Airport body scanners, pat downs and the TSA

Liberty1

Liberty1

CAGiversary!
Feedback
15 (100%)
Just thought this would be fun top to discuss, since its been such a hot topic in the news.

According to a poll I saw on TV earlier, over 70 percent of Americans support this. I really don't see how the number is that high, so the numbers are either bogus, or Americans are scared of their own shadow now. Also, many of those don't fly anyway.

Oh, and scientists have been reporting that the scanners are just as likely to kill you as a terrorist. Google it.

And lastly, government officials aren't required to pass through the security checks. The members of the the committee that is responsible for overseeing it dosen't even go through it. Wow.

For the title I originally typed : Airport boy scanners, pat downs and the TSA lol
 
Joe Biden wrote a bill in 1995 that ended up being the meat and bones of the PATRIOT Act (Obama's choice of him as VP should have given people a cue as to where Obama's allegiances lie).

Republicans were against Clinton's intelligence gathering in the 90s, John Ashcroft (yes, that John Ashcroft) being one of the leading voices.

Ah, screw it. Nobody pays attention anyway.
 
Interesting.

I think that everyone that dosen't have to fly for their work should just quit flying. When the airlines are closing down because no one flies anymore, they will lighten security.
 
[quote name='dabamus'] Yes, but once the airlines start failing Obama will want to take them over.[/QUOTE]

And if he doesn't he'll be attacked by people like you for losing millions of jobs.

Junk touching is a slippery slope though. What's next is the government will cut off your penis and toss it out the window. We shouldn't stand for this tyrannical power grab by the gummint.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I guess next year instead of getting a physical I'll just take a flight.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps this was what was in the bill that they needed to pass so they should show us. TSA agents are our new doctors. Thanks, Obamacare. :D
 
Another fun fact, when feeling people's junk, the TSA agents don't change their gloves before they do the next person... or the person after that...
 
I was wondering when this thread would get created.

I have mixed feelings on the issue.

I have a hard time seeing how it's a bad idea to leave it up to airlines themselves to do security. Making their customers happy is paramount to their bottom line, and so is their safety record - both are conducive for creating a win-win situation.

Or maybe we should learn a few lessons from the safest airport in the world?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I have a hard time seeing how it's a bad idea to leave it up to airlines themselves to do security. Making their customers happy is paramount to their bottom line, and so is their safety record - both are conducive for creating a win-win situation.[/QUOTE]
Theoretically speaking. Let's say airlines take it back over. And after a few years, they get really lax about it because it's expensive to closely inspect and the customers hate it anyway. A plane is hijacked and a thousand people are killed as well as a couple of billion in property damage as a result.

Are they liable?
 
It's frightening how quickly those on the right embrace their true racist roots, by taking the new TSA security measures and, in the process of criticizing the *techniques*, jump right into support for racial profiling.
 
These are the opinions I have formed from what I have learned about this topic and flight in general:

1) Security measures are never exact, so even with increased measures for pat downs and scans, there are sure to be slips. Since this is new, it's unsure as to whether or not these measures will make a significant difference or not. There is a very likely chance that after a few months/years, workers will loosen up and become less effective at spotting things.
2) Body scans and pat downs are much more invasive, but the biggest issue is our discomfort with the situation. If we didn't have such a prudish society when it comes to themes of sexuality and body images, we would care much less.
3) 70 percent of Americans can support these measures because of the high number of people who are Americans who do not fly. IMO, 70 percent of flyers do NOT support these measures, but I could definately see 70 percent of the total population.
4) The people who see the body scans and conduct the patdowns will be a majority of professionals who really don't care. Like doctors, they may enjoy seeing better specimens of the human body, but they will not do anything to make you more uncomfortable with the situation. Chances are, unless you're a regular at that terminal, you will never see that person again. So, as a result, who really cares that your man bits and lady bits are being seen by someone? They are NOT going to be taking photos and putting them on the web...
5) Airports in other nations are safer, like Israel, because of the way security runs. Background checks, great IDing, great scans, etc etc. The other reason? They conduct racial profiling and it has a great success rate for them. Our problem? Racial profiling is illegal and the ACLU will be ALL over that. I don't have the facts as to whether or not racial profiling works, so I also will not support it, but other countries are not nearly as lax as we are, even with our new measures in place.
6) The TSA should have announced this stuff well ahead of time to start getting people comfortable with it instead of just changing it one day and denying they are doing anything new and different. People as a rule are slow to change, especially in an uncomfortable and new situation. That's their bad, but it's too late now.

So, all in all, if you choose to fly, you have to suck it up and get used to it. It's how things are going to be and should be. I understand the inconvenience, but there also has to be an understanding as to how servere a situation could become if something gets by the scanners. Embarassment is a small price to pay in the long run. So, when you're being pat down or put through a full body scanner, just remind yourself, "I could have been accidentally arrested for a crime I didn't commit and forced to shower in group showers, poop in the middle of a room, and strip down in front of groups of guards." That would be far more embarassing than a TSA agent with a set of gloves patting you down.
 
Speaking of Israeli security, check out this NPR interview with the former chief of security at Ben Gurion airport.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122556071

Mr. RON: One of the problems with racial profiling is that there's a tendency to believe that this is the silver bullet to solve the problem. In other terms, if you're a Middle Eastern or if you're a Muslim, then you must be bad. And if you're a European and Christian, then you must be good.
But back in 1972, Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv was supposed to be attacked by a Palestinian, was never attacked by one. It was attacked by a Japanese terrorist killing 24 people. And it was attacked in the mid-'80s by a German terrorist answering to the name Miller.
Click to expand...
So much for racial profiling.
 
[quote name='Retom7']IMO, 70 percent of flyers do NOT support these measures[/QUOTE]

in your opinion, you cite a statistic? a-buh?

I think you're slightly onto something about body image; the discussion of body scanners doesn't center around effectiveness, it centers around invasiveness. We, the public, are worried that the TSA will see how fat and lumpy we are, how small our cocks are, and how saggy our tits are. They may even see that tattoo of "Tigger" we got after taking too much psilocybin during that vacation in the Bahamas.

Oh, we? I meant "they." THEY.
 
I don't support racial profiling, to mykes disappointment. You can be smart about actually profiling on a number of factors. Use statistics in profiling. Statistics aren't racist, they are science.

Why not use the same computers and algorithims used in marketing and adverising? It's only ok to do so for profit but not preventing harm?

It's incredibly stupid and ineffecient to go the other extreme and be as pc and "equal" about it as you can (which is exactly why the government is the only entity currently capable of doing it).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Theoretically speaking. Let's say airlines take it back over. And after a few years, they get really lax about it because it's expensive to closely inspect and the customers hate it anyway. A plane is hijacked and a thousand people are killed as well as a couple of billion in property damage as a result.

Are they liable?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I didn't see this post before I wrote the above.

If the public knew all airlines were responsible for their own security, and if the Airline knows they would be finished if there was ever an attack, I don't see the chances of an attack any higher than they are now, but I'd see passengers happier with the results.

You likely would, very quickly, see airlines split up into a spectrum of high risk cheaper airlines and lower risk more expensive airlines. The public will know which is which pretty easily.

I'd love to see an experiment: Have two separate flights to the same destinations. One is pre-2001 security, the other is like it is now. How would travelers choose? How would travelers choose if you tied the cost of security to their ticket?

I personally would be fine with pre-2001 security. Statistically, your chances of dying are still several magnitudes higher in a 40 mile drive on the highway. There is risk with everything and there are practical and economic limits to risk prevention.
 
This fucking rules.

What does the TSA do in response to National Opt-Out Day? Turn the scanners off and don't pat anybody down!

http://gizmodo.com/5698377/national-opt+out-day-is-a-bust-says-tsa

340x0.jpg


some guy on Gizmodo's comment section said:
Yeah, there are no problems today because backscatter machines are TURNED OFF at many airports and they are doing normal security procedures. Interesting that they'd rather risk people's safety than endure a PR disaster. By not giving people the chance to opt-out, they effectively take control of the story. Of course, by their logic, if there was such a heightened risk, then these machines should be used all the time (especially on a day when so many people are going to be flying). A move like this demonstrates that safety isn't their foremost concern; they just don't want to lose a big gov't contract. And of course, if there was some sort of attack today because the backscatters were turned off, then it's "See? We TOLD you so."
Click to expand...
 
I just flew a couple weeks ago and I had to get patted down because I left my wallet in my back pocket. There was no way I was going to send it through the X-ray so I got the pat down. The TSA agent warned me that I might feel uncomfortable during the pat down. After his brisk pat down left me with a slight case of blue balls, I turned around and asked "So when does the uncomfortable part begin?" Dude lightened up a bit and sent me on my way.
 
You are more likely to slip and fall in the bathtub or get struck by lightning than die by a terrorist attack.

And for me, I'm not afraid of someone touching me or seeing my body on a scanner, it's the privacy issue, and the fact that I'm forced to do it if I want to fly.

I would be much more comfortable with airlines doing it themselves, they want their customers to come back, at least.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So your okay with companies invading your privacy just not the government?[/QUOTE]

Well, of course! If people don't like being seen nude via x-ray or getting their balls touched by minimum wage assholes, they will just not fly and the air companies will be forced to stop feeling people up in public.

FREE MARKET!
 
If the airlines are enforcing security and I find it in any way comfortable, I don't have to fly. If the government is enforcing security and I find it in any way comfortable, I don't have to fly.

So what's the difference? The government dosen't give a damn if you come back, the airlines do. The airlines' security is based on what the customers want and not the voters, many of which don't fly anyway.

Anyway, no in practice it dosen't matter which does it, I refuse to fly until they make security less of a hassle. All I meant was that I believe it would be easier to change if it was the business itself conducting the security rather than the government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I work at an airline. We were talking about this last night and one of the chicks i work with was like "you can grab on me and touch my boobs and whatever else you want as long as I am safe on the plane." I was like "You are making me want to apply to be a TSA agent!"
 
There are times when I sit around thinking up headlines I'd write for The Onion. One of them would be "Pedophiles line up in droves to become TSA agents," or something along those lines.

The TSA is part of Homeland Security, and therefore part of the government, yeah? Or are they somewhat privatized? I can't figure it out. I assume this is all direct government. So my question is why in the hell they can just blindside people with this kind of shit and act surprised when it's taken badly? And you literally could not have picked a worse time, it being Thanksgiving and all.

I'll agree with the idea that 70% of those in agreement were never getting on planes to begin with. Which makes the stat bullshit, of course.

This is exactly what the terrorists want. I'm amazed that, seemingly, no one gets that. Wasting time, money, and getting privacies removed. We're playing directly into their hands.

And no, I don't have a solution. I'd have to think about that for a long while.
 
When are you guys going to realize that most people are moderates and are pulled one way or the other based on their experiences.

The same people who made an outcry for airport security after 9/11 are the same people who are complaining about the privacy issues with the scanners.

If there was another terrorist attack tomorrow, people would still be shouting for better security.
 
[quote name='Knoell']When are you guys going to realize that most people are moderates and are pulled one way or the other based on their experiences.

The same people who made an outcry for airport security after 9/11 are the same people who are complaining about the privacy issues with the scanners.

If there was another terrorist attack tomorrow, people would still be shouting for better security.[/QUOTE]

That's not a moderate...that's a know-nothing idiot.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't support racial profiling, to mykes disappointment. You can be smart about actually profiling on a number of factors. Use statistics in profiling. Statistics aren't racist, they are science.[/QUOTE]

Humor me. Show me some statistics related to terrorist acts.
 
[quote name='Strell']There are times when I sit around thinking up headlines I'd write for The Onion. One of them would be "Pedophiles line up in droves to become TSA agents," or something along those lines.

The TSA is part of Homeland Security, and therefore part of the government, yeah? Or are they somewhat privatized? I can't figure it out. I assume this is all direct government. So my question is why in the hell they can just blindside people with this kind of shit and act surprised when it's taken badly? And you literally could not have picked a worse time, it being Thanksgiving and all.

I'll agree with the idea that 70% of those in agreement were never getting on planes to begin with. Which makes the stat bullshit, of course.

This is exactly what the terrorists want. I'm amazed that, seemingly, no one gets that. Wasting time, money, and getting privacies removed. We're playing directly into their hands.

And no, I don't have a solution. I'd have to think about that for a long while.[/QUOTE]
I was just saying this to someone the other day, that no one really has to attack us anymore, they can just threaten us and do plenty of damage. Maybe send some half-assed failed explosive through the mail occasionally, but no need for a real attack. The whole point of terrorism is to strike terror into a people and they accomplished that 9 years ago.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Theoretically speaking. Let's say airlines take it back over. And after a few years, they get really lax about it because it's expensive to closely inspect and the customers hate it anyway. A plane is hijacked and a thousand people are killed as well as a couple of billion in property damage as a result.

Are they liable?[/QUOTE]

If you leave your car running with your wife in the passenger's seat while you run in to get a Dew and some guy jumps in, slits your wife's throat and drives your car through a farmer's market, killing 10 people, are you held liable?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you leave your car running with your wife in the passenger's seat while you run in to get a Dew and some guy jumps in, slits your wife's throat and drives your car through a farmer's market, killing 10 people, are you held liable?[/QUOTE]

You're a joke on these boards. Do you realize that?
 
[quote name='Liberty1']You are more likely to slip and fall in the bathtub or get struck by lightning than die by a terrorist attack.

And for me, I'm not afraid of someone touching me or seeing my body on a scanner, it's the privacy issue, and the fact that I'm forced to do it if I want to fly.

I would be much more comfortable with airlines doing it themselves, they want their customers to come back, at least.[/QUOTE]
What the airlines can do to start getting their customers to come back is to stop nickel and diming them every chance they get.

As for the pat downs versus the body scanners I don't give a shit either way since the last time I flew anywhere was the mid 90's. Otherwise I've just stuck to the Tri-State area(NY/NJ/PA).

But if you wanna fly AND want to feel 'safe' that no terrorists can get on the plane without being checked, then either put up with the pat downs and scanners or drive everywhere in the continental US that you need to go and avoid this 'hassle' altogether.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man, I am all for racial profiling and BPR (behavior pattern recognition). Yes it is very controversial but it really works! Look at Israel! And they are SURROUNDED with enemies.
If you look in the past with terrorists, who are they usually? The white business man? The japanese tourist? No, majority are from the middle east. Although its fucked up to say, but I think it'd be better time spent to interrogate them a bit more rather than a little white kid or a cancer patient. Sure they can be terrorists but it's probably safe to assume they are not and the mid eastern person has a better chance. Why? Because in the past most terrorist attacks have been from a mid eastern person. I'm not saying to exclude everyone else but if mid easterners are the majority for the attacks in the past, wouldn't it be better to focus just a bit more on them? Couldn't one conclude with the facts from past that the next attack (hopefully not) is more likely going to be someone from the mid east rather than an Asian or European person?

To me the TSA is a JOKE. These extra security measures are laughable because they are NOT going to catch any terrorist. Do the TSA think that terrorists are stupid? These suicidal morons are smarter then they let on. They have caught on to TSAs tactics and will not fall for them. It's so easy! Just read a news paper and see the latest security update that TSA has set up. In the paper I read about an airport and it informed me of how many machines were set up and approximately how many agents there were going to be. And that was from reading an article.

My solution is to utilize BPR and follow in Israel's footsteps in air travel security. I'd also like to have undercover FBI agents (any govt official trained to wield a gun) riding in EVERY SINGLE plane. They will have a gun on them and not wear their uniform. Or perhaps have the airline get some private security company to do this.

What really bothers me is why do most people think that terrorist will bomb a plane? 9/11 was a terrible and tragic event but imagine the terrorists going to the superbowl instead. It would make 9/11 a minor thing. And this is the thing, the govt. will think like this and then do pat downs and x rays at sporting events and so on. Why not? There are thousands of people at some locations which is way more than on a plane. This will probably happen. Maybe not our generation but it will if people keep brushing these methods off as a necessity.
 
I cannot endorse racial profiling, as that is just another case of security over liberty.

Cops aren't supposed to profile, but it is a fact that it happens. I live in an area which is 95%+ white, but I also live in close proximity to Illinois. I see black Illinois drivers getting searched nearly as much as I see local whites get searched. They are outnumbered astronomically, yet I see a disproportional amount getting pulled over. If you are black here, and are visiting someone and decide to walk to the pop machine, the cops will question you if they see you.

I know what it is like to be profiled. I have long hair, and most people assume I'm a stoner at first glance and I've been subjected to my fair share of harassment by the police because of it.

Profiling is a reality of Welfare-abusing, racist, pro-USA white trash America, like I live in, and it isn't a pretty thing.

I am not for political correctness or privileges for minorities, but racism conducted as official policy is WRONG.

A better way to prevent terrorism is to look at our foreign policy and the messages we send abroad. Our close relationship with Israel and our meddling in the Middle East just feeds ammo to the terrorists to use as recruiting tools.

I think allowing the mosque to be built near Ground Zero, that everyone throws such a fit about, could be the best message we could send to the world: one of peace, tolerance and forgiveness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']You're a joke on these boards. Do you realize that?[/QUOTE]

Oh, noes... anonymous internet guy says I'm a joke.

Going to go cry myself to sleep now.

*am cry*

PS: You realize that you're a joke in real life and your mother wishes she had gone through with the abortion when she had the chance, right? camoor: Proof that abortions should be legal. (See how bad it hurts to have random people on the internetz insult you?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Liberty1']I think allowing the mosque to be built near Ground Zero, that everyone throws such a fit about, could be the best message we could send to the world: one of peace, tolerance and forgiveness.[/QUOTE]

...and free money

The directors of the planned Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero have applied for grants from an agency tasked with helping Lower Manhattan recover from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The request was for about $5 million, said a person with knowledge of the grant application.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/nyregion/23mosque.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
 
[quote name='mr_burnzz']Man, I am all for racial profiling and BPR (behavior pattern recognition). Yes it is very controversial but it really works! Look at Israel! And they are SURROUNDED with enemies.
If you look in the past with terrorists, who are they usually? The white business man? The japanese tourist? [/QUOTE]

Actually, yes.

On May 30, 1972 three members of the Japanese Red Army undertook a terrorist attack, popularly called the Lod Airport massacre, at the Lod Airport, now known as the Ben Gurion International Airport, in Tel Aviv. Firing indiscriminately with automatic firearms and throwing grenades, they managed to kill 24 people and injure 78 others before being neutralized (one of them through suicide). One of the three terrorists, Kozo Okamoto, survived the incident.

(...)

Because airport security was focused on the possibility of a Palestinian attack, the use of Japanese terrorists took the guards by surprise.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
 
It's troublesome that the people who support racist policies (profiling) don't understand that they're less effective than what we have in place - their opinions aren't informed by what effective policies are, but what makes *them* (white people) feel comfortable.

Look, I agree that the new pat downs are perhaps a bit overboard. But I have done the new scanner before, and think that's fine. I don't see any logical response to these newish procedures that involves jumping from pat downs to racial profiling. From a logical, conversational standpoint, talking about racial profiling at this juncture feels like it's a non sequitur coming from someone who just really wants to say something more than is seeking a way to actually engage the issue of TSA security.

The proper response to "these techniques are invasive and inappropriate and therefore unamerican" is NOT to say "make THOSE people put up with them!" That's shameful racism.

EDIT: So the patdowns are invasive. What's wrong with the scanners? I like the way you stand in them, I get to pretend I'm Diamond Dallas Page. FEEL. THE. BAAAAANG!
 
[quote name='mr_burnzz']Man, I am all for racial profiling and BPR (behavior pattern recognition). Yes it is very controversial but it really works! Look at Israel! And they are SURROUNDED with enemies.
If you look in the past with terrorists, who are they usually? The white business man? The japanese tourist? No, majority are from the middle east. Although its fucked up to say, but I think it'd be better time spent to interrogate them a bit more rather than a little white kid or a cancer patient. Sure they can be terrorists but it's probably safe to assume they are not and the mid eastern person has a better chance. Why? Because in the past most terrorist attacks have been from a mid eastern person. I'm not saying to exclude everyone else but if mid easterners are the majority for the attacks in the past, wouldn't it be better to focus just a bit more on them? Couldn't one conclude with the facts from past that the next attack (hopefully not) is more likely going to be someone from the mid east rather than an Asian or European person?

To me the TSA is a JOKE. These extra security measures are laughable because they are NOT going to catch any terrorist. Do the TSA think that terrorists are stupid? These suicidal morons are smarter then they let on. They have caught on to TSAs tactics and will not fall for them. It's so easy! Just read a news paper and see the latest security update that TSA has set up. In the paper I read about an airport and it informed me of how many machines were set up and approximately how many agents there were going to be. And that was from reading an article.

My solution is to utilize BPR and follow in Israel's footsteps in air travel security. I'd also like to have undercover FBI agents (any govt official trained to wield a gun) riding in EVERY SINGLE plane. They will have a gun on them and not wear their uniform. Or perhaps have the airline get some private security company to do this.

What really bothers me is why do most people think that terrorist will bomb a plane? 9/11 was a terrible and tragic event but imagine the terrorists going to the superbowl instead. It would make 9/11 a minor thing. And this is the thing, the govt. will think like this and then do pat downs and x rays at sporting events and so on. Why not? There are thousands of people at some locations which is way more than on a plane. This will probably happen. Maybe not our generation but it will if people keep brushing these methods off as a necessity.[/QUOTE]
You ain't no gud at readin', are ya? Here, I'll post it again: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122556071
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's troublesome that the people who support racist policies (profiling) don't understand that they're less effective than what we have in place - their opinions aren't informed by what effective policies are, but what makes *them* (white people) feel comfortable.

Look, I agree that the new pat downs are perhaps a bit overboard. But I have done the new scanner before, and think that's fine. I don't see any logical response to these newish procedures that involves jumping from pat downs to racial profiling. From a logical, conversational standpoint, talking about racial profiling at this juncture feels like it's a non sequitur coming from someone who just really wants to say something more than is seeking a way to actually engage the issue of TSA security.

The proper response to "these techniques are invasive and inappropriate and therefore unamerican" is NOT to say "make THOSE people put up with them!" That's shameful racism.

EDIT: So the patdowns are invasive. What's wrong with the scanners? I like the way you stand in them, I get to pretend I'm Diamond Dallas Page. FEEL. THE. BAAAAANG![/QUOTE]

It's worth reading this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/touch_his_junk.html
[quote name='Adam Serwer']
It's that the TSA should be frisking "Nigerian nutjobs" instead of grandma. Conservatives like Krauthammer aren't angry that the TSA is infringing on individual liberty, just that it's infringing on their individual liberty.

So it's not really accurate to say that the new conservative anthem is "don't touch my junk." It's more like, "touch his junk." That doesn't seem very libertarian.
[/QUOTE]
 
@camoor
The directors of the planned Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero have applied for grants from an agency tasked with helping Lower Manhattan recover from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The request was for about $5 million, said a person with knowledge of the grant application.
Click to expand...

I actually wasn't aware of this, but all of the arguments I heard against the mosque were anti-Islamic rather than over the grant itself. If they could finance it themselves, I would support it whole-heartedly. Anyway, thanks for telling me this.

It's that the TSA should be frisking "Nigerian nutjobs" instead of grandma. Conservatives like Krauthammer aren't angry that the TSA is infringing on individual liberty, just that it's infringing on their individual liberty.

So it's not really accurate to say that the new conservative anthem is "don't touch my junk." It's more like, "touch his junk." That doesn't seem very libertarian.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called most conservatives have no principles and are hardly libertarian.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's troublesome that the people who support racist policies (profiling) don't understand that they're less effective than what we have in place - their opinions aren't informed by what effective policies are, but what makes *them* (white people) feel comfortable.[/QUOTE]

So, you think that by targeting some broad groups of people for suspicion, while ignoring (or limiting suspicions towards) other groups of people is less effective?
 
What about having dog's just sniff people up? It seems like common sense to me. The police have had dogs sniff out drugs and explosives for years.
But it isn't about this common sense. As someone else put out the idea, if patdowns and the full body scanners seem especially onerous to you, how about a National ID card?! Surprise!!!! It's classic bait and switch. If the government can track you wherever you go with it no biggie, right?
 
It may be more effective, but that scraps the whole equality under law thing that I believe to be a pillar of a free world. That means rich, poor, black, white, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. They should all be treated equally under law and not taxed in different proportion or treated differently by the police.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']@camoor


I actually wasn't aware of this, but all of the arguments I heard against the mosque were anti-Islamic rather than over the grant itself. If they could finance it themselves, I would support it whole-heartedly. Anyway, thanks for telling me this.[/QUOTE]

Sure, and I have a suspicion that this is one area where you and I agree. That anti-Islamic nonsense was ridiculous - but it's also ridiculous that the federal government is still putting up 9/11 rebuilding money almost a decade later for richer-then-rich NYC. We all saw those record wall street bonuses - we all heard from the scumbags who think earning only 250K makes them poor - seems to me that NYC isn't exactly feeling the pinch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top