which one he listed first.

Keep reading. Jefferson wrote that to distinguish those things the government should not be at liberty to take away.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson was speaking about the people's protection from a government trying to overextend itself ... not from non-citizen terrorists.

I Wear Pants;570521 wrote:You told me they don't search children.

Are you now saying you were incorrect in saying that?

scanners are available to them

O-Trap;570527 wrote:Of course. If you object to the government, the terrorists win.



Okay, LOGICALLY, prove it.

Also, I didn't say it was sound. I said it was "just as sound" as the gate rape. Actually, it would be MORE secure, since even if someone snuck something on the plane that got past the TSA's fondling fingers, the contraband would still be drastically limited in terms of how it could be used to harm others. Sounds pretty safe, don't you think?
And what are a few more rights given up for that intense safety, right?
Who determines THOSE people? Sounds like a giant circle jerk.
It's okay. I don't hold it against you. Just was something I noticed.

Actually, MOST put up with it because they don't have a choice. Not because they're A-OK with it in any way.

Keep reading. Jefferson wrote that to distinguish those things the government should not be at liberty to take away

Jefferson was speaking about the people's protection from a government trying to overextend itself ... not from non-citizen terrorists.

Gate rape, give me a break. Hell the large majority of people are going through scanners. Hardly a rape. And I have been patted down, it is hardly fits your description. Minor inconvience at most as opposed to being stuck in a coffin.
System was devised by individuals with far more training and technical know how than their critics on this site.
The large majority of the American people put up with it because it makes sense given the obvious threat of terrorist attack.
Jefferson was writing what had become to him a foreign force trying to impose its will on America. That is how he viewed Britain by the Summer of 1776.

isadore;570516 wrote:they dont search children, but terrorists do blow them up. And not because as you wrote they have no other way to oppose the United States but because they are murderous scum.

[video=youtube;XSQTz1bccL4][/video]

^^^^ majorspark - That has to be one of the most disgusting videos I've ever seen in regards to children. TSA agents patting down a young boy...and making him take his shirt off. What a nation we've become. Isadore says we're not a police state like N. Korea and Iran....but after viewing that video....what the hell are we then? Oh, that's right...land of the free. I forgot.

This is what happens when federal bureaucrats are put in charge of you and your life. They can't do this right; imagine what they will do with your health care.

Change we can believe in ....................

kid set off a metal detector and his dad took his shirt off. but rave on.

^^^ Isa - I know the dad did....but here's a young shy lad (according to the eyewitnesses), who looks up to his dad and authority figures....and is forcibly groped and allowed to be groped by dad. What does that say for our society? Faux security at any price of liberty? I know you've written that it doesn't bother you...but I have a Q....you don't represent all of America, do you?

What's next for Americans in the name of security?

EVERYBODY SING ALONG!!!


[video=youtube;X1vmcJVIErA][/video]

The large majority of Americans endorsed it. Of course now we have this enormous whine beginning, so who know but
These are our enemies.
EXCLUSIVE: Taliban buying children for suicide bombers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/02/taliban-buying-children-to-serve-as-suicide-bomber/
Child Bombers - Afghan War's Latest Weapon
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/eveningnews/main5386052.shtml
Child Bomber Kills 23 In Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403554.html

All we need to do is do what El Al does.

End of story.

isadore;570697 wrote:The large majority of Americans endorsed it.

I wasn't asked for my opinion of it. Everyone I have talked to personally about it (co-workers, friend and family) are against it.

a very small nation with closely restricted borders, only two international airports, an enormous security force, the legal ability to profile, a method that does it to all non israelis. With all this their record since 9/11 in worse than ours, in 2002 a hijacker successfully boarded a plane from Tel Aviv to Turkey and while in flight attempted to storm the cockpit. Gosh with better searches and scanners they may have found the pocket knife he used. screw ups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security

isadore;570761 wrote:a very small nation with closely restricted borders, only two international airports, an enormous security force, the legal ability to profile, a method that does it to all non israelis. With all this their record since 9/11 in worse than ours, in 2002 a hijacker successfully boarded a plane from Tel Aviv to Turkey and while in flight attempted to storm the cockpit. Gosh with better searches and scanners they may have found the pocket knife he used. screw ups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security

Was he successful?

Also, that pocket knife would have been found with a standard metal detector, right?

You've given no compelling evidence that the new scanners and pat-downs are in any way necessary or effective. You've done nothing but call everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist.

This thread is just more evidence that Isadore is a complete and utter moron.

I just thought of a marketing angle.

Some airline offers to NOT do this, and instead hires heavily (this is a key word) armed personnel to be on the flights.

I know I'd fly that airline every damn time.

As long as that airline offered wifi I would too.

O-Trap;570783 wrote:I just thought of a marketing angle.

Some airline offers to NOT do this, and instead hires heavily (this is a key word) armed personnel to be on the flights.

I know I'd fly that airline every damn time.

The airlines don't have that option, though, do they?

But yeah, I'd fly that airline.