Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.
Printable View
Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.
Yay for Pr0n!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bte
~BB~
i dont get it 50 pages of stupiditty all because our governments want to keep us safe you crazzzzzy fuckers
Not really stupid, valid points was raised on both sides of the argument. Although I don't mind the scans and pat-downs, anytime that will keep the plane from crashing into a building is fine with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.Quote:
Originally Posted by bte
Yeah I agree with you. I can see why people are up in arms about the photos, the original photos are not bad, but once you edit it to negative, then you can pretty much make out the woman's breasts although no vaggie is visible.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
Really now? That's how you roll? You can't even respect the opposition opinion? *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
You don't have to like my opinion, but I'm going to tell you: I know I don't have to fly, but if I must I will make sure I waste as much TSA manpower as possible as a show of passive resistance. They're going to have to search me three times by the time I'm done fucking with them. And yes, I will continue to complain about the policy, because believe you me, if enough people do, the policy will change.
~BB~
X-ray screening does nothing to protect against explosives being smuggled onto planes using either cargo or persons' bodies.
Petn, the explosive used by the recent cargo bomb plot, the underwear bomber, and IIRC even the shoe bomber does not... I repeat does not... show up on xray in any way.
If you want to screen for Petn you need to use chemical "sniffers." You have someone walk into a chamber, seal it off, puff them with air, and then see what chemicals are detectable in the chamber.
Detonating petn pretty much needs an electrical ignition system, but any such system would be detectable with a standard metal detector. That's one of the ways the cargo plot wasn't well thought out. They were able to find a way to hide the petn by putting it in place of the ink in computer printers, but they had no way to hide their ignition system (...which consisted of a cellphone and a bunch of obviously out of place wires connecting it to the explosives).
All compulsory xraying does is increase people's risk for cancer.
...and maybe making people get a false sense of security.
The WhiteHouse 2010 budget request for Homeland Security was $43.6 billion. Talk about a successful mission. A handful of hijacked planes brings down the two tallest skyscrapers in the the U.S., involve us in two wars that have drained our budget for nearly a decade and prompted into existence a brand new money guzzling agency with the teutonic sounding name of Homeland Security. This one-time mission inflicted a giant gash in our economy through which, a decade later, we’re bleeding a green gusher of money. Not just that, but every traveler in the world is now asked to spend two to three extra-hours in the airport, and subject themselves to electromagnetic radiation, and the bored questioning of inspectors while your carry-on is conveyed unguarded to the end of the belt where a stranger mistakes for his own and walks off toward gates unknown. I haven’t even mentioned yet the lives that have been lost and the lives that have been changed forever by the 9/11 attack and the resulting wars. That’s one hell of a payoff for a few terrorist lives lost in a “noble” quest. I’d say the terrorists won that one hands down.
Do the benefits of Homeland Security outweigh the costs? In view of the damage one successful mission can cause, I reluctantly answer yes. Do the benefits of the new scanners outweigh the personal cost to our privacy? Again, given the damage one mission can cause, and given the minimal imposition on our privacy (an anonymous person gets to see an image of our body form and some X-ray images of our carryon luggage) I’d say yes again. The only real question in my mind is the heath issue of exposure to the scanning equipment. I don’t have any really reliable information on those heath risks, but whatever they are they need to be compared to and combined with the higher risk of radiation exposure that is associated with flying at high altitudes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bte
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
That's Lisa, always giving a very nuanced and mature argument.
oh ya get angry with me see if i careQuote:
Originally Posted by dgs925
just because we agree to disagree i still value your opinions as everyone elses and i love you to death id just rather be safe is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
I can live with that. But I WILL make those TSA agents work for their money. And I intend to put the footage on Xtube because I guarantee it'll be a HAWT fucking show! :dancing:Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
~BB~
Unfortunately, though, the security theater provided by the TSA does nothing to keep us safe. That's why it's so galling that, in order to fly, we must sacrifice our dignity and privacy. In exchange for that sacrifice, all we get is a mirage.
Oh, and it costs a ton of money, too. TSA's budget appropriation for 2010 is $7.8 billion. Over $3 billion of that are just for the checkpoints -- passenger and baggage screening -- and $219 million just for the backscatter machines.
With regard to privacy, there is at least one lawsuit pending against the TSA seeking to block deployment of the backscatter machines. Given that a number of commenters on this board appear unaware that the 4th and 9th amendments are, in fact, part of the Constitution, I'm going to go ahead and wait to see how this one plays out in the courts. Shocking to imagine that the federal government might implement a policy that later turned out to be unconstitutional, but certainly stranger things have happened.
But ultimately, the problem is that airport screening is a bad joke. It's stupid and pointless. Everybody already knows that the scanners can't see in body cavities, so bad guys can just put stuff in their mouths or their butts. And Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic made the chilling point that if somebody has a weapon in the security checkpoint line, it's already too late. Not too many other places you can find 300-400 people all packed into a nice, tight, coiled line.
And I guess the "if you don't like it, don't fly" argument is valid, as long as you don't care about having a U.S. airline industry anymore. Below, the blue plot is the monthly total of U.S. domestic air passengers 1996-2001. The red plot is 2002-2010.
I could swear I read you saying somewhere you were living off welfare checks or food stamps or something like this...Really it's nothing to be ashamed of. Don't be :hide-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Regarding le mot du jour: "Hors d'ouvre" , Can you correctly pronounce it? Please not in the twisted English accent.
Who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?
OR.....
Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that PRIVATELY OWNED PLANE???
I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... move over... Im in line first.
I love your rationalization:
You: People blow themselves up making meth.
Me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?
You: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
Me: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, Age, drinking and driving ect.... is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?
You: even the pilots union is against them
Me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with Sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.
You: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
Me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. epecially knowing that they.... with the exception of John Adams all owned slaves... many of them... while they were President of the United States. 4 of the first 5 President... OWNED SLAVES.
But in your mind... they would have outlawed x-ray machines... but to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????
How about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?
I could keep going with your brilliant comments but I'll let it rest there...
roflmfao,good post i love itQuote:
Originally Posted by daveinboston
I agree with some of what he says but disagree with more of it.
He said what made us safer was putting a gun in the cockpit....putting a gun in the cockpit only keeps the plane from being taken over. It doesnt keep Richard Reid from igniting his shoes and blowing up the plane.
It doesnt keep the Christmas Kid from blowing up his Fruit of the Looms.
Why mention how many soldiers have been killed or how many people have died on our highways?
If you want to bring that up... what are you going to help that?
All you are doing it limiting what the TSA can do... what's your big solution to make the planes safer Mr Paul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instrumental
Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The following (pretty funny) cartoon includes the point that the risks are about the same, so scanning can't actually be of any safety benefit. Who actually benefits (following the money) are people like Michael Chertoff, Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, among whose clients now are Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners). So the people who think this increases security have, as usual, been duped.
YouTube - TSA Enhanced Screening Procedures Explained
I've watched and read different scientists talk about the low level effects of the scanner. Not one said that they were "harmful". In fact, they said that you receive more of a dosage with your cell phone.
Also, actually taking a plane trip increases the level of radiation that you are subjected to and that is now coming out as far as never having an official study done on how it effects pilots.
So before you post "cartoons" and make arguements as a statistician, get facts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scroller
Hi Scroller. I see your point, which the clip also makes very amusingly. From the point of view of a single individual you have a sound argument; i.e. If the increased probability of me getting cancer isn't balanced by a decrease in the probability of me dying from a terrorist attack, then there's no point in me taking the cancer risk.Quote:
Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.
On the other hand, the risk/benefit analysis for the nation needs to consider the probable rise of economic costs due to increased cases of cancer and ask if those are balanced by a decrease in the risk of catastrophic economic loss (of the sort I outlined in my last post) due to terrorist attacks. (Here I'm being the asshole TSA agent behind the counter repeating "9/11" :) )
I have to admit, my mind is really unsettled on this issue. My inclination is to side with those protesting that the scanning and "groping" is a violation of personal privacy which should be protected by the Constitution. But I also see that after a decade the 9/11 attacks are still exacting an exorbitant cost: lives lost in the attack and the wars that followed, trillions of dollars to fight those continued wars, political upheaval at home and the attention and money spent on homeland security.
I can't decide if the enormity of those costs weighted by their probability of re-occurrence has the same order of magnitude as violating the privacy of hundreds of thousands of air-travelers everyday weighted by the probability that the violation will be effective in evading a disaster.
What bothers me most about the TSA scanners is the technology was innovated by outside contractors to develop a product to sell to the Federal government, and the issue of improving airline travel safety wasn't the first priority, over even the 2nd or 3rd.
Homeland security should initially define ON THEIR OWN what are the best methods to improve airline safety and prevent future terrorist attacks, then seek private contracts, if required, to execute that mission.
Security companies should not be 'selling' a product to the U.S. government; the Feds should always be the 'buyer' based upon explicitly stated requirements.
This is the game being played by former Fed employees like Chertoff who then leave to work for private contractors; devising plans on how to fleece the U.S. taxpayer to buy something they may or may not need.
Because the U.S. government was solicited by a 'seller' and was not the active 'buyer', I question the effectiveness of these scanners long term.
Basically, we should look and see what Israel is doing to secure their commercial air travel, and copy them.
The best way to really prevent a future attack is in the early planning stages, by breaking up cells and identifying operatives, not hoping to catch someone during the final deployment of suicide bombers or explosive packages.
BTW, all foreigners and resident aliens of Middle Eastern descent or from Islamic countries traveling to and from the U.S. should be subject to enhanced security profiling and screening.
Until the Muslim world finally puts an end to religious extremism and anti-Western hatred/propaganda, they should ALL be treated as 'suspicious', IMO.
EDIT: Why does the scanning image need to be this detailed?? Americans are prudes anyway, do we really need a scan that shows a woman's areola/nipples??
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/att...1&d=1290022460
You mean a privately owned plane in a quasi-public airport where the screening is conducted by officials who are not employees of that airline or the airport at a time when air travel is already on the decline. That means that despite the industry being in trouble, the government is making it harder to fly. And really? Must I be forced back into the stone age by taking a prohibitively less convenient mode of transportation as the only alternative to participating in an Orwellian experiment? Yet cargo (again) is our weakest link. They can X-ray inanimate objects all they like but they don't; instead they electronically strip search us. Come on with that. People depend on air travel and most dangerous things that get onto a plane are in luggage or cardboard boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
So question: if they had a way to require you to go through a bio-metric scan every time you got behind the wheel, would your argument be that people should walk? Really? So instead of taking that energy and fighting for our rights, you expect us to just give it away to the government instead just because you choose too? Sounds pretty selfish to me. Don't even get me started on the 5th Amendment implications possible if law enforcement ever points to airline security as a precedent to determine what is a reasonable search. Pretty soon they'll be able to strip search anyone they like.
Do you also like Obamacare? TARP? Do you drive a 'Government Motors' automobile?
I'm sorry, this may come off as personal, but I find it disgusting that anybody would submit themselves to that level or scrutiny just to lower the odds of being injured when those odds are already at 1:500,000. You have a greater chance of having an autistic child (1:150), and really, how many of those do you know well?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
That's exactly my point! What do full body scans have to do with lowering the chances that someone will bring a non-metallic agent that can't fit into a body cavity onto a plane when, again, if it reaches the security line it's already too late? Makes no sense, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
So again I ask, because people are blowing themselves up making meth, should we ban cigarette lighters? Of course not. Your argument that my argument is ridiculous... is ridiculous.
Oh, you mean the arbitrary speed limits that dull our driving skills? There are no speed limits in most of Europe and far fewer highway fatalities. Do you know why? Because personal responsibility makes Europeans better drivers overall. And alcohol? OMG! The effects of alcohol vary by the person. I know plenty of people who could run a Gran Prix at .08 and plenty who couldn't ride a bike at .02. I mean you're talking to a girl who comes from the only state in the country that doesn't require auto insurance. I don't agree with it, but I took advantage on occasion when I was living there. Do you think that state's roads have descended into chaos? Of course not. Extra points if you can name the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Furthermore, how come people are not supposed to discriminate against other people based on their experiences, but the government can discriminate against every person based on nothing other than arguable statistics. I mean, hell, if you want to go there, what's Constitutional about our drug policy? Not a DAMN thing.
That's irrelevant. They're against the scanners for everyone, not just pilots.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
It was accepted practice at the time that we all now know is wrong. Full body scanners are accepted by many people too... see where I'm going with this? The Founders did not have the political clout to shake up the status quo enough to provide everyone with the same freedoms in their time, hence their foresight dictated that the Constitution be a sort of wish list. Even though everyone didn't have equal rights back then, they worded the Bill of Rights in such a way that eventually they would have to, and in fact we did extend those rights to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
'Hypocritical?' Try 'idealistic.'
Are you kidding? These were guys who pranced around in powdered wigs, makeup, and ruffles, sometimes even on the battlefield. Again, please spare me the historical relativism. If you have such a problem with how much things have changed since the beginning of our nation, please do try your hand at re-writing the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
And the most ironic name of a corporation in the history of history is... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by scroller
~BB~
http://www.optoutday.com/Quote:
**ALERT: Rep. Ron Paul has introduced H.R. 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act in Congress.**
Please ask your U.S. Representative to be a co-sponsor on this important legislation. As Rep. Paul says:
"My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us."
~BB~
Goddamn it...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
CARGO SCREENING AND INTELLIGENCE OPS!
WTF?! :lol:
~BB~
Here are facts. "Back in May, professors at the University of California, San Francisco, led by John Sedat sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration with a litany of red flags about using back-scatter X-ray with such frequency— mostly that the safety has not be independently proven."Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Quote:
The low-energy rays do a “Compton scatter” off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation. When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn’t shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is “likely breaking bonds,” which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...y-x-ray-scans/Quote:
“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” says Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine…. “No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner.”
[P.S. "arguments", not "arguements"]
Cargo screening and Intelligence operations have been in existence from before 9-11... people have still gotten on planes with weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
You next suggestion?
Seriously? It's a big world with lots of terror activity going on and you can't catch everyone, not even if you body scanned every human on Earth. So again (because you're not thinking out this argument, you're feeling it), if the current special operations stop 99.9% of terrorism and the TSA stops none at all, what's the point of any of this nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
~BB~
I can post studies that say they arent harmful.... and it proves what?
If there is an safety issue regarding the use of these then I am in agreement that they shouldnt be used. Plain and simple.
Bella's logic and pissing and moaning about her civil liberties being violated is absurb at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scroller
As usual, my arguments can't be respected because to do so might actually allow them to gain momentum. Well, if that's the case:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
http://www.eagletribune.com/newhamps...canner-protest
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...gents.html.csp
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/n...oliday-travel/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/di...tripping-down/
Shall I continue? What's absurd is your implication that I'm the only one who has a problem with all of this.
I'm going to rest my case here because your argument has lost all logical cohesion.
~BB~
You are too funny.
Do you think that a private agency could possibly handle providing the infrastructure to maintain security at every airport in the country? Wouldnt it be great if it was a contract that went out to bid like other projects and we got a new agency each 3-5 years (the lowest bidder) and changed out the workforce.
Please tell me what private agency could actually handle a security force that size....?????????????????????????????????????????? ???
The airlines are in trouble because of the economy and cost of fuel... and the fact that a plane still has to fly if its full or has 5 people on board.
What planet are you on that you dont think air cargo doesnt get screened and/or xrayed?
You are concerned about being forced back into the stone age? Again... no one is forcing you to do anything. You have a choice...
Dont worry. Im not going to respond to any futher replies from you. I think whatever meds you've been on have affected your brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Ok, I guess I'm not done. You have more 'absurd' arguments for me to debunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-hills-radar/
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20...9.php?oref=rss
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1110/110410nj1.htm
Google is your friend.
Sure, I have a choice: I can drive the three days next time I want to go back to Boston. Not much of a choice, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Why? Well why should you have to do a scan to fly? The government obviously can make you and many others do anything it wants with only a minimal justification. For the last time, body scans provide no real security advantages. You've yet to argue that point and my comparison to driving is intended to point of the silliness of your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Finally we agree on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
It's about odds. So the answer to my question (how many autistic children do you know well?) is one and yet you hold a fundraiser. So statistically speaking, you'd have to know 166,667 terror victims to justify your argument on that level. (1:150 versus 1:25 million).Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
No, they blow up the tightly coiled security line which contains approximately the same number of people as the plane. Minus the property damage, it's the exact same outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
I meant everywhere. I don't see anyone cooking meth on an airplane either, do you? This was an argument about overreaching, not literally about banning cigarette lighters.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Absolutely. As do the red light cameras we use here. Not to mention the selective enforcement and payola issues that go along with them. They don't make drivers any better. And I never said there were no speed limits. I said there were fewer speed limits. There are also more designated high speed areas than we have here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
The point is that polite society is not supposed to be judgmental yet our government sets criminal drug policy based on weighted statistics (often based on the personal judgments of those in power) that serve the true purpose of the drug war: perpetuating the prison/industrial complex, and it's unconstitutional. The same thing goes for the scanners: the government has essentially deemed air travel unsafe without their unconstitutional practices based on statistics that are cherry picked to reflect nothing but their own interests. They used the same technique to outlaw marijuana. Scanners are the new millennium's Reefer Madness. Get it now? It's all propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Really? What about the economy of the time? So there were no landowners? What about the Crown? Just because there were so few American politicians in the newly formed government, it doesn't mean that the nation lacked other political figures, organizations, and interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
Attacking your opponent directly is the #1 tell-tale sign of a weak argument. Arguing with you is like taking candy from a baby, and frankly, you're starting to make me feel a little guilty about it. :geek:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
~BB~
bella your persistant ill give that that but your not gonna win this period lol you must be a republican
Well there's no win or lose really. It comes down to a choice: you can be emotional about it or you can be logical. In fact, it can be directly correlated to the theism versus anti-theism debate which will continue forever. Personally, I choose to be logical but also faithful so I'm agnostic. And no I'm not a Republican; I'm a Libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
For the last time, some people may not mind the scanner, but many do, and they have the right to object to a definite strip search versus a 1:25,000,000 chance of death.
~BB~
At some point I have to discontinue banging my head against a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
She is clearly thought-impared...although looking at your new pictures...and caught the video on your site... it impairs my thought process as a certain amount of blood flows away from my brain into a lower part of my body (well the bigger brain anyway...lol)
:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:
I can live with that. Good debate. :Bowdown: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
~BB~
yer such a perv lol i love it thank you daveQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveinBoston
That body brings it out in me :party:Quote:
Originally Posted by lisaparadise
I agree with NYBURBS comment here!Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS