Who REALLY opposes the TSA love pat downs?

[loosecannon]

Would you be willing to accept an airliner taken down by explosives smuggled aboard once, twice, 5 times in 5 years instead?

Who REALLY opposes the same kind of invasive searches at train stations and bus stations?

Would you be willing to accept a bombing like the Madrid train bombing instead? 2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I am asking is because it is easy to just say "don't touch my junk". But there can be and have been real world consequences for lax security in the US and Europe dozens of times in the past decade.

As long as we actively cultivate terrorism it seems kind of bizarro to simultaneously resist efforts to contain it while complaining fiercely if a shoe bomb or underwear bomber succeeds occasionally.

So what do you really think and why, and be cautioned that if you oppose defensive or protective measures you have to state what rate of terrorist attacks you find acceptable to preserve your convenience and dignity.

Keep in mind that in places like India, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran these things happen nearly daily killing hundreds every single month.

Are you really willing to accept that level of carnage instead of a simple pass thru a back scatter x ray device?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

 

[SwingVoter]

If TSA hires more female agents who look like Janet Napolitano, then I'm the world's biggest privacy advocate, and they better not go near me. But if they hire more who look like Scarlett Johansson, then they can frisk me, grope me, use me for training exercises, whatever.

 

[Revere]

You want women to be partially penetrated by security personnel before getting on trains, too?

The underwear bomber got on the plane with virtually no identification. It was only because of a passenger that he could not keep the damn thing lit long enough to do damage.

What guarantees do you believe this silliness actually gives you?

 

[SwingVoter]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

because we can make people from other countries angry, especially when we force them to listen to Joe Biden for 90 minutes

 

[SwingVoter]

What guarantees do you believe this silliness actually gives you?

these useless government workers couldn't stop Bin Laden if he showed up in the security line at O'Hare

that said, I'm intrigued by the idea of some 22 year old college grad who can't find a job, and like most people who can't find work with a company, finds work with the government, who assigns her to closely examine my left one before I jump on that flight to Minneapolis

 

[Revere]

If Barack Obama is not regarded as avoiding actively cultivating terrorism, then no President ever will.

What would it take for an American President to be regarded as not actively cultivating terrorism against the US?

The election of Ahmadinejad?

 

[Paulie]

Would you be willing to accept an airliner taken down by explosives smuggled aboard once, twice, 5 times in 5 years instead?

Who REALLY opposes the same kind of invasive searches at train stations and bus stations?

Would you be willing to accept a bombing like the Madrid train bombing instead? 2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I am asking is because it is easy to just say "don't touch my junk". But there can be and have been real world consequences for lax security in the US and Europe dozens of times in the past decade.

As long as we actively cultivate terrorism it seems kind of bizarro to simultaneously resist efforts to contain it while complaining fiercely if a shoe bomb or underwear bomber succeeds occasionally.

So what do you really think and why, and be cautioned that if you oppose defensive or protective measures you have to state what rate of terrorist attacks you find acceptable to preserve your convenience and dignity.

Keep in mind that in places like India, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran these things happen nearly daily killing hundreds every single month.

Are you really willing to accept that level of carnage instead of a simple pass thru a back scatter x ray device?

The point of the issue, is that while they're grabbing your dick in line, they're telling you to pour your explosive liquids into a big barrel, letting drunk pilots fly planes, letting some young chinese man come through with an old man mask on, and in one case, not even recording with their security cameras.

Not to mention the myriad of contraband that has made its way onto planes since 9/11.

Close your fucking retarded ass loopholes before you go trying to get a handful of cock, is the least I can ask for.

 

[loosecannon]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

Mostly by lording the world's largest nuclear arsenal over everybody's head, supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing, maintaining military bases in almost every nation on earth and more specifically by two efforts at nation building within the epicenter of the Muslim world. I could go on.

But the fact is we fuck with weaker nations till they cave in to our will as a rule, whenever we can.

Backlash is inevitable.

 

[Paulie]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

Mostly by lording the world's largest nuclear arsenal over everybody's head, supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing, maintaining military bases in almost every nation on earth and more specifically by two efforts at nation building within the epicenter of the Muslim world. I could go on.

But the fact is we fuck with weaker nations till they cave in to our will as a rule, whenever we can.

Backlash is inevitable.

They just hate us for our freedoms. You didn't get that memo?

 

[loosecannon]

The point of the issue, is that while they're grabbing your dick in line, they're telling you to pour your explosive liquids into a big barrel, letting drunk pilots fly planes, letting some young chinese man come through with an old man mask on, and in one case, not even recording with their security cameras.

Not to mention the myriad of contraband that has made its way onto planes since 9/11.

Close your fucking retarded ass loopholes before you go trying to get a handful of cock, is the least I can ask for.

No that really isn't the point at all, or it isn't much of the point. The point is that the government can't keep you safe unless they scrutinize every inch of you every moment of every day that you interact in public within the US.

They just can't.

So what do you really choose? No invasive scrutiny and the same kind of terrorism everybody else enjoys, or no terrorism and no privacy?

Those really are the available options. With of course the middle ground.

Please post what kind of terrorist threat you would find acceptable if you are adverse to closer scrutiny.

 

[loosecannon]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

Mostly by lording the world's largest nuclear arsenal over everybody's head, supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing, maintaining military bases in almost every nation on earth and more specifically by two efforts at nation building within the epicenter of the Muslim world. I could go on.

But the fact is we fuck with weaker nations till they cave in to our will as a rule, whenever we can.

Backlash is inevitable.

They just hate us for our freedoms. You didn't get that memo?

I used it to line my cats litter box.

 

[Revere]

The point of the issue, is that while they're grabbing your dick in line, they're telling you to pour your explosive liquids into a big barrel, letting drunk pilots fly planes, letting some young chinese man come through with an old man mask on, and in one case, not even recording with their security cameras.

Not to mention the myriad of contraband that has made its way onto planes since 9/11.

Close your fucking retarded ass loopholes before you go trying to get a handful of cock, is the least I can ask for.

No that really isn't the point at all, or it isn't much of the point. The point is that the government can't keep you safe unless they scrutinize every inch of you every moment of every day that you interact in public within the US.

They just can't.

So what do you really choose? No invasive scrutiny and the same kind of terrorism everybody else enjoys, or no terrorism and no privacy?

Those really are the available options. With of course the middle ground.

Please post what kind of terrorist threat you would find acceptable if you are adverse to closer scrutiny.

The scrutiny guarantees nothing.

False alternative.

 

[Paulie]

The point of the issue, is that while they're grabbing your dick in line, they're telling you to pour your explosive liquids into a big barrel, letting drunk pilots fly planes, letting some young chinese man come through with an old man mask on, and in one case, not even recording with their security cameras.

Not to mention the myriad of contraband that has made its way onto planes since 9/11.

Close your fucking retarded ass loopholes before you go trying to get a handful of cock, is the least I can ask for.

No that really isn't the point at all, or it isn't much of the point. The point is that the government can't keep you safe unless they scrutinize every inch of you every moment of every day that you interact in public within the US.

They just can't.

So what do you really choose? No invasive scrutiny and the same kind of terrorism everybody else enjoys, or no terrorism and no privacy?

Those really are the available options. With of course the middle ground.

Please post what kind of terrorist threat you would find acceptable if you are adverse to closer scrutiny.

I'm not naive enough to think that if they line us up like cattle and fondle our balls and diddle out clits while we file through, there won't still be a guy who carried a bomb into the herd in a briefcase and nuked the living shit out of us.

Kind of the same reason why even if they outlaw guns, outlaws will still have them.

As to your last question, I'm ready to die every moment of everyday. I'm NOT, however, ready to give away my freedom while I await my death.

 

[asterism]

Would you be willing to accept an airliner taken down by explosives smuggled aboard once, twice, 5 times in 5 years instead?

Who REALLY opposes the same kind of invasive searches at train stations and bus stations?

Would you be willing to accept a bombing like the Madrid train bombing instead? 2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I am asking is because it is easy to just say "don't touch my junk". But there can be and have been real world consequences for lax security in the US and Europe dozens of times in the past decade.

As long as we actively cultivate terrorism it seems kind of bizarro to simultaneously resist efforts to contain it while complaining fiercely if a shoe bomb or underwear bomber succeeds occasionally.

So what do you really think and why, and be cautioned that if you oppose defensive or protective measures you have to state what rate of terrorist attacks you find acceptable to preserve your convenience and dignity.

Keep in mind that in places like India, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran these things happen nearly daily killing hundreds every single month.

Are you really willing to accept that level of carnage instead of a simple pass thru a back scatter x ray device?

No.

The issue with the pat downs is that they wouldn't have stopped the underwear bomber anyway and it demonstrates how absurd the TSA is.

 

[asterism]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

Mostly by lording the world's largest nuclear arsenal over everybody's head, supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing, maintaining military bases in almost every nation on earth and more specifically by two efforts at nation building within the epicenter of the Muslim world. I could go on.

But the fact is we fuck with weaker nations till they cave in to our will as a rule, whenever we can.

Backlash is inevitable.

And yet somehow El Al doesn't have these problems and they enrage the nutjobs even more.

 

[bodecea]

Would you be willing to accept an airliner taken down by explosives smuggled aboard once, twice, 5 times in 5 years instead?

Who REALLY opposes the same kind of invasive searches at train stations and bus stations?

Would you be willing to accept a bombing like the Madrid train bombing instead? 2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason I am asking is because it is easy to just say "don't touch my junk". But there can be and have been real world consequences for lax security in the US and Europe dozens of times in the past decade.

As long as we actively cultivate terrorism it seems kind of bizarro to simultaneously resist efforts to contain it while complaining fiercely if a shoe bomb or underwear bomber succeeds occasionally.

So what do you really think and why, and be cautioned that if you oppose defensive or protective measures you have to state what rate of terrorist attacks you find acceptable to preserve your convenience and dignity.

Keep in mind that in places like India, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran these things happen nearly daily killing hundreds every single month.

Are you really willing to accept that level of carnage instead of a simple pass thru a back scatter x ray device?

Let me put it this way...I am even more less likely to fly or encourage family members to fly now.

 

[asterism]

The point of the issue, is that while they're grabbing your dick in line, they're telling you to pour your explosive liquids into a big barrel, letting drunk pilots fly planes, letting some young chinese man come through with an old man mask on, and in one case, not even recording with their security cameras.

Not to mention the myriad of contraband that has made its way onto planes since 9/11.

Close your fucking retarded ass loopholes before you go trying to get a handful of cock, is the least I can ask for.

No that really isn't the point at all, or it isn't much of the point. The point is that the government can't keep you safe unless they scrutinize every inch of you every moment of every day that you interact in public within the US.

They just can't.

So what do you really choose? No invasive scrutiny and the same kind of terrorism everybody else enjoys, or no terrorism and no privacy?

Those really are the available options. With of course the middle ground.

Please post what kind of terrorist threat you would find acceptable if you are adverse to closer scrutiny.

I find any threat that cannot be solved by a common sense approach to scrutinizing the people flying acceptable. The problem is that we have the big government lowest common denominator approach.

The guy waving that fluorescent light checking to see if my ID is real without ever actually looking at me or my demeanor? Lowest common denominator, not even qualified to be a bouncer in a bar.

 

[Revere]

How are we actively cultivating terrorism?

Mostly by lording the world's largest nuclear arsenal over everybody's head, supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing, maintaining military bases in almost every nation on earth and more specifically by two efforts at nation building within the epicenter of the Muslim world. I could go on.

But the fact is we fuck with weaker nations till they cave in to our will as a rule, whenever we can.

Backlash is inevitable.

So the solution is to make the US as vulnerable as any other country? Throw Israel into the sea and hope that is sufficient appeasement?

You'll never get a President who throws in with Islam as much as this one. You need to live in Turkey or Saudi Arabia if you want more.

 

[loosecannon]

The scrutiny guarantees nothing.

False alternative.

It doesn't matter if it guarantees anything, without the scrutiny we have no defense against the same kind of terror that plagues a large % of the world.