| Accept fate and proceed through body scanner | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down | 26% | 26% - 14 | ||||
| Express discontent and proceed through scanner | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down after making self hard. | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Leave the airport sans screening, take ship down under | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| FU Brinson | 11% | 11% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 53 | ||||||
Ditto. Is the radiation argument valid though, for pilots?11 Bravo wrote:
i dont care if someone sees my ding dong.
Probably... granted, they say just being a passenger of a lot of flights in a short time subjects you to a lot of radiation while in the upper atmosphere.ghettoperson wrote:
Ditto. Is the radiation argument valid though, for pilots?11 Bravo wrote:
i dont care if someone sees my ding dong.
Even when Bubba does it?mtb0minime wrote:
I want them to do more than just see my ding dong. Touching it is infinitely more preferable.
Not being employed at the airport hasn't stopped you yet.Mutantbear wrote:
If I worked at the airport I'd touch everyone's weiners
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Most people that opt out probably have small peckers.
Someone is obviously lacking stature.SenorToenails wrote:
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Most people that opt out probably have small peckers.
it's totally absurd, but you don't HAVE to fly. Have fun taking that cross-country greyhound!SenorToenails wrote:
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Most people that opt out probably have small peckers.
The ridiculous thing is, there are topics appearing all over Reddit about people taking 26 motherfucking hour Greyhound journeys in order to 'make a point' about the searches. And it's only if the pick you out that you have to go through the scanner/probulator, it's not even guarunteed to happen.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it's totally absurd, but you don't HAVE to fly. Have fun taking that cross-country greyhound!SenorToenails wrote:
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Most people that opt out probably have small peckers.
What I don't get is that people want both security and privacy. When it comes to airports, you can't have it all.ghettoperson wrote:
The ridiculous thing is, there are topics appearing all over Reddit about people taking 26 motherfucking hour Greyhound journeys in order to 'make a point' about the searches. And it's only if the pick you out that you have to go through the scanner/probulator, it's not even guarunteed to happen.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it's totally absurd, but you don't HAVE to fly. Have fun taking that cross-country greyhound!SenorToenails wrote:
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!
For now, anyway. The TSA needs to disappear, and in a hurry.ghettoperson wrote:
The ridiculous thing is, there are topics appearing all over Reddit about people taking 26 motherfucking hour Greyhound journeys in order to 'make a point' about the searches. And it's only if the pick you out that you have to go through the scanner/probulator, it's not even guarunteed to happen.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
it's totally absurd, but you don't HAVE to fly. Have fun taking that cross-country greyhound!SenorToenails wrote:
Or they object to the level of absurdity that the 'security theater' has reached. It's not always about your dick, ya know!
I'd rather have the privacy. It's not like reactive security helps much anyway. I sure am glad we all have to take our shoes off to keep those shoebombers from getting us!Turquoise wrote:
What I don't get is that people want both security and privacy. When it comes to airports, you can't have it all.
Either you accept the increased risks by having limited search methods, or you accept the lack of privacy by increased security measures.
huh?Turquoise wrote:
These are probably the same dumbasses that bitch about socialized medicine but still defend Medicare.
I know what you mean. This is one issue that I'm kind of indifferent to. I understand both sides, but either way, I know the odds of being on a hijacked flight are pretty low. And if I do end up on a hijacked flight, it's not like I could do anything about it anyway.SenorToenails wrote:
I'd rather have the privacy. It's not like reactive security helps much anyway. I sure am glad we all have to take our shoes off to keep those shoebombers from getting us!Turquoise wrote:
What I don't get is that people want both security and privacy. When it comes to airports, you can't have it all.
Either you accept the increased risks by having limited search methods, or you accept the lack of privacy by increased security measures.
It seems like some of the people making the biggest stink about this are Tea Party types. Among that group were some people that fought an NHS but still wanted the GOP to block Medicare cuts. I know we're veering off into a tangent here, but after watching how the GOP went from being opponents of Medicare to defenders of it, I pretty much stopped being surprised by much of anything regarding human stupidity and hypocrisy.SenorToenails wrote:
huh?Turquoise wrote:
These are probably the same dumbasses that bitch about socialized medicine but still defend Medicare.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-18 14:22:15)
We could try and go the Israeli way (and probably be branded as racist), but I doubt that would work in a large, diverse nation like the US. I object only because I don't really think it actually does much for security. How often did the US have plane bombings/hijackings before 9/11? Is the price we are paying really worth whatever security we have 'bought'?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think a lot of people are pissed about the inconsistency of it. Sure, 'randomness' regarding extensive searches is a good thing, but how come Joe Blow TSA agent has to grab my junk and not the old man in front of me's? What exactly does that accomplish?
Hell, we'll be branded as racists either way. Fuck the whiners. Go with whatever works.SenorToenails wrote:
We could try and go the Israeli way (and probably be branded as racist), but I doubt that would work in a large, diverse nation like the US. I object only because I don't really think it actually does much for security. How often did the US have plane bombings/hijackings before 9/11? Is the price we are paying really worth whatever security we have 'bought'?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think a lot of people are pissed about the inconsistency of it. Sure, 'randomness' regarding extensive searches is a good thing, but how come Joe Blow TSA agent has to grab my junk and not the old man in front of me's? What exactly does that accomplish?
I can't help but wonder if a better method for national security would come from better intelligence, and not more inconvenience. Oh well...if you gotta fly, you gotta play by the rules. I just don't have to like it.
It (the faux security check) is a dog and pony show. It makes it look like the government is taking action after 9/11. It does little to guarantee our security in flight. But I agree, "if you gotta fly, you gotta play by the rules." It does suck, but people need to QQ about it.SenorToenails wrote:
We could try and go the Israeli way (and probably be branded as racist), but I doubt that would work in a large, diverse nation like the US. I object only because I don't really think it actually does much for security. How often did the US have plane bombings/hijackings before 9/11? Is the price we are paying really worth whatever security we have 'bought'?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think a lot of people are pissed about the inconsistency of it. Sure, 'randomness' regarding extensive searches is a good thing, but how come Joe Blow TSA agent has to grab my junk and not the old man in front of me's? What exactly does that accomplish?
I can't help but wonder if a better method for national security would come from better intelligence, and not more inconvenience. Oh well...if you gotta fly, you gotta play by the rules. I just don't have to like it.