Who REALLY opposes the TSA love pat downs?

[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.

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.

We could pull our military out of every country on earth and never come close to being as vulnerable as anyone else.

When was the last invasion of Switzerland, just out of curiosity?

 

[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.

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.

OK, that was a really good answer. You oppose the scrutiny even if it costs you your own life.

 

[Revere]

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.

We could pull our military out of every country on earth and never come close to being as vulnerable as anyone else.

When was the last invasion of Switzerland, just out of curiosity?

Switzerland has nothing anybody wants.

It's the same old shit with these people. Ditch Israel. Stop buying oil from middle east countries. Hope that works.

 

[Revere]

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.

OK, that was a really good answer. You oppose the scrutiny even if it costs you your own life.

Again with the false alternatives. As if "scrutiny" is real safety.

 

[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.

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.

Hate to say it, but that's what I said. They won't hate us any less just because Bush is gone and someone reaches out to them.

Notice how the Progressives are all silent about that these days.

 

[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?

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.

But the problem is that without this much scrutiny and more there is no way to prevent sufficiently motivated terrorists from eventually succeeding at downing an airplane.

So what can you live with, far more invasive scrutiny and a smaller window of opportunity, or far less and a greater chance that you and yours will be targets of terror attacks?

Please quantify what level of risks you are willing to assume.

Think of Mexico, 7 mayors assassinated in a few months. The risks are real.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

I bet you are the same mother fucker who doesn't believe in wire tapping or enhanced interrogation. Right? Idiot. Groping Grandma ain't gonna keep your stupid ass safe.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

But the problem is that without this much scrutiny and more there is no way to prevent sufficiently motivated terrorists from eventually succeeding at downing an airplane.

So what can you live with, far more invasive scrutiny and a smaller window of opportunity, or far less and a greater chance that you and yours will be targets of terror attacks?

Please quantify what level of risks you are willing to assume.

Think of Mexico, 7 mayors assassinated in a few months. The risks are real.

You fucking live in fear. The terrorists have won. You little pussy.

 

[loosecannon]

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

who is ElAl?

 

[Paulie]

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.

OK, that was a really good answer. You oppose the scrutiny even if it costs you your own life.

Only because i know that my life is always going to still be on the line regardless.

I'm much more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack, so why would I be ok with the government grabbing my penis while I go through a line?

I mean FUCK, dude...they're handing out drivers licenses to any idiot that can make a left hand turn and use the brake pedal, any other potential hinderances be damned. They even want to give them to illegal aliens, who for all we fucking know, could be TERRORISTS!

I'm literally risking life and limb everyday I drive to work, so I'm not really concerned with the microcosm that is US terrorism.

 

[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.

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.

So you will be satisfied with business as usual and a few successful attacks like Madrid?

 

[Revere]

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.

But the problem is that without this much scrutiny and more there is no way to prevent sufficiently motivated terrorists from eventually succeeding at downing an airplane.

So what can you live with, far more invasive scrutiny and a smaller window of opportunity, or far less and a greater chance that you and yours will be targets of terror attacks?

Please quantify what level of risks you are willing to assume.

Think of Mexico, 7 mayors assassinated in a few months. The risks are real.

You're a phony sack of shit. It's not a choice between a pimple faced TSA agent shoving his finger in your wife's pussy and a guarantee of safety. Because the TSA can guarantee nothing of the sort.

Nobody in the US is forced to be be penetrated before they can get near a mayor. The problem with drug cartels is not that the TSA doesn't screen them. In fact, they move back and forth across the US border with almost no resistance.

 

[loosecannon]

Switzerland has nothing anybody wants.

Except the world's biggest stash of gold! The hottest warmest wettest winches on the planet and the most secure sanctuary in Europe.

Switzerland has everything that everybody wants.

 

[loosecannon]

Again with the false alternatives. As if "scrutiny" is real safety.

False. For enough scrutiny you can be made safe from a terror attack.

I notice you are still too cowardly to actually state what degree of terror you would be willing to accept for the degree of scrutiny you can swallow.

 

[Revere]

Switzerland has nothing anybody wants.

Except the world's biggest stash of gold! The hottest warmest wettest winches on the planet and the most secure sanctuary in Europe.

Switzerland has everything that everybody wants.

So what? It's a small pond. If it were worth anything, the Chinese would have bought it by now.

 

[Revere]

Again with the false alternatives. As if "scrutiny" is real safety.

False. For enough scrutiny you can be made safe from a terror attack.

I notice you are still too cowardly to actually state what degree of terror you would be willing to accept for the degree of scrutiny you can swallow.

It's a false alternative.

Grabbing the testicles of three and six year olds is not scrutiny. It's a farce.

You can't ever guarantee everyone will be safe under any circumstances. So all you can do is keep taking away more and promising more you can't deliver in exchange.

 

[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?

I bet you are the same mother fucker who doesn't believe in wire tapping or enhanced interrogation. Right? Idiot. Groping Grandma ain't gonna keep your stupid ass safe.

Sorry sweet cheeks, but I haven't even hinted at what my personal preferences are.

I have merely asked you about yours and the bulk of responders go hissy fit long before they can simply answer the questions posed.

 

[Shadow]

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?

I bet you are the same mother fucker who doesn't believe in wire tapping or enhanced interrogation. Right? Idiot. Groping Grandma ain't gonna keep your stupid ass safe.

Well good grief Willow. Everyone knows making terrorits uncomfortable = bad. But forcing a breast cancer survivor to remove their prosthetic breast during a pat down = A-OK.

TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthesis - Travel - News - msnbc.com

 

[Paulie]

Again with the false alternatives. As if "scrutiny" is real safety.

False. For enough scrutiny you can be made safe from a terror attack.

I notice you are still too cowardly to actually state what degree of terror you would be willing to accept for the degree of scrutiny you can swallow.

People who love freedom to such an extent are typically willing to die for it.

I just as soon thank the rebels from the US colonies for their bravery and sacrifice to oppose and defeat the absence of said freedom, and do them proud by living similarly.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

But the problem is that without this much scrutiny and more there is no way to prevent sufficiently motivated terrorists from eventually succeeding at downing an airplane.

So what can you live with, far more invasive scrutiny and a smaller window of opportunity, or far less and a greater chance that you and yours will be targets of terror attacks?

Please quantify what level of risks you are willing to assume.

Think of Mexico, 7 mayors assassinated in a few months. The risks are real.

You're a phony sack of shit. It's not a choice between a pimple faced TSA agent shoving his finger in your wife's pussy and a guarantee of safety. Because the TSA can guarantee nothing of the sort.

Nobody in the US is forced to be be penetrated before they can get near a mayor. The problem with drug cartels is not that the TSA doesn't screen them. In fact, they move back and forth across the US border with almost no resistance.

Actually you are the phoney sack of shit.

I am just the guy asking questions without revealing a hint about my own actual position.

I didn't post this thread to watch you squirm like a slug on a slat bed, but I do enjoy that aspect of it!

Meanwhile what level of scrutiny will you trade for what corresponding level of security. Terrorism is real, 9/11 was just an opening act. Many tens of thousands have been killed by terror attacks in Russia, India, Indonesia, Iraq Iran and Afghanistan since 9/11.

Please be blunt and on point or stfu.