Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
oh...and anyone who thinks people looking at the scanners are gawking at your nakedness\
1. women scan women; men scan men; and
2. everyone looks short and fat on the scan and nothing like what they really look like...
I think We are about one Major Incident away from being reduced to Air Travel in Hospital Gowns and Slip-On Recyclable Shoes.
I think We are about one Major Incident away from being reduced to Air Travel in Hospital Gowns and Slip-On Recyclable Shoes.
can i at least wear my fluffy pink slippers?
I think We are about one Major Incident away from being reduced to Air Travel in Hospital Gowns and Slip-On Recyclable Shoes.
can i at least wear my fluffy pink slippers?
This week ....Yes.... at least until the last hour of flight. Next week.... Who can say.
What is your take on bathroom restrictions in relation to diabetics?
good question. where do rights come from, the never ending discussion. one could make a stretch argument and claim that the right to fly stems from the right to travel. you and i know that this is not true, and the courts have said so. what if it is determined that you need to go through security to leave your house or property? would say that the search there is unconstitutional? if so, why.
there is a right to travel. but that right can be lost, along with many others, when one is incarcerated. you also do not have the right to "travel" everywhere you want to. for example, we don't have the right to saunter into the white house and walk into the president's residence... or through the back corridors of the capital building... or any number of public places which are barred to us.
like anything else, i'd think such 'rights' exist on a continuum which balances our "freedoms" against the needs of government. so if i have to go through a computer scan in order to get on a plane, then fine... i have no issues with it. if i can't leave my house without "papers", I do.. and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes.
They have not done ONE thing that would have prevented 9/11. All they've done is harass the innocent passengers in their attempt to give them a false sense of security. A full body scan isn't going to make a different, it's just going to create more hassles for the honest travelers.
Note, the PASSENGERS stopped the bomber. Now we know...and WE won't let it happen. Sure, you can't prevent everything but there isn't one thing they've done which would have prevented 9/11 and a full body scan sure isn't gonna make a difference.
good question. where do rights come from, the never ending discussion. one could make a stretch argument and claim that the right to fly stems from the right to travel. you and i know that this is not true, and the courts have said so. what if it is determined that you need to go through security to leave your house or property? would say that the search there is unconstitutional? if so, why.
there is a right to travel. but that right can be lost, along with many others, when one is incarcerated. you also do not have the right to "travel" everywhere you want to. for example, we don't have the right to saunter into the white house and walk into the president's residence... or through the back corridors of the capital building... or any number of public places which are barred to us.
like anything else, i'd think such 'rights' exist on a continuum which balances our "freedoms" against the needs of government. so if i have to go through a computer scan in order to get on a plane, then fine... i have no issues with it. if i can't leave my house without "papers", I do.. and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes.
you didn't really answer my question. do you think such a search, leaving your house, is unconstitutional? i don't understand what you're saying...."and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes"
i already agree with you on flying. you don't need to fly to travel.
They have not done ONE thing that would have prevented 9/11. All they've done is harass the innocent passengers in their attempt to give them a false sense of security. A full body scan isn't going to make a different, it's just going to create more hassles for the honest travelers.
Note, the PASSENGERS stopped the bomber. Now we know...and WE won't let it happen. Sure, you can't prevent everything but there isn't one thing they've done which would have prevented 9/11 and a full body scan sure isn't gonna make a difference.
Had the bomb went off as it was planned the passengers would not have had time to stop him. A full body scan would have seen the bomb.
can i at least wear my fluffy pink slippers?
This week ....Yes.... at least until the last hour of flight. Next week.... Who can say.
What is your take on bathroom restrictions in relation to diabetics?
I think it's an overreaction if done to anyone. It's lazy... The procedures are already in place which should have worked to take this guy off of the flight. The fact that he wasn't properly screened shouldn't result in everyone else's discomfort.
They have not done ONE thing that would have prevented 9/11. All they've done is harass the innocent passengers in their attempt to give them a false sense of security. A full body scan isn't going to make a different, it's just going to create more hassles for the honest travelers.
Note, the PASSENGERS stopped the bomber. Now we know...and WE won't let it happen. Sure, you can't prevent everything but there isn't one thing they've done which would have prevented 9/11 and a full body scan sure isn't gonna make a difference.
Had the bomb went off as it was planned the passengers would not have had time to stop him. A full body scan would have seen the bomb.
and if he were properly screened, they'd have picked up the explosive residue and not let him get on the plane.
there is a right to travel. but that right can be lost, along with many others, when one is incarcerated. you also do not have the right to "travel" everywhere you want to. for example, we don't have the right to saunter into the white house and walk into the president's residence... or through the back corridors of the capital building... or any number of public places which are barred to us.
like anything else, i'd think such 'rights' exist on a continuum which balances our "freedoms" against the needs of government. so if i have to go through a computer scan in order to get on a plane, then fine... i have no issues with it. if i can't leave my house without "papers", I do.. and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes.
you didn't really answer my question. do you think such a search, leaving your house, is unconstitutional? i don't understand what you're saying...."and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes"
i already agree with you on flying. you don't need to fly to travel.
i think it would be unconstitutional to make someone be checked leaving one's house. that doesn't mean that there is no set of circumstances under which the court would find that such an infringement is justifiable.
Had the bomb went off as it was planned the passengers would not have had time to stop him. A full body scan would have seen the bomb.
and if he were properly screened, they'd have picked up the explosive residue and not let him get on the plane.
This is true. And the full body scan is simply another tool to combat these clowns. It should be in use in every Airport everywhere.
I am not a munitions expert, and i don't play one on TV, but my understanding is that most explosives emit detectable amounts of certain gasses that are easily detectable with the right equipment. It is the reason there are so many dogs working the luggage.This week ....Yes.... at least until the last hour of flight. Next week.... Who can say.
What is your take on bathroom restrictions in relation to diabetics?
I think it's an overreaction if done to anyone. It's lazy... The procedures are already in place which should have worked to take this guy off of the flight. The fact that he wasn't properly screened shouldn't result in everyone else's discomfort.
The reality is the odds are in favor of those that would do the harm, when We are limited to being reactive. Personally I think that a Blood Pressure, Pulse Scan would be more of a deterrent. Profile on that. Liquid Explosives, and now Powder Explosives are too easy to hide and too hard to detect. Imagine it in an implant. Best to better scrutinize. Even the use of dogs, just passing by them, could trigger a panic attack in a potential bomber, elevated heart rate. What is needed is Personnel capable of spotting the reaction.
you didn't really answer my question. do you think such a search, leaving your house, is unconstitutional? i don't understand what you're saying...."and there is a line somewhere in between the extremes"
i already agree with you on flying. you don't need to fly to travel.
i think it would be unconstitutional to make someone be checked leaving one's house. that doesn't mean that there is no set of circumstances under which the court would find that such an infringement is justifiable.
Didn't Barry just give Interpol a Free Pass by Executive Order?
