I would have definately been using that body scanner inappropriately if I had decided to take that job with TSA
Tu Stultus Es
So, no screening is a better option?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, a bunch of fat angry slobs making minimum wage who get a boner at the very thought of body scanners is both highly effective and a fantastic deterrent.Turquoise wrote:
The chances of being killed by terrorists on a plane are pretty low too, but we still have safety policies in place that are designed to prevent hijackings.JohnG@lt wrote:
And no, the moratorium shouldn't stand because the chances of another blowout occurring in the next six months is infinitesimally small.
Whenever I had gate guard at Hood, we always made it a point to stop any hot chicks that drove through for the extra thorough car inspections. If you snagged a girl in a sun dress it was bonus pointseleven bravo wrote:
I would have definately been using that body scanner inappropriately if I had decided to take that job with TSA
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It should be screening done, and paid for, by the airlines themselves. It shouldn't be a government agency. The airlines could use their safety record as a selling point.Turquoise wrote:
So, no screening is a better option?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, a bunch of fat angry slobs making minimum wage who get a boner at the very thought of body scanners is both highly effective and a fantastic deterrent.Turquoise wrote:
The chances of being killed by terrorists on a plane are pretty low too, but we still have safety policies in place that are designed to prevent hijackings.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ah... so they wouldn't abuse the scanners, but TSA employees do because they're part of the government.JohnG@lt wrote:
It should be screening done, and paid for, by the airlines themselves. It shouldn't be a government agency. The airlines could use their safety record as a selling point.Turquoise wrote:
So, no screening is a better option?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, a bunch of fat angry slobs making minimum wage who get a boner at the very thought of body scanners is both highly effective and a fantastic deterrent.
Government screeners are screened by the government. Good luck getting one of them fired by raising a stink. An employee of an airline, when the airlines face such cutthroat competition that any one of them is one set of bad publicity away collapse, will be necessarily held to a higher standard.Turquoise wrote:
Ah... so they wouldn't abuse the scanners, but TSA employees do because they're part of the government.JohnG@lt wrote:
It should be screening done, and paid for, by the airlines themselves. It shouldn't be a government agency. The airlines could use their safety record as a selling point.Turquoise wrote:
So, no screening is a better option?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're assuming that the public would even know of the abuse. The employee may or may not be fired within the company, but it largely depends on whether or not the person was caught by a member of the public and if his/her manager isn't part of the problem (or isn't complacent).JohnG@lt wrote:
Government screeners are screened by the government. Good luck getting one of them fired by raising a stink. An employee of an airline, when the airlines face such cutthroat competition that any one of them is one set of bad publicity away collapse, will be necessarily held to a higher standard.Turquoise wrote:
Ah... so they wouldn't abuse the scanners, but TSA employees do because they're part of the government.JohnG@lt wrote:
It should be screening done, and paid for, by the airlines themselves. It shouldn't be a government agency. The airlines could use their safety record as a selling point.
The point is... abuse of security methods is no more likely under government than under the private sector -- all that really determines the fate of an abuser are publicity and management.
TSA screeners aren't government employees anyway. They're subcontracted out to companies that simply pick people up off the street, offer them minimum wage and give them a week or two of training.Turquoise wrote:
You're assuming that the public would even know of the abuse. The employee may or may not be fired within the company, but it largely depends on whether or not the person was caught by a member of the public and if his/her manager isn't part of the problem (or isn't complacent).JohnG@lt wrote:
Government screeners are screened by the government. Good luck getting one of them fired by raising a stink. An employee of an airline, when the airlines face such cutthroat competition that any one of them is one set of bad publicity away collapse, will be necessarily held to a higher standard.Turquoise wrote:
Ah... so they wouldn't abuse the scanners, but TSA employees do because they're part of the government.
The point is... abuse of security methods is no more likely under government than under the private sector -- all that really determines the fate of an abuser are publicity and management.
Point is, government getting involved and forcing a moratorium has no real effect except to make people like you feel safer. Just like the safety provided by the TSA, it's nothing more than an illusion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
TSA is the same group of retards as before 9/11
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-21 20:25:51)
If that's true, then that must mean that we don't need screenings at all. There have been very few incidents of terrorism involving our planes in the last few years. When looking at how many flights we have annually vs. the number of threats, it's a very small %.JohnG@lt wrote:
TSA screeners aren't government employees anyway. They're subcontracted out to companies that simply pick people up off the street, offer them minimum wage and give them a week or two of training.Turquoise wrote:
You're assuming that the public would even know of the abuse. The employee may or may not be fired within the company, but it largely depends on whether or not the person was caught by a member of the public and if his/her manager isn't part of the problem (or isn't complacent).JohnG@lt wrote:
Government screeners are screened by the government. Good luck getting one of them fired by raising a stink. An employee of an airline, when the airlines face such cutthroat competition that any one of them is one set of bad publicity away collapse, will be necessarily held to a higher standard.
The point is... abuse of security methods is no more likely under government than under the private sector -- all that really determines the fate of an abuser are publicity and management.
Point is, government getting involved and forcing a moratorium has no real effect except to make people like you feel safer. Just like the safety provided by the TSA, it's nothing more than an illusion.
we need screenings, but not in its current form. as bill mahr correctly said a few months before 9/11 on politically incorrect........airport security is a magic show, an illusion, something there to make people feel comfortable.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-21 20:27:31)
I'm just about done arguing with you. You've gotten to the point where it's like trying to argue with lowing. Keep swinging from Obama's nutsack.Turquoise wrote:
If that's true, then that must mean that we don't need screenings at all. There have been very few incidents of terrorism involving our planes in the last few years. When looking at how many flights we have annually vs. the number of threats, it's a very small %.JohnG@lt wrote:
TSA screeners aren't government employees anyway. They're subcontracted out to companies that simply pick people up off the street, offer them minimum wage and give them a week or two of training.Turquoise wrote:
You're assuming that the public would even know of the abuse. The employee may or may not be fired within the company, but it largely depends on whether or not the person was caught by a member of the public and if his/her manager isn't part of the problem (or isn't complacent).
The point is... abuse of security methods is no more likely under government than under the private sector -- all that really determines the fate of an abuser are publicity and management.
Point is, government getting involved and forcing a moratorium has no real effect except to make people like you feel safer. Just like the safety provided by the TSA, it's nothing more than an illusion.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But again, if it's only an illusion, and we've had very few incidents, then terrorism regarding planes must be rather insignificant.11 Bravo wrote:
we need screenings, but not in its current form. as bill mahr correctly said a few months before 9/11 on politcally incorrect........airport security is a magic show, an illusion, something there to make people feel comfortable.
However, there's another side to this... John just voiced support for making it a purely private thing. Companies would sell their tickets based purely on perceptions of safety by customers. So, if we take what you just said and what he said in combination with what I said, then that means that, ultimately, the best course of action is to privatize airport security and devise some array of fake measures that appear to make things safer.
in its CURRENT form....Turquoise wrote:
But again, if it's only an illusion, and we've had very few incidents, then terrorism regarding planes must be rather insignificant.11 Bravo wrote:
we need screenings, but not in its current form. as bill mahr correctly said a few months before 9/11 on politcally incorrect........airport security is a magic show, an illusion, something there to make people feel comfortable.
elaborate11 Bravo wrote:
in its CURRENT form....Turquoise wrote:
But again, if it's only an illusion, and we've had very few incidents, then terrorism regarding planes must be rather insignificant.11 Bravo wrote:
we need screenings, but not in its current form. as bill mahr correctly said a few months before 9/11 on politcally incorrect........airport security is a magic show, an illusion, something there to make people feel comfortable.
el-al airlines is the way it should be done. period. the most hated people in the world yet have no issues.Turquoise wrote:
elaborate11 Bravo wrote:
in its CURRENT form....Turquoise wrote:
But again, if it's only an illusion, and we've had very few incidents, then terrorism regarding planes must be rather insignificant.
I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I'm even less of a fan of his competition. I know I can be contrarian, but seriously, I'm just trying to figure out your logic.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm just about done arguing with you. You've gotten to the point where it's like trying to argue with lowing. Keep swinging from Obama's nutsack.Turquoise wrote:
If that's true, then that must mean that we don't need screenings at all. There have been very few incidents of terrorism involving our planes in the last few years. When looking at how many flights we have annually vs. the number of threats, it's a very small %.JohnG@lt wrote:
TSA screeners aren't government employees anyway. They're subcontracted out to companies that simply pick people up off the street, offer them minimum wage and give them a week or two of training.
Point is, government getting involved and forcing a moratorium has no real effect except to make people like you feel safer. Just like the safety provided by the TSA, it's nothing more than an illusion.
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.11 Bravo wrote:
el-al airlines is the way it should be done. period. the most hated people in the world yet have no issues.Turquoise wrote:
elaborate11 Bravo wrote:
in its CURRENT form....
Israel is used to the semi-police state style of security because they have to do things that way. It might be wise for us to consider changing our foreign policy so that we are less hated in general.
Logic is it will cost this country far more in lost jobs, tax revenue and everything else associated with having people gainfully employed during a massive recession than it would to clean up another oil spill if one were to occur during the time period this moratorium is in place. Especially since the oil companies are on the hook for any cleanup costs. Knee jerk stupidity is all the moratorium is and it will do far far far more harm than good.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I'm even less of a fan of his competition. I know I can be contrarian, but seriously, I'm just trying to figure out your logic.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm just about done arguing with you. You've gotten to the point where it's like trying to argue with lowing. Keep swinging from Obama's nutsack.Turquoise wrote:
If that's true, then that must mean that we don't need screenings at all. There have been very few incidents of terrorism involving our planes in the last few years. When looking at how many flights we have annually vs. the number of threats, it's a very small %.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
dont play fucking games with me dude...i aint lowing or johnTurquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.
Yeah, people hate us because of our foreign policies Why don't you go on a world tour apologizing to the world? Oh wait, that didn't work the first time. Shit!Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.11 Bravo wrote:
el-al airlines is the way it should be done. period. the most hated people in the world yet have no issues.Turquoise wrote:
elaborate
Israel is used to the semi-police state style of security because they have to do things that way. It might be wise for us to consider changing our foreign policy so that we are less hated in general.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not games, bravo. It's a valid point. Yes, Israel is good at security. I acknowledged that. What I'm saying is... there wouldn't even be as much of a need for security here if we were less involved in so many conflicts.11 Bravo wrote:
dont play fucking games with me dude...i aint lowing or johnTurquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.
We instigated the war in Afghanistan?Turquoise wrote:
It's not games, bravo. It's a valid point. Yes, Israel is good at security. I acknowledged that. What I'm saying is... there wouldn't even be as much of a need for security here if we were less involved in so many conflicts.11 Bravo wrote:
dont play fucking games with me dude...i aint lowing or johnTurquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Did I suggest apologies? Nope....JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, people hate us because of our foreign policies Why don't you go on a world tour apologizing to the world? Oh wait, that didn't work the first time. Shit!Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.11 Bravo wrote:
el-al airlines is the way it should be done. period. the most hated people in the world yet have no issues.
Israel is used to the semi-police state style of security because they have to do things that way. It might be wise for us to consider changing our foreign policy so that we are less hated in general.
I'm suggesting less intervention. It's an entirely different concept. It's not about trying to make friends with people that hate you, it's about limiting your exposure to volatile situations. Trade should be our primary emphasis in foreign relations, not being the world's police.
Oh, I could've sworn that just a few months ago you were saying that one of the US's primary duties should be to topple bad governments and install flourishing democracies. Make up your mind.Turquoise wrote:
Did I suggest apologies? Nope....JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, people hate us because of our foreign policies Why don't you go on a world tour apologizing to the world? Oh wait, that didn't work the first time. Shit!Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, although I'm not sure if you really want to use "the most hated people in the world" as your role models.
Israel is used to the semi-police state style of security because they have to do things that way. It might be wise for us to consider changing our foreign policy so that we are less hated in general.
I'm suggesting less intervention. It's an entirely different concept. It's not about trying to make friends with people that hate you, it's about limiting your exposure to volatile situations. Trade should be our primary emphasis in foreign relations, not being the world's police.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-07-21 20:43:38)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat