PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Someone should tell them not to fly


HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 12:16 PM
Flying undiebombers and shoe blower-uppers, and hijackers who crash planes are anti-Christian. Muslim kooks who deny the right for Israel to exist are just that, kooks.

Too bad we don't have leadership at any level in the country to tell these people to go pound sand. They want to impose this garbage here like they have in Great Britain and everywhere else they show up.

Well fine. The simple answer is you dont have to be body scanned if you don't fly. Simple answer, happy days, Islam is saved. Now that we have that solved, go use your new found time to keep Islamists from blowing up innocent people and do some work on Womens rights and such.

Airport Body Scanners Violate the Teachings of Islam, Says Muslim Group
Thursday, February 11, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor


(CNSNews.com) - A group of Muslim scholars says it supports airline safety, but it is "deeply concerned" about the use of airport scanners that show nude images of the human body.

“The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) emphasizes that a general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty,” the group said in a Feb. 10 statement posted at Islam Online.

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.

While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level.

FCNA is asking for changes in scanner software so the machines will produce only body outlines. In the meantime, the group says Muslim travelers should choose pat-down searches over scanner images – in cases where searches are necessary.

The Fiqh Council of North America is an affiliate of the Islamic Society of North America, which advises and educates its members and officials “on matters related to the application of Shari’ah (Islamic law) in their individual and collective lives in the North American environment.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also issued a news release on Wednesday, endorsing FCNA's statement on the use of body scanners.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:28 PM
Nice there was a TSA agent busted for pedophilia last weekend but i guess that's the CHRISTIAN thing to do?

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Sure he should get busted for it. You think they shouldn't have?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:38 PM
Sure he should get busted for it. You think they shouldn't have?

No i'm saying that if you use Naked Body scanners which also btw radiate you and increase cancer risk you are inviting in Pedophiles and their ilk to do these jobs.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 12:40 PM
wow.

Better let them blow up people. I see your point.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:42 PM
wow.

Better let them blow up people. I see your point.

Who has blown up? the Cia patsies that are the fruit of the boom underwear bomber? the deadly shoe bomber? No i'm not readily giving up my rights because then the terrorists will have won.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 12:59 PM
Not that I agree with them but there is women's groups that are against this as well

wild1
02-11-2010, 01:07 PM
No i'm saying that if you use Naked Body scanners which also btw radiate you and increase cancer risk

:Scanlon:

BigChiefFan
02-11-2010, 01:11 PM
The body scanner is shameful. What kind of a father sends his kid through those sick ****ing things? How in God's green Earth can someone condemn this? You're willing to let sick ****s look at your family and yourself, all in the name of freedom? That's not freedom, that's insanity.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 01:23 PM
The body scanner is shameful. What kind of a father sends his kid through those sick ****ing things? How in God's green Earth can someone condemn this? You're willing to let sick ****s look at your family and yourself, all in the name of freedom? That's not freedom, that's insanity.

What freedom does it violate? Freedom to fly? Please, please show me where we are granted that freedom. If you don't like, don't fly. Drive, take the bus, take a train, then you won't have to worry about. Simple solution. I have to fly for work on a regualr basis and prefer this x 1000 then having to worry about some douche with thermite in his skivvies. You want to look at my junk as I go through the scanner? Knock yourself out! Just get me to where I am going safely.

BigChiefFan
02-11-2010, 01:29 PM
What freedom does it violate? Freedom to fly? Please, please show me where we are granted that freedom. If you don't like, don't fly. Drive, take the bus, take a train, then you won't have to worry about. Simple solution. I have to fly for work on a regualr basis and prefer this x 1000 then having to worry about some douche with thermite in his skivvies. You want to look at my junk as I go through the scanner? Knock yourself out! Just get me to where I am going safely.It's violates the right to PRIVACY. You do remember that CONSTITUTIONAL right, don't you?


Not only that, they are, and will be installing these EVERYWHERE. Not just for planes.

It's not about safety. It's about having everyone submit their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 01:31 PM
What freedom does it violate? Freedom to fly? Please, please show me where we are granted that freedom. If you don't like, don't fly. Drive, take the bus, take a train, then you won't have to worry about. Simple solution. I have to fly for work on a regualr basis and prefer this x 1000 then having to worry about some douche with thermite in his skivvies. You want to look at my junk as I go through the scanner? Knock yourself out! Just get me to where I am going safely.

4TH Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
[edit] Background

Incredibly intrusive, if they want to see my junk i'll show em all right there.

Brock
02-11-2010, 01:32 PM
It's violates the right to PRIVACY. You do remember that CONSTITUTIONAL right, don't you?


Not only that, they are, and will be installing these EVERYWHERE. Not just for planes.

It's not about safety. It's about having everyone submit their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

Are you against having your bag searched before you can get on a plane?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 01:33 PM
Are you against having your bag searched before you can get on a plane?

NO they have non intrusive scanners for that.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:33 PM
The body scanner is shameful. What kind of a father sends his kid through those sick ****ing things? How in God's green Earth can someone condemn this? You're willing to let sick ****s look at your family and yourself, all in the name of freedom? That's not freedom, that's insanity.

It's not mandatory. As HCF says, you can always drive or take a boat.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 01:33 PM
Are you against having your bag searched before you can get on a plane?

Are you against enforcing the laws already on the book? like the fruit of the loom bomber boarding without a passport?

Brock
02-11-2010, 01:33 PM
NO they have non intrusive scanners for that.

I didn't ask you, nutjob.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 01:41 PM
Most people shouldn't worry about this but celebrities ought to. I could imagine a scenario happening where they are scanned and the next day their x-rays are all over the internet.

wild1
02-11-2010, 01:48 PM
These are coming to the airport near me, I heard on the radio.

The default for everyone should be screening using these. If you wish to decline the full body scan, then they should be willing to go through an alternate process, which is something like the 'selected for additional screening' process.

I suppose to me the human body is a normal and unremarkable thing, not something to be ashamed of or hyper protective of, so I don't personally see what the big deal is. For me.

Inspector
02-11-2010, 01:58 PM
Yeah, I'll take the pat down from that really cute girl in line 4..........

"A little to the left, yeah, right there...is that a bomb? Better check real good. Yeah, just a little more..right......there...yeah...."

There might be an up side to this.

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:07 PM
I would imagine that only those with small packages would be worried about this.

BigChiefFan
02-11-2010, 02:12 PM
Are you against having your bag searched before you can get on a plane?
No, because they aren't seeing my families' PRIVATE PARTS, with that action. It's called PRIVATES, as in PRIVACY, for a reason.

Safety is one thing, infringing on EVERYBODY's rights, for said safety is another.

I don't choose to waive my constitutional rights, for somebody else's false sense of security.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:13 PM
I would imagine that only those with small packages would be worried about this.

:LOL:

BigChiefFan
02-11-2010, 02:16 PM
I would imagine that only those with small packages would be worried about this.



A self-absorbed person would think along those lines, but not a loving father, who doesn't want his families' GOD GIVEN RIGHTS trampled on.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 02:19 PM
It's violates the right to PRIVACY. You do remember that CONSTITUTIONAL right, don't you?


Not only that, they are, and will be installing these EVERYWHERE. Not just for planes.

It's not about safety. It's about having everyone submit their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

Of course I know what the constitution says, and it does not clearly state that you or I have a right to privacy. The 3rd, 4th , and 5th amendments allude to certain aspects of privacy, but do not call this a 100% right. I am sure there are numberous Supreme Court cases where this has been challenged and upheld/overturned due to specific conditions of the case, but I am not educated on the legal system enough to be able to cite them. None of this really matters anyway. There is no right to fly guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a privilege. If you don't like the conditions you must meet in order to fly, then you are free to explore other means. Plain and simple.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:19 PM
I would imagine that only those with small packages would be worried about this.

Ya like those who don't want naked pics of their 9 yr old daughter going around to the pedophile rings, always using the critical eye there Donger. ;)

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Of course I know what the constitution says, and it does not clearly state that you or I have a right to privacy. The 3rd, 4th , and 5th amendments allude to certain aspects of privacy, but do not call this a 100% right. I am sure there are numberous Supreme Court cases where this has been challenged and upheld/overturned due to specific conditions of the case, but I am not educated on the legal system enough to be able to cite them. None of this really matters anyway. There is no right to fly guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a privilege. If you don't like the conditions you must meet in order to fly, then you are free to explore other means. Plain and simple.

So how much do you get for each body scanner? :rolleyes:

mikey23545
02-11-2010, 02:21 PM
Who has blown up? the Cia patsies that are the fruit of the boom underwear bomber? the deadly shoe bomber? No i'm not readily giving up my rights because then the terrorists will have won.

Someone should start an airline just for people like you...It could be called Air Ignorance, and they could hand out complimentary tin-foil hats as you board the plane...

They could even save on expenses by not handing out snacks during the flight and use the slogan "Who needs nuts when you're flying Air Ignorance?"....

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:23 PM
Oh, it's about "the kids." Got it.

Brock
02-11-2010, 02:24 PM
No, because they aren't seeing my families' PRIVATE PARTS, with that action. It's called PRIVATES, as in PRIVACY, for a reason.

Safety is one thing, infringing on EVERYBODY's rights, for said safety is another.

I don't choose to waive my constitutional rights, for somebody else's false sense of security.

Well, you're only waiving your constitutional rights by agreeing to fly and abide by whatever security processes they have in place. Are you saying you should be able to say whatever you want on an airplane too? Something like "I'M GOING TO BLOW THIS PLANE UP"?

Don't like it? Nobody's making you go to the airport.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:25 PM
Someone should start an airline just for people like you...It could be called Air Ignorance, and they could hand out complimentary tin-foil hats as you board the plane...

They could even save on expenses by not handing out snacks during the flight and use the slogan "Who needs nuts when you fly Air Ignorance?"....

Someone should start a country aimed at people just like you, it's called 95% of the dictatorship governments that have existed. Spread em for the king there buddy. No wonder Hitler was able to stage a false flag attack and get away with mass homocide, there were people that said defend the motherland from those dastardly jews and we'll give up our freedom for security. :spock:

Brock
02-11-2010, 02:25 PM
Someone should start a country aimed at people just like you, it's called 95% of the dictatorship governments that have existed. Spread em for the king there buddy. No wonder Hitler was able to stage a false flag attack and get away with mass homocide, there were people that said defend the motherland from those dastardly jews and we'll give up our freedom for liberty. :spock:

Yeah, you keep on keepin on, Freedom Fighter on teh Intarwebz.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Yeah, you keep on keepin on, Freedom Fighter on teh Intarwebz.

No one asked you nutter. ;)

mikey23545
02-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Someone should start a country aimed at people just like you, it's called 95% of the dictatorship governments that have existed. Spread em for the king there buddy. No wonder Hitler was able to stage a false flag attack and get away with mass homocide, there were people that said defend the motherland from those dastardly jews and we'll give up our freedom for security. :spock:

Wait, I thought of a better name for the airline : "Air-a-noia"...

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 02:27 PM
4TH Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
[edit] Background

Incredibly intrusive, if they want to see my junk i'll show em all right there.


Is it unreasonable to want to serch your pants for a bomb before you board an airplane? You have a choice and privelege to fly or not to fly on board an aircraft owned and operated by a private company/public corporation, not the US Government. You have to submit to their conditions before you are allowed to do so. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:28 PM
No, because they aren't seeing my families' PRIVATE PARTS, with that action. It's called PRIVATES, as in PRIVACY, for a reason.

Safety is one thing, infringing on EVERYBODY's rights, for said safety is another.

I don't choose to waive my constitutional rights, for somebody else's false sense of security.

Do you let them scan or search your baggage? Your family's intimate apparel could be seen. There could even be a degenerate working there and touching them all over with his hands. Do you let them intrude on your privacy that way, or do you choose "freedom-friendly" alternate means of travel?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:29 PM
Is it unreasonable to want to serch your pants for a bomb before you board an airplane? You have a choice and privelege to fly or not to fly on board an aircraft owned and operated by a private company/public corporation, not the US Government. You have to submit to their conditions before you are allowed to do so. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

Yes anytime someone would like to take a look at your/wife/daughter/sons body without your permission (doctor) naked it's pretty disgusting.

Brock
02-11-2010, 02:29 PM
I'm all for whatever gets us back to 20 minutes from the parking lot to the plane.

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:29 PM
I honestly don't know why we don't have dogs at every single security checkpoint. Well, I should be more specific; canines.

I suppose being sniffed by a dog is a violation of your "God-given rights," too?

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Yes anytime someone would like to take a look at your/wife/daughter/sons body naked it's pretty disgusting.

What about how they repeatedly ask to see your identification? You don't think you should have to identify yourself when asked, do you? Doesn't that destroy your right to privacy?

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 02:31 PM
So how much do you get for each body scanner? :rolleyes:

Not sure what you mean? It seems that You've got nothing.:shake:

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 02:31 PM
NO they have non intrusive scanners for that.

You should have yelled "SURPRISE" when you jumped out of the nutjob closet.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:31 PM
What about how they repeatedly ask to see your identification? You don't think you should have to identify yourself when asked, do you? Doesn't that destroy your right to privacy?

Your papers please, yes without probable cause there isn't any reason to search someone.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 02:32 PM
Yes anytime someone would like to take a look at your/wife/daughter/sons body without your permission (doctor) naked it's pretty disgusting.

Well by choosing to fly, am I not giving said permission?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:33 PM
Well by choosing to fly, am I not giving said permission?

Obviously many aren't or there wouldn't be a big stink about it.

Tango&Cash
02-11-2010, 02:35 PM
It's violates the right to PRIVACY. You do remember that CONSTITUTIONAL right, don't you?


Not only that, they are, and will be installing these EVERYWHERE. Not just for planes.

It's not about safety. It's about having everyone submit their freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

THIS x1000

Brock
02-11-2010, 02:35 PM
Obviously many aren't or there wouldn't be a big stink about it.

There isn't a big stink about it. Nobody is choosing not to fly because of this.

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 02:35 PM
I'd rather spend 30 minutes getting into the air and know there isn't a bomb on the plane....that's how I care about my kids...by supporting what keeps them safe in the sky.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:36 PM
I'd rather spend 30 minutes getting into the air and know there isn't a bomb on the plane....that's how I care about my kids...by supporting what keeps them safe in the sky.

Yep. Though I never worry about bombs on planes I always worry about mechanical problems and the pilot.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 02:37 PM
I'd rather spend 30 minutes getting into the air and know there isn't a bomb on the plane....that's how I care about my kids...by supporting what keeps them safe in the sky.

Can I get an AMEN!!! for the brother from Iowa???:thumb:

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:38 PM
Obviously many aren't or there wouldn't be a big stink about it.

You need to read the fine print of your ticket. When you buy one, you do give permission to be searched.

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:41 PM
Your papers please, yes without probable cause there isn't any reason to search someone.

So, you feel they should not be able to search or check anyone for anything when boarding a plane, nor should they so much as ask to see your driver's license to determine if you are on a watch list or anything like that.

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 02:42 PM
Oh....in the event that a tsa employee is engaging in a pedo event with one of my children, I'll be taking their coin purse onto the plane as a carry on.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 02:42 PM
It's violates the right to PRIVACY. You do remember that CONSTITUTIONAL right, don't you?

No.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:44 PM
Honestly I would rather blow up then do the rapid descend into hell. One is painless they other is slow and painful.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 02:45 PM
You should have yelled "SURPRISE" when you jumped out of the nutjob closet.

Classic.

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 02:48 PM
My family will just ride the friendly skies of our flying unicorn....the contrails are rainbows.

We sing Shiny-Happy-People over and over to make the trip go quickly.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 02:50 PM
4TH Amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
[edit] Background

Incredibly intrusive, if they want to see my junk i'll show em all right there.

Can I take from this that you'd be okay with an airline insisting that its passengers pass through such a device so long as the government doesn't mandate it?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:51 PM
My family will just ride the friendly skies of our flying unicorn....the contrails are rainbows.

We sing Shiny-Happy-People over and over to make the trip go quickly.

Where do I sign up?

KC native
02-11-2010, 02:58 PM
These scanners are an invasion of privacy. I will opt for a pat down instead of these everytime.

That being said, you know how many terrorists we've caught due to all these extra "security" measures? A big fat 0. No one is even looking at whether these techniques actually catch terrorists or not.

Inspector
02-11-2010, 03:04 PM
Wait, I thought of a better name for the airline : "Air-a-noia"...

OK, regardless of how anyone feels about the issues, this here is funny.

ROFL

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:05 PM
These scanners are an invasion of privacy. I will opt for a pat down instead of these everytime.

Interesting point of view. You find an electronic invasion greater somehow than physical contact?

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 03:06 PM
Where do I sign up?

So you're signing up early to ride on the front seat huh....the view will be spectacular, but I'm guessing the seat is pretty uncomfortable by my standards.

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
They should start by profiling and targeting those individuals for extra patdowns and leave granny O'malley alone.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Interesting point of view. You find an electronic invasion greater somehow than physical contact?

Well, I was trying to keep it short but with these scanners there is a digital record of the scan. Also, I have concerns with how much radiation we are exposed to (over the course of our lives and it's impact on cancer rates) and these scanners are much stronger than your microwave.

With a pat down, you get patted down and then it's over.

Inspector
02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
I would think the terrorists would just start using land to air missle launchers instead of sneaking bombs into their underwear. I've never seen a camel searched at the airport. What do you think those big humps are for anyway?

That's what the modern terrorists would do. That and signing up for Twitter.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
Well, I was trying to keep it short but with these scanners there is a digital record of the scan. Also, I have concerns with how much radiation we are exposed to (over the course of our lives and it's impact on cancer rates) and these scanners are much stronger than your microwave.

With a pat down, you get patted down and then it's over.

As I understand it, no, there is no record of each scan. It is immediately deleted. I am a little wary that these mental giants at security screening will figure out a way to counter that, however.

As to your scary RF point, would you like to explain in greater detail?

Cannibal
02-11-2010, 03:12 PM
This is another stepping stone of government into our lives. I'm kinda surprised so many people are for it.

We now have cameras at every intersection, cameras in public squares, apparently we'll now allow our privacy to be violated right down to our nudity for anyone to see. We really will be forced to have cameras in our homes. It is only a matter of time.

Big Brother really is watching us.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:13 PM
So you're signing up early to ride on the front seat huh....the view will be spectacular, but I'm guessing the seat is pretty uncomfortable by my standards.

I am used to it ;)

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:17 PM
As I understand it, no, there is no record of each scan. It is immediately deleted. I am a little wary that these mental giants at security screening will figure out a way to counter that, however.

As to your scary RF point, would you like to explain in greater detail?

If it passes through a computer there is a record. Things don't disappear in the digital age.

As far as radiation, normally I would, but right now I don't have the energy to go and find the literature on it. Short and sweet, I'm concerned with the amount of radiation that we receive from everything (cell phones,x-rays,cat scans, body scans) over our lifetimes and it's impact on cancer rates. I feel that we should minimize it where ever possible. These body scanners aren't much weaker than an X-ray (from what I've read) but they have none of the precautions that x-rays do (lead walls, bib's,attention to the number and frequency, etc).

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:18 PM
This is another stepping stone of government into our lives. I'm kinda surprised so many people are for it.

We now have cameras at every intersection, cameras in public squares, apparently we'll now allow our privacy to be violated right down to our nudity for anyone to see. We really will be forced to have cameras in our homes. It is only a matter of time.

Big Brother really is watching us.

but but but but it m-m-m-m-m-m-might catch a terrurizt/RWNJ

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:19 PM
These body scanners aren't much weaker than an X-ray from what I've read but they have none of the precautions that x-rays do (lead walls, bib's,attention to the number and frequency, etc).

Ah, I see. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks.

Cannibal
02-11-2010, 03:20 PM
I also find the idea of TSA workers being able to see naked children quite disturbing.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:22 PM
Ah, I see. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks.

I've done extensive reading about it and just bought my planes ticket to go to my friend's funeral so I really don't feel like leading you around by the hand right now. So, go fuck yourself.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 03:23 PM
Ah, I see. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks.


this

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 03:24 PM
I've done extensive reading about it and just bought my planes ticket to go to my friend's funeral so I really don't feel like leading you around by the hand right now. So, go **** yourself.

You've been skimming the back of the granola box again, haven't you? What have we told you about that?

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:24 PM
You've been skimming the back of the granola box again, haven't you? What have we told you about that?

You know what? you can go fuck yourself too.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:25 PM
I've done extensive reading about it and just bought my planes ticket to go to my friend's funeral so I really don't feel like leading you around by the hand right now. So, go **** yourself.

Pssst. You don't need to lead me at all. I'm rather well-versed in most forms of RF, including the ones that you're scared of.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:26 PM
Who has blown up? the Cia patsies that are the fruit of the boom underwear bomber? the deadly shoe bomber? No i'm not readily giving up my rights because then the terrorists will have won.

Your right not to be scanned?

Nothing personal, but you're a completely whacko.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:27 PM
Pssst. You don't need to lead me at all. I'm rather well-versed in most forms of RF, including the ones that you're scared of.

Where did I said I was scared of them? I said I was concerned with the accumulation of them over the course of our lives. Your poor attempts to put me in Killer Clown territory isn't going to work.

Amnorix
02-11-2010, 03:28 PM
Not that I agree with them but there is women's groups that are against this as well

Then don't fly. Sorry.

Alternative -- get to the airport early and submit to a strip search (presumably to be conducted by other women).

I'm happier knowing I'm not flying with hair-bomber, underwear-bomber, or intestines-packed-with-C4-bomber, thanks all the same.

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:31 PM
Where did I said I was scared of them? I said I was concerned with the accumulation of them over the course of our lives. Your poor attempts to put me in Killer Clown territory isn't going to work.

Oh, you are concerned in a good way? You think it'll give your Superman-like benefits or something?

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:32 PM
Then don't fly. Sorry.

Alternative -- get to the airport early and submit to a strip search (presumably to be conducted by other women).

I'm happier knowing I'm not flying with hair-bomber, underwear-bomber, or intestines-packed-with-C4-bomber, thanks all the same.

That last one is a pickle. The full body scanners don't show subdermal.

Dogs, dogs and more dogs, IMO.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:35 PM
Oh, you are concerned in a good way? You think it'll give your Superman-like benefits or something?

I believe the proper phrase here again is "go fuck yourself" and I will add "and then die."

Donger
02-11-2010, 03:36 PM
I believe the proper phrase here again is "go **** yourself" and I will add "and then die."

The full body scanners will probably grant you your wish soon enough.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 03:42 PM
My biggest worry is all the passengers glowing in the dark on long overseas flights and not being able to sleep.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:45 PM
I've done extensive reading about it and just bought my planes ticket to go to my friend's funeral so I really don't feel like leading you around by the hand right now. So, go **** yourself.

You're not flying outta here today bro... I keep getting bumped down from one flight to next due to the Blizzard of '10. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled....

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:46 PM
Ah, I see. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks.

Correct. He does not. Anuslips.

ClevelandBronco
02-11-2010, 03:47 PM
You know what? you can go **** yourself too.

So you're opposed essentially because:

1. You can read.
2. Your friend is deceased.
3. You're going to fly.
4. Fuck us.

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:49 PM
These scanners are an invasion of privacy. I will opt for a pat down instead of these everytime.

That being said, you know how many terrorists we've caught due to all these extra "security" measures? A big fat 0. No one is even looking at whether these techniques actually catch terrorists or not.

They are not designed to catch terrorists. They are designed to prevent terrorists from trying to be terrorists. This is where your logic and understanding have failed you.

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 03:49 PM
No one has a 'right' to get on a plane. They buy the option of riding on a plane.

And I have no problem with that option including body scans.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:52 PM
You're not flying outta here today bro... I keep getting bumped down from one flight to next due to the Blizzard of '10. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled. Canceled....

Flying out tomorrow at 6. I knew everything would be shut down today. There is a remote chance I'll have to work tomorrow but I doubt it considering drivers here can hardly handle perfect conditions.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:54 PM
They are not designed to catch terrorists. They are designed to prevent terrorists from trying to be terrorists. This is where your logic and understanding have failed you.

:spock: Security measures are supposed to prevent terrorists from trying to be terrorists? You call that logic?

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:55 PM
Flying out tomorrow at 6. I knew everything would be shut down today. There is a remote chance I'll have to work tomorrow but I doubt it considering drivers here can hardly handle perfect conditions.

I am still here at 114 and O'Connor sitting here like a dope trying to get some work done. I figured I might as well sit at my as they cancel my flights as opposed to sitting in Terminal B or some foul lounge at DFW...

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 03:55 PM
You know, this has some possibilities to be improved.

Since its like a microwave, why couldnt they turn it up on high when a terrorist is discovered and save the trouble of dealing with him like we have to now?

Everybody else just gets a nightlight sort of a glow but the bad guy turns into a crispy critter and goes out the terr-o-chute.

Be like a bug light sort of a thing allah akbar ZZZZZap

Dallas Chief
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM
:spock: Security measures are supposed to prevent terrorists from trying to be terrorists? You call that logic?

Yes I do. Think about it. It's not like they have a SWAT Team or company of Delta Operators working the screening checkpoints. I mean who are Bertha Sue and Ming Lee going to arrest and interrogate??? Think man! They have these $10 and hour folks in place to catch terrorists? No, no, no. Those are preventive measures. A deterrant.

KC native
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM
I am still here at 114 and O'Connor sitting here like a dope trying to get some work done. I figured I might as well sit at my as they cancel my flights as opposed to sitting in Terminal B or some foul lounge at DFW...

They sent us home at 1. Be safe when you leave. The roads aren't getting any better.

Garcia Bronco
02-11-2010, 04:04 PM
So they did this to me this weekend. You have the option of a traditional pat-down. This is blown out of proportion.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 05:01 PM
These scanners are an invasion of privacy. I will opt for a pat down instead of these everytime.

That being said, you know how many terrorists we've caught due to all these extra "security" measures? A big fat 0. No one is even looking at whether these techniques actually catch terrorists or not.

We'll never know how many attacks have been deterred because security has been tightened.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 05:07 PM
Yes I do. Think about it. It's not like they have a SWAT Team or company of Delta Operators working the screening checkpoints. I mean who are Bertha Sue and Ming Lee going to arrest and interrogate??? Think man! They have these $10 and hour folks in place to catch terrorists? No, no, no. Those are preventive measures. A deterrant.

Yep.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 05:24 PM
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/BodyScanprivacy.gif

Hog Farmer
02-11-2010, 06:48 PM
Don't worry. just as soon as the next bomber boards with a bomb shoved up his ass, we'll all be subject to anal probes.

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 09:04 PM
If you aren't willing to subject yourself to a body scan or pat down the terrorists win.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2010, 11:56 PM
Maybe, flying monkeys with bombs will be next...inspired by Oz.

Royal Fanatic
02-12-2010, 12:50 AM
As I was reading this thread I started to wonder just how revealing the scanned pictures are. I did a Google search and found these pictures:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg

They are more revealing than I expected them to be. I'd like to see the full body scanners as an option for us old guys who don't give a shit and just want to get on the damn plane as quickly as possible, but I can see how young women and kids should probably not have to go through them.

The only other comment I'll make is that I want to be the one running the scanner when Erin Andrews goes through it. :evil:

Hog Farmer
02-12-2010, 04:38 AM
She needs to shave !

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:00 AM
As I was reading this thread I started to wonder just how revealing the scanned pictures are. I did a Google search and found these pictures:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg

They are more revealing than I expected them to be. I'd like to see the full body scanners as an option for us old guys who don't give a shit and just want to get on the damn plane as quickly as possible, but I can see how young women and kids should probably not have to go through them.

The only other comment I'll make is that I want to be the one running the scanner when Erin Andrews goes through it. :evil:

Women and kids have been getting naked for doctors forever. What's so bad about this?

These scanner operators are just doing a job. They're going to see so many scanned bodies that it's going to quickly become completely un-titillating.

Cannibal
02-12-2010, 08:16 AM
Don't worry. just as soon as the next bomber boards with a bomb shoved up his ass, we'll all be subject to anal probes.

You are so right! And it seems many people on here would happily submit to them.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2010, 08:50 AM
Maybe the private jet industry will take off now! Perhaps they can book a load of their friends or make it some sort of club that flies.

RJ
02-12-2010, 11:19 AM
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg



That chick is hot. Plus she has a gun up her ass, so you know she does anal. :p

Donger
02-12-2010, 12:16 PM
As I was reading this thread I started to wonder just how revealing the scanned pictures are. I did a Google search and found these pictures:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg

They are more revealing than I expected them to be. I'd like to see the full body scanners as an option for us old guys who don't give a shit and just want to get on the damn plane as quickly as possible, but I can see how young women and kids should probably not have to go through them.

The only other comment I'll make is that I want to be the one running the scanner when Erin Andrews goes through it. :evil:

Nice tits.

RJ
02-12-2010, 12:52 PM
So, just out of curiosity, what kind of money could a guy make working one of them scanners?

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 02:41 PM
As I was reading this thread I started to wonder just how revealing the scanned pictures are. I did a Google search and found these pictures:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg

They are more revealing than I expected them to be. I'd like to see the full body scanners as an option for us old guys who don't give a shit and just want to get on the damn plane as quickly as possible, but I can see how young women and kids should probably not have to go through them.

The only other comment I'll make is that I want to be the one running the scanner when Erin Andrews goes through it. :evil:

I tried to tell you, guys. Have fun, having pervs gawk at your wife and kids.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 03:57 PM
I tried to tell you, guys. Have fun, having pervs gawk at your wife and kids.

Be careful never to let your loved ones visit the doctor.

Hydrae
02-12-2010, 04:14 PM
Be careful never to let your loved ones visit the doctor.

A doctor is a trained professional and if there are concerns, I can find another one. This response works great as long as I get a chance to decide who I want seeing the scans.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 05:20 PM
Be careful never to let your loved ones visit the doctor.

Night and day. I tried to keep from commenting on your earlier post, because I didn't want to call you out on how much rubbish it is.

You're honestly comparing a Brinks reject to a Doctor. That's not even worth commenting on, it's so pathetic.

Let me know when you Dr. looks at you nude, everytime you visit.:rolleyes:

I'm sure you won't mind showing us nude pictures of your wife, since it's not an issue. After all, I'm a professional. o:-)

WilliamTheIrish
02-12-2010, 05:41 PM
Ah, I see. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks.

So tell me about the effective absorbed dose of one of these scans. Feel free to add links.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 05:42 PM
A doctor is a trained professional and if there are concerns, I can find another one. This response works great as long as I get a chance to decide who I want seeing the scans.

TSA employees are trained professionals too.

There are lots of flights to choose from and lots of airports to fly out of. You can always choose to drive if you don't like your options.

Night and day. I tried to keep from commenting on your earlier post, because I didn't want to call you out on how much rubbish it is.

You're honestly comparing a Brinks reject to a Doctor. That's not even worth commenting on, it's so pathetic.

Let me know when you Dr. looks at you nude, everytime you visit.:rolleyes:

I'm sure you won't mind showing us nude pictures of your wife, since it's not an issue. After all, I'm a professional. o:-)

What lame distinctions. This problem is all in your head. I suspect that in your head, doctors are some kind of special human beings who don't share the same perversions that you and Brinks rejects do.

Please don't ever refrain from commenting on my post for fear that you might make me look bad. I don't think that's much of a concern.

WilliamTheIrish
02-12-2010, 05:43 PM
As for the photo, I believe you could easily find a gun on a pat down. Is there a picture of a woman with C-4 jammed up her box? Is C-4 radiopaque? If not, the scanner is useless.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2010, 06:52 PM
As I was reading this thread I started to wonder just how revealing the scanned pictures are. I did a Google search and found these pictures:

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/PICTURES/news/2009/12/2009-12-31-naked-scanner-airport-security-genitals-body/naked-scanner-14457736-quer,templateId=renderScaled,property=Bild,height=349.jpg

http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/girl-body-scanner-inverted.jpg

They are more revealing than I expected them to be. I'd like to see the full body scanners as an option for us old guys who don't give a shit and just want to get on the damn plane as quickly as possible, but I can see how young women and kids should probably not have to go through them.

The only other comment I'll make is that I want to be the one running the scanner when Erin Andrews goes through it. :evil:

This post hasn't been quoted nearly enough. Maybe I'll make it my sig.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 07:33 PM
TSA employees are trained professionals too.

There are lots of flights to choose from and lots of airports to fly out of. You can always choose to drive if you don't like your options.



What lame distinctions. This problem is all in your head. I suspect that in your head, doctors are some kind of special human beings who don't share the same perversions that you and Brinks rejects do.

Please don't ever refrain from commenting on my post for fear that you might make me look bad. I don't think that's much of a concern.Again, if YOU, can't see the distinction between a security scrub and a doctor, I see no reason to further the discussion. It would be falling on deaf ears.

Let me know when those security guys go to college for their profession. Also, when they PLEDGE an OATH of integrity, until then your arguments has no legs to stand on. Apples to Oranges.

The scanner is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, so I really don't care, what YOU BELIEVE.

I'll defer to the CONSTITUTION. Thank you, kindly.

Brock
02-12-2010, 07:49 PM
If you buy a plane ticket, you agree to it, so it isn't a violation of anything.

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 07:59 PM
I think this technology is fantastic.

I would be interested to hear what extra precautions might be taken for the privacy of those snapshots though. The whole process needs to be well thought out but it seems like fantastic technology.

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 08:01 PM
Yep. Though I never worry about bombs on planes I always worry about mechanical problems and the pilot.

I have zero worries on a plane. Maybe I am strange. I just don't worry about it. I remember people always being surprised when I flew on 9\11\02. I didn't think much of it.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 08:06 PM
The Constitution is the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on all law, so the transportion authority doesn't supercede our CONSTITUTIONAL, INHERENT RIGHTS.

Brock
02-12-2010, 08:09 PM
I guess you won't be getting on the plane, then.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Again, if YOU, can't see the distinction between a security scrub and a doctor, I see no reason to further the discussion. It would be falling on deaf ears.

Let me know when those security guys go to college for their profession. Also, when they PLEDGE an OATH of integrity, until then your arguments has no legs to stand on. Apples to Oranges.

The scanner is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, so I really don't care, what YOU BELIEVE.

I'll defer to the CONSTITUTION. Thank you, kindly.

Oh, I see lots of distinctions between doctors and TSA screeners, just none that are very relevant to whether or not it's a pervert looking at your wife's boobies... except maybe one. I'm not sure whether doctors ever have their backgrounds checked the way TSA screeners do.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 08:23 PM
I guess you won't be getting on the plane, then.

I'll be raising Hell, to get it CHANGED, to be within the boundries of our inherent rights.


I can't believe some are so cowardice to give up their RIGHTs, in exchange for a false sense of security.

The Terrorists already won, if we are just going to shit all over the constitution. I prefer to honor the document.

Brock
02-12-2010, 08:39 PM
I doubt you're going to do much of anything, to be honest.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 08:45 PM
I doubt you're going to do much of anything, to be honest. Big fucking Wow. Who gives a shit if you DOUBT me? I could give two shits about your approval.

Brock
02-12-2010, 08:49 PM
Big fucking Wow. Who gives a shit if you DOUBT me? I could give two shits about your approval.

That's basically what I think of your fake outrage.

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 09:00 PM
I must have missed the part of the constitution where you were granted the right to fly.

The airlines have the right to create procedures they deem fit for their businesses to run in a safe effective manner.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:04 PM
That's basically what I think of your fake outrage.

Than why chime in? Keep it to yourself, if all you want to do is insult. Again, I'm not here to seek your approval. You seem a cool Joe, sometimes, but I'm not taking your shit, because you believe that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE that determines, what's just and what isn't. You don't.

You seem to think that because something DOESN'T EFFECT YOU, that OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS. EVERY AMERICAN has those rights. Not a privledged few, EVERYONE OF US and one of those RIGHTS, is the RIGHT TO PRIVACY-that's the final answer, there is NO GETTING AROUND THAT.

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 09:06 PM
Than why chime in? Keep it to yourself, if all you want to do is insult. Again, I'm not here to seek your approval. You seem a cool Joe, sometimes, but I'm not taking your shit, because you believe that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE that determines, what's just and what isn't. You don't.

You seem to think that because something DOESN'T EFFECT YOU, that OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS. EVERY AMERICAN has those rights. Not a privledged few, EVERYONE OF US and one of those RIGHTS, is the RIGHT TO PRIVACY-that's the final answer, there is NO GETTING AROUND THAT.

You have the right to privacy.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:07 PM
Than why chime in? Keep it to yourself, if all you want to do is insult. Again, I'm not here to seek your approval. You seem a cool Joe, sometimes, but I'm not taking your shit, because you believe that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE that determines, what's just and what isn't. You don't.

You seem to think that because something DOESN'T EFFECT YOU, that OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS. EVERY AMERICAN has those rights. Not a privledged few, EVERYONE OF US and one of those RIGHTS, is the RIGHT TO PRIVACY-that's the final answer, there is NO GETTING AROUND THAT.

It doesn't "effect" you either, unless you choose to fly on a commercial airliner. Otherwise, it doesn't. And it doesn't matter how many words you type in all caps.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:10 PM
You have the right to privacy.

I believe the scanners are steeping over that boundry of privacy.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:11 PM
It does effect me, because a truly FREE PERSON, has the RIGHT to pass port on their own accord and to CHOOSE the means in which they travel, WITHOUT having their RIGHTS INGRINGED UPON, as long as they haven't committed a crime.

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 09:13 PM
I believe the scanners are steeping over that boundry of privacy.

You are also stepping into a private establishment when choosing to go through them. Nobody is making you.

You don't have a right to fly bud.

These companies? Do have a right to run their business as they see fit.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:21 PM
You are also stepping into a private establishment when choosing to go through them. Nobody is making you.

You don't have a right to fly bud.

These companies? Do have a right to run their business as they see fit.
Actually, I believe AIRPORTS are paid for with TAX DOLLARS and City BONDS.

I understand your point and I'm not trying to be difficult, but again, the BILL OF RIGHTS is the ultimate authority, on my rights, not the TSA. That's why I think it's unconstitutional.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:35 PM
It does effect me, because a truly FREE PERSON, has the RIGHT to pass port on their own accord and to CHOOSE the means in which they travel, WITHOUT having their RIGHTS INGRINGED UPON, as long as they haven't committed a crime.

Obviously that isn't true. Ever passed through customs?

Fish
02-12-2010, 09:36 PM
Than why chime in? Keep it to yourself, if all you want to do is insult. Again, I'm not here to seek your approval. You seem a cool Joe, sometimes, but I'm not taking your shit, because you believe that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE that determines, what's just and what isn't. You don't.

You seem to think that because something DOESN'T EFFECT YOU, that OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS. EVERY AMERICAN has those rights. Not a privledged few, EVERYONE OF US and one of those RIGHTS, is the RIGHT TO PRIVACY-that's the final answer, there is NO GETTING AROUND THAT.

The constitution also grants you the right to bear arms. But yet, you can't bear arms on a commercial airline.

I don't see many people throwing a fit about that.... do you wonder why that is?

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:38 PM
Obviously that isn't true. Ever passed through customs?Of course. Even that's probably unconstitutional, but part of why it's more acceptable is OTHER COUNTRIES, have THEIR OWN LAWS.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:41 PM
Of course. Even that's probably unconstitutional, but part of why it's more acceptable is OTHER COUNTRIES, have THEIR OWN LAWS.

I'm talking about customs in the US.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:42 PM
The constitution also grants you the right to bear arms. But yet, you can't bear arms on a commercial airline.

I don't see many people throwing a fit about that.... do you wonder why that is?

Strange thing about that though, If people would have had that right, though, 9/11 probably doesn't happen, if you believe the official story. Some Patriot would have blown their heads off.

Also, don't you believe that would deter terrorists from fucking with people on airplanes, if they thought passengers could take them out?

Just sayin'.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:44 PM
I'm talking about customs in the US.

You don't go through customs unless you're traveling overseas(out of the country), at least in my many traveling experiences.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:45 PM
You don't go through customs unless you're traveling overseas(out of the country), at least in my many traveling experiences.

Right, when you're coming back, you pass through customs. Are you saying the customs department is unconstitutional?

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 09:47 PM
Strange thing about that though, If people would have had that right, though, 9/11 probably doesn't happen, if you believe the official story. Some Patriot would have blown their heads off.

Also, don't you believe that would deter terrorists from ****ing with people on airplanes, if they thought passengers could take them out?

Just sayin'.

So it is your official opinion that you are ok with guns being on planes.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:51 PM
Right, when you're coming back, you pass through customs. Are you saying the customs department is unconstitutional?Coming back from where? Again Customs is when traveling out of the country, unless you know something about it I don't. Please, do tell.

Let's clarify if where on the same page, in regards to customs.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:52 PM
Coming back from where? Again Customs is when traveling out of the country, unless you know something about it I don't. Please, do tell.

Let's clarify if where on the same page, in regards to customs.

So constitutional rights don't apply to US citizens returning to the US?

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 09:56 PM
So it is your official opinion that you are ok with guns being on planes.

I never stated that. I said in a STRANGE TWIST, if we had been true to the constitution, it probably would have prevented 9/11 from happening, if you believe the official story. Just the threat of passengers being able to carry, would have made the terrorists think twice. Again, just trying to make a point, not telling MY IDEOLOGIES, per se.

Brock
02-12-2010, 09:59 PM
I never stated that. I said in a STRANGE TWIST, if we had been true to the constitution, it probably would have prevented 9/11 from happening, if you believe the official story. Just the threat of passengers being able to carry, would have made the terrorists think twice. Again, just trying to make a point, not telling MY IDEOLOGIES, per se.

So you're saying that there's parts of the Constitution that you're willing to forget about depending on the situation.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 10:05 PM
So constitutional rights don't apply to US citizens returning to the US?

AGAIN, CLARIFY. If we are talking about CUSTOMS, we both need to agree that means going out of the country or returning from foreign land... and AGAIN, if that's the case OTHER COUNTRIES, HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.

and AGAIN, it's BORDERLINE on the constitutionality of it from the U.S., perspective.

The topic is the scanners. They are INTRUSIVE and violate the right to privacy, that is my contention and I stand by it.

You guys have kept the convo, civil,(for the most part) and I appreciate that, but it's time for a few drinks. Good evening to you all. I'll catch the thread in the morning. Later.

Saul Good
02-12-2010, 10:05 PM
Actually, I believe AIRPORTS are paid for with TAX DOLLARS and City BONDS.

I understand your point and I'm not trying to be difficult, but again, the BILL OF RIGHTS is the ultimate authority, on my rights, not the TSA. That's why I think it's unconstitutional.

So are stadiums. That doesn't mean that you don't have to submit to the teams' rules when you enter one. You even have to pay to go inside or even park despite the fact that they are paid for with (insert a bunch of words in all capital letters).

Saul Good
02-12-2010, 10:07 PM
AGAIN, CLARIFY. If we are talking about CUSTOMS, we both need to agree that means going out of the country or returning from foreign land... and AGAIN, if that's the case OTHER COUNTRIES, HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.

and AGAIN, it's BORDERLINE on the constitutionality of it from the U.S., perspective.

The topic is the scanners. They are INTRUSIVE and violate the right to privacy, that is my contention and I stand by it.

You guys have kept the convo, civil,(for the most part) and I appreciate that, but it's time for a few drinks. Good evening to you all. I'll catch the thread in the morning. Later.

So you THINK the other countries are trying TO make sure that nobody leaves their country WITH contraband? The US HAS no part in THE customs process?

Brock
02-12-2010, 10:10 PM
The topic is the scanners. They are INTRUSIVE and violate the right to privacy, that is my contention and I stand by it.

You guys have kept the convo, civil,(for the most part) and I appreciate that, but it's time for a few drinks. Good evening to you all. I'll catch the thread in the morning. Later.

Looking in my bag is intrusive. So is making me walk through a metal detector. So is x-raying my shoes.

I choose to suffer it if I want to travel by commercial air travel. It isn't unconstitutional by any definition.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 10:11 PM
So you're saying that there's parts of the Constitution that you're willing to forget about depending on the situation.I never said that, either. I said per se. Could be. Might not be. In other words, I don't feel the need to share that with you, without a lengthy conversation ensuing. I'm pretty sure, you can guess which way I would lean, based on the information I've posted in this thread.

Brock
02-12-2010, 10:13 PM
I never said that, either. I said per se. Could be. Might not be. In other words, I don't feel the need to share that with you, without a lengthy conversation ensuing. I'm pretty sure, you can guess which way I would lean, based on the information I've posted in this thread.

Nothing personal, but that's a chickenshit answer.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 10:18 PM
Nothing personal, but that's a chickenshit answer.You fucking devil.:evil:

I want to get my drink on. Use the force, Luke. You KNOW the answer. I choose the CONSTITUTION.
Yes, registered guns should be allowed, but ONLY on domestic flights. What say, you?

Brock
02-12-2010, 10:19 PM
You fucking devil.:evil:

I want to get my drink on. Use the force, Luke. You KNOW the answer. I choose the CONSTITUTION.
Yes, registered guns should be allowed, but ONLY on domestic flights. What say, you?

I say that's crazy. Do you know what a bullethole does to a pressurized aircraft?

|Zach|
02-12-2010, 10:21 PM
I never said that, either. I said per se. Could be. Might not be. In other words, I don't feel the need to share that with you, without a lengthy conversation ensuing. I'm pretty sure, you can guess which way I would lean, based on the information I've posted in this thread.

http://www.spirithalloween.com/images/spirit/products/processed/00162867.zoom.a.jpg

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 10:25 PM
I say that's crazy. Do you know what a bullethole does to a pressurized aircraft?

They allow the Marshalls to carry.. You're either a civic-minded adult, who can handle responsibility or you aren't.

I know where I fall in that category.

BigChiefFan
02-12-2010, 10:30 PM
http://www.spirithalloween.com/images/spirit/products/processed/00162867.zoom.a.jpg
So you got NUTHIN".:evil:

You fucks, I told you this would turn into a lengthy conversation and why I tried to bow out until TOMORROW.

I meant that in kind.:evil:
The chickenshit loon has got things to do. :LOL:

I have enjoyed it, but let's try and wrap it up. Any other interrogations, I can assist with?

Fish
02-12-2010, 11:26 PM
You fucking devil.:evil:

I want to get my drink on. Use the force, Luke. You KNOW the answer. I choose the CONSTITUTION.
Yes, registered guns should be allowed, but ONLY on domestic flights. What say, you?

How would that deter terrorists if the terrorist also had the right to carry weapons on the plane?

orange
02-13-2010, 04:18 AM
I think this technology is fantastic.

I would be interested to hear what extra precautions might be taken for the privacy of those snapshots though. The whole process needs to be well thought out but it seems like fantastic technology.


TSA officials say privacy concerns are addressed in a number of ways.

The system uses a pair of security officers. The one working the machine never sees the image, which appears on a computer screen behind closed doors elsewhere; and the remotely located officer who sees the image never sees the passenger.

As further protection, a passenger's face is blurred and the image as a whole "resembles a fuzzy negative," said TSA's Lee. The officers monitoring images aren't allowed to bring cameras, cell phones or any recording device into the room, and the computers have been programmed so they have "zero storage capability" and images are "automatically deleted," she added.

But this is of little comfort to Coney, the privacy advocate with EPIC, a public interest research group in Washington. She said she's seen whole-body images captured by similar technology dating back to 2004 that were much clearer than what's represented by the airport machines.

"What they're showing you now is a dumbed-down version of what this technology is capable of doing," she said. "Having blurry images shouldn't blur the issue."

Lee of TSA emphasized that the images Coney refers to do not represent millimeter wave technology but rather "backscatter" technology, which she said TSA is not using at this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/

Strange thing about that though, If people would have had that right, though, 9/11 probably doesn't happen, if you believe the official story. Some Patriot would have blown their heads off.

Also, don't you believe that would deter terrorists from ****ing with people on airplanes, if they thought passengers could take them out?

Just sayin'.

How would that deter terrorists if the terrorist also had the right to carry weapons on the plane?

In a strange twist, it's a known fact that if you ask a terrorist if he intends to cap everyone in the vicinity with the gun in his possession and take over the plane, he will always answer "Yes." Just sayin'.

So tell me about the effective absorbed dose of one of these scans. Feel free to add links.

As for the actual radiation dose, he said the typical backscatter machines deliver about 0.1 microsevert of radiation. The average chest X-ray, by comparison, delivers 100 microseverts of radiation, and a chest computed tomography or CT scan delivers 10,000 microseverts.

According to the Transportation Security Administration website, the radiation dose from a single scan on a backscatter machine is the equivalent of two minutes of flying on an airplane.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106

That's the backscatter version - which isn't currently in use. The millimeter wavelength imaging machines they are using employ radio waves that deliver no ionizing radiation.


P.S. The picture that we're all salivating over is a proven fraud. Plenty more here - not a scanner involved with any of them:

Body in 360° (Dominique Douieb) http://www.f1online.de/f1online/index.cfm?location=search&colNo=2274&language=1

orange
02-13-2010, 04:53 AM
Fantasy vs. Reality

http://i.imgur.com/7rpG1.jpg

BigChiefFan
02-13-2010, 11:53 AM
How would that deter terrorists if the terrorist also had the right to carry weapons on the plane?FOREIGNERS, don't have that RIGHT, because they aren't AMERICANS, The official story claims the terrorists, were NOT AMERICANS.

Next.

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 12:14 PM
FOREIGNERS, don't have that RIGHT, because they aren't AMERICANS, The official story claims the terrorists, were NOT AMERICANS.

Next.

Foreigners have different laws when they are in the US?

|Zach|
02-13-2010, 12:17 PM
FOREIGNERS, don't have that RIGHT, because they aren't AMERICANS, The official story claims the terrorists, were NOT AMERICANS.

Next.

You are a legend in this thread in your own mind.

Cannibal
02-13-2010, 12:37 PM
The same people who are for this probably don't mind having their phones tapped either. It is in the name of security after all.

Cannibal
02-13-2010, 12:38 PM
I would also bet that the majority who are so gung ho about this don't fly much if at all.

|Zach|
02-13-2010, 12:41 PM
The same people who are for this probably don't mind having their phones tapped either. It is in the name of security after all.

I would also bet that the majority who are so gung ho about this don't fly much if at all.

Talking out of your ass.

Cannibal
02-13-2010, 12:43 PM
Talking out of your ass.

No not really.

|Zach|
02-13-2010, 12:45 PM
No not really.

Yes, because your comment about the people's flying habits base on their opinion of this had any empirical basis.

BigChiefFan
02-13-2010, 01:50 PM
Foreigners have different laws when they are in the US? They don't have the right to carry and conceal, which is what the discussion is. :rolleyes:

BigChiefFan
02-13-2010, 01:51 PM
You are a legend in this thread in your own mind.

Didn't see you dispute what I said, with anything tangiable to counter.
Thanks for the pedestal.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 02:53 PM
It's always the same with BigChiefFan. I'll give him credit for having a strong ego and a lot of misplaced self-confidence.

orange
02-13-2010, 03:23 PM
I would also bet that the majority who are so gung ho about this don't fly much if at all.

At the airports testing the scanners, 99% of the passengers choose the scanner over the pat-down.

orange
02-13-2010, 03:35 PM
FOREIGNERS, don't have that RIGHT, because they aren't AMERICANS, The official story claims the terrorists, were NOT AMERICANS.

Next.

You don't EVER get tired of being completely wrong, do you?


RI-012 (02/2009)
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE
Statistical Records Division

CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE GUIDE
The information within this guide is required to be provided to Concealed Pistol License applicants. The applicant must complete the Concealed Pistol License Application and return the unsigned form, a passport-quality photograph, and documentation of the required training to the county clerk’s office.

To view a complete copy of the Michigan Concealed Pistol License law, visit a local library or the Michigan State Police’s Web site at www.michigan.gov/msp. A complete copy of the firearms laws of this state shall be furnished upon filing an application.

I. Concealed Pistol License Requirements
A. State Requirements
Applicants for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License must:
1. Be at least 21 years of age
2. Be a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted into the United States
3. Be a resident of the State of Michigan for at least 6 months prior to application. An applicant is a state resident if one of the following applies:
• The applicant possesses a valid, lawfully obtained Michigan driver’s license or state identification card
• The applicant is lawfully registered to vote in Michigan
• The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and stationed outside of Michigan, but Michigan is the home of record
• The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and is permanently stationed in Michigan, but the home of record is another state

Note: The 6-month residency requirement may be waived by the concealed pistol licensing board for new residents licensed by another state.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ri-012_7736_7.pdf

WilliamTheIrish
02-13-2010, 05:09 PM
That's the backscatter version - which isn't currently in use. The millimeter wavelength imaging machines they are using employ radio waves that deliver no ionizing radiation.

The only thing about this I don't like is using backscatter machines. Any dose to the eyes or thyroid in this day and age is something I'm against. Use the correct technology and then tell me it can differentiate between between soft tissue and C-4 or any other explosive.

Brock
02-13-2010, 05:26 PM
The same people who are for this probably don't mind having their phones tapped either. It is in the name of security after all.

I'm "for" going back to the way things used to be, where I could get on a plane without waiting an hour in line. My entire argument about this thing has to do with whether it's constitutional or not, or whether that's a test it has to pass. It may or may not be constitutional, but that's not a test it has to pass. That's all there is to it.

Fish
02-14-2010, 01:34 AM
FOREIGNERS, don't have that RIGHT, because they aren't AMERICANS, The official story claims the terrorists, were NOT AMERICANS.

Next.

:facepalm: JFC.