Airport Outrage (4 Viewers)

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,776
We've got people getting drunk and naked and posting it on YouTube and Facebook, and we're worried about airport body scanners? :wth:

I'm going to post my Ballz-Out jeans photos online, but dammit if you make me take off my headscarf to get on a commercial airliner!
 

Quetzalcoatl

It ain't hard to tell
Aug 22, 2007
66,766
We've got people getting drunk and naked and posting it on YouTube and Facebook, and we're worried about airport body scanners? :wth:

I'm going to post my Ballz-Out jeans photos online, but dammit if you make me take off my headscarf to get on a commercial airliner!
Swag, I don't see how that's really comparable. Especially when they're touching your wife and kids.

The trade off isn't really fair. How much of a deterrent is this really to "terrorists"? It's just more fear mongering, invasion and dehumanisation.
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #144
    If you want privacy, take a train, bus, boat, car, or better yet -- a private jet. Nobody has the God given right to fly a commercial airplane. Particularly if they're too modest to have their nads scanned for explosives. Nobody is forcing them.

    If they're asking for my social security number and the names of all my relatives, that's one thing. But people need to get over themselves. A good chunk of the people I get on planes with these days, I want their asses scanned up the yin yang. And if it spooks them out, hey -- more space for my fat ass on the plane.
    Bullshit.

    You are defending sexual assault on the general public, including children. This whole "then don't fly" is utter nonsense considering you don't waive your civil liberties because you buy a plane ticket, or any other product. Just because you eat dinner at a restaurant does not make it legal for Paco the server to start molesting your children.

    DA's around the country are ready and willing to prosecute these cases, which is a good thing.

    I personally will not fly while this nonsense is going on. Many other folks will not either. Just like the stupid Carbon Tax movement, all this will do is wreck the economy even further. And for what reason? All because some "unnamed" US agency ordered that Mutallab take a seat on a plane to Detroit, just one week before Chertoff's body scanners were ready to go.

    Perhaps not all TSA workers are evil. They are just following orders like the Nazis were. :andyandbarcelona:
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,127
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #145
    Swag, I don't see how that's really comparable. Especially when they're touching your wife and kids.

    The trade off isn't really fair. How much of a deterrent is this really to "terrorists"? It's just more fear mongering, invasion and dehumanisation.
    It's not comparable at all, but perhaps Swag is into some pretty perverted stuff.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,127
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #146
    The incessant desire to government shill is why this country will continue to deteriorate.

    Random men feeling up your children is only the beginning.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,776
    Swag, I don't see how that's really comparable. Especially when they're touching your wife and kids.

    The trade off isn't really fair. How much of a deterrent is this really to "terrorists"? It's just more fear mongering, invasion and dehumanisation.
    Bullshit.

    You are defending sexual assault on the general public, including children. This whole "then don't fly" is utter nonsense considering you don't waive your civil liberties because you buy a plane ticket, or any other product. Just because you eat dinner at a restaurant does not make it legal for Paco the server to start molesting your children.

    DA's around the country are ready and willing to prosecute these cases, which is a good thing.

    I personally will not fly while this nonsense is going on. Many other folks will not either. Just like the stupid Carbon Tax movement, all this will do is wreck the economy even further. And for what reason? All because some "unnamed" US agency ordered that Mutallab take a seat on a plane to Detroit, just one week before Chertoff's body scanners were ready to go.

    Perhaps not all TSA workers are evil. They are just following orders like the Nazis were. :andyandbarcelona:
    Oh, the whole airport security thing is theater, no question. It's a charade that does more to leave passengers with the illusion of safety than it does, say, prevent an airport employee from sneaking weapons through the back door.

    So yeah, it's a pain in the ass inconvenience for the 10 billion non-incidents to compensate for the one incident. Even if you use a probability-weighted impact analysis, we're spending a lot of money and inconvenience for little return. But I'd go after the shoe thing long before I'd go after the scan-my-nads thing.

    Some kids can't even get into schools without having chest X-rays and TB scans. I can't even get into concerts without a pat down and wish I had the option to be scanned. Even kids can't get in some stadiums and events without a pat-down our search. But put it on an airplane, and people act like this was the first invention of this behavior.

    Either get the scan, don't fly, or shut up about it if you don't want the pat down. Some of the biggest crybaby pussies on this issue are on the opposite side than you think.

    Of course, Sunday I'm flying to South Africa, where even the scans we do at stadiums in the U.S. are against the civil rights of the constitution there. :)
     

    ALC

    Ohaulick
    Oct 28, 2010
    46,535
    We've got people getting drunk and naked and posting it on YouTube and Facebook, and we're worried about airport body scanners? :wth:
    I'm quite ok with that....especially when it's hot chicks.

    But the above is not really an invasion of privacy. I think what people have a problem with is that they're being unnecessarily invasive and inappropriate. It's no 1984 but it's just reminiscent of it. And them not letting you decide to go back to the scan if you refuse it the first time is just ridiculous. What is the point of that? Aren't the scans state of the art or whatnot?


    EDIT: Just read your last post. Disregard the above.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,776
    I'm quite ok with that....especially when it's hot chicks.

    But the above is not really an invasion of privacy. I think what people have a problem with is that they're being unnecessarily invasive and inappropriate. It's no 1984 but it's just reminiscent of it. And them not letting you decide to go back to the scan if you refuse it the first time is just ridiculous. What is the point of that? Aren't the scans state of the art or whatnot?
    If you're going to bitch about the scanners, bitch about the radiation levels. My med school alma mater, UCSF, just published a decent study on them.

    But privacy concerns? In an era of teens rampantly sexting each other? And that stuff getting out all over the Internet anyway?

    Even just enter a federal building, and you're subject to scanning and a potential pat down. This whole thing seems like a bunch of pantywaists with double-standards to me.

    By the way, ALC, are you Irish? Is your last name "O'Haulic"? Because I'd say have a beer, take your photo, and move on. Otherwise, a bunch of sexting, porn-surfing maniacs aren't going to convince me that they're suddenly prudish Puritans.
     

    ALC

    Ohaulick
    Oct 28, 2010
    46,535
    By the way, ALC, are you Irish? Is your last name "O'Haulic"? Because I'd say have a beer, take your photo, and move on. Otherwise, a bunch of sexting, porn-surfing maniacs aren't going to convince me that they're suddenly prudish Puritans.
    Good line. :tup:

    I personally don't mind the scanners. Just saying I understand what pisses off people about it. I could care less if someone saw my dick, but little kids being touched is kinda suspect.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,776
    ßöмßäяðîëя;2775034 said:
    You went to med school?
    Yes and no. I didn't go for a medical degree, but I was a student at UCSF in addition to UC Berkeley in graduate school. UCSF is a medical school -- there are no undergraduates, but then there are people getting graduate degrees in biochemistry there, for example.

    Good line. :tup:

    I personally don't mind the scanners. Just saying I understand what pisses off people about it. I could care less if someone saw my dick, but little kids being touched is kinda suspect.
    I think the ALC O'Haulic has potential. :D

    I get pissed off about a lot of things. For some reason, this isn't one of them.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,776
    ßöмßäяðîëя;2775056 said:
    So for what reason did you attend?
    For giggles. It was a PhD program in bioengineering offered jointly between Berkeley (academic campus) and UCSF (clinical campus).
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,127
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #158
    Oh, the whole airport security thing is theater, no question. It's a charade that does more to leave passengers with the illusion of safety than it does, say, prevent an airport employee from sneaking weapons through the back door.

    So yeah, it's a pain in the ass inconvenience for the 10 billion non-incidents to compensate for the one incident. Even if you use a probability-weighted impact analysis, we're spending a lot of money and inconvenience for little return. But I'd go after the shoe thing long before I'd go after the scan-my-nads thing.

    Some kids can't even get into schools without having chest X-rays and TB scans. I can't even get into concerts without a pat down and wish I had the option to be scanned. Even kids can't get in some stadiums and events without a pat-down our search. But put it on an airplane, and people act like this was the first invention of this behavior.

    Either get the scan, don't fly, or shut up about it if you don't want the pat down. Some of the biggest crybaby pussies on this issue are on the opposite side than you think.

    Of course, Sunday I'm flying to South Africa, where even the scans we do at stadiums in the U.S. are against the civil rights of the constitution there. :)

    No, Greg. The real pussies are the ones that don't stand up for law, and freedom of speech. Which, I suppose in this case, is you.


    Owen v City of Independence, Maine v Thiboutot, et. al:
    All state that public servants have no immunity when they violate your rights. So this eliminates the "I'm just doing my job" response...

    Norton v Shelby County:
    An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

    Fourth 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.

    Fifth Amendment:
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Hale v Henkel:
    His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    116,127
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #159
    If you're going to bitch about the scanners, bitch about the radiation levels. My med school alma mater, UCSF, just published a decent study on them.

    But privacy concerns? In an era of teens rampantly sexting each other? And that stuff getting out all over the Internet anyway?

    Even just enter a federal building, and you're subject to scanning and a potential pat down. This whole thing seems like a bunch of pantywaists with double-standards to me.

    By the way, ALC, are you Irish? Is your last name "O'Haulic"? Because I'd say have a beer, take your photo, and move on. Otherwise, a bunch of sexting, porn-surfing maniacs aren't going to convince me that they're suddenly prudish Puritans.
    So just because some slut performs fellatio in a San Fran alleyway, bearing it all, everyone else has to?

    Sorry Greg, that's a pretty idiotic argument. And I know you can do better.
     

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
    Why is it that the US is going further than the rest of the world with this stuff?

    What happens in Europe (passing through a metal detector and having hand luggage scanned) seems a perfectly reasonable level of security without being unduly intrusive.

    You're asked to take off bulky footwear and clothing, but still won't be searched so long as you don't set off any alarms.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)