54 replies to this topic

[LISA]

last I heard..YOu certainly didnt mind so much...weirdo ... I still have the souvenir latex gloves you gave me

[Timothy]

meow...

[LISA]

kitty got claws lmao

[Timothy]

Kitty kat!!!!

[freedom78]

If this was pat downs with happy endings, most men would cease their objections, provided we got the "patter downer" of our choice.

[LISA]

ahhhh the Happy Finish.. nothing like a 'wrap-around' huh?

[Mr. Roboto]

If this was pat downs with happy endings, most men would cease their objections, provided we got the "patter downer" of our choice.

More than likely it's gonna be a guy that looks like a roadie.

[lynn]

These same people who are so vehemently objecting to all of this (which is probably no where near as bad as media/people make it) will be the same people outraged that security was so lax after some airplane blows up because of a bomb planted on it. Just sayin'. I have no problem with it. We need to remember what happened and could happen again.

[TAP]

These same people who are so vehemently objecting to all of this (which is probably no where near as bad as media/people make it) will be the same people outraged that security was so lax after some airplane blows up because of a bomb planted on it. Just sayin'. I have no problem with it. We need to remember what happened and could happen again.

What happened?

[lynn]

Well, I was referring to the events of September 11, 2001 (was it 2001?). After that happened and security was beefed up in airports, everyone seemed to be ok with it. I think that, after almost a decade with nothing else having happened, we've become somewhat complacent. Me, myself, I'd rather put up with some increased airport security and pat downs, etc. if it meant that I could feel safer or that the guy next to me didn't have a bomb in his underwear, you know. They used to do random searches of people, which never made sense to me because, for instance, my 16 yr old son would be picked because - I don't know - he had longer hair and was travelling alone? Who knows? Maybe the Middle Eastern looking guy would be picked. How does anyone know that the terrorist isn't the clean cut guy in the 3 piece suit who was passed through without incident?

Besides, who wouldn't want a pat down? Tee hee.

[Mr. Roboto]

I tend to agree.

[freedom78]

Again, I have no objections to this. It's NOT the same as the state doing an illegal search (i.e. "casting a wide net") to look for potential terrorists/criminals. This is you, deciding to purchase a ticket on a PRIVATE airlines. It's no different than having a metal detector at the door of some corporate building. Granted, there are standards imposed by the government, but it's still only something that can be imposed on you if you choose to fly. It's not much different than the pat down you routinely receive if you attend a concert these days.

[Mr. Roboto]

I don't have a problem with it. Like Lynn said, if a plane was blown up, you better believe it would all be Obama's fault.

[TAP]

9/11 wasn't planes being blown up though was it - these scanners wouldn't have made a difference there I don't think. Not trying to be facetious but there's some issues here, the main goal of terrorism is to cause fear rather than to kill people, every time something like this happens it's a huge increase in spending plus there are hidden effects. Statistical studies suggest that 1000+ road deaths were attributable people driving instead of flying, but of course that's 1 or 2 deaths here and there and not spectacular so no one really notices. I dunno, I feel like stuff like this is exactly what al Qaeda etc want to happen.

[freedom78]

9/11 wasn't planes being blown up though was it - these scanners wouldn't have made a difference there I don't think. Not trying to be facetious but there's some issues here, the main goal of terrorism is to cause fear rather than to kill people, every time something like this happens it's a huge increase in spending plus there are hidden effects. Statistical studies suggest that 1000+ road deaths were attributable people driving instead of flying, but of course that's 1 or 2 deaths here and there and not spectacular so no one really notices. I dunno, I feel like stuff like this is exactly what al Qaeda etc want to happen.

I can see why you'd say that and I approach most things done under the name of "security" with that same trepidation. For example...warrantless wiretaps...completely UNconstitutional. But we've always had security screenings at airports with metal detectors, additional screenings for those who fail the primary metal detector, and then potentially additional screenings after than, in rare circumstances. Changing from that to the full body scanners (which I was "randomly" selected for a few years back..."random" meaning it was 7 am and no one else was in line, so it might as well be me) to pat downs for those who refuse the scan just doesn't bother me that much. It's certainly not perfect and if we can make better and less invasive technology then I'm all for it.

Also, I don't feel that this is the "fear" of terrorism at work. This isn't the government, on TV, saying "here come the terrorists...better surrender your liberties or you'll die". The fear aspect just doesn't seem to be there in the same way that it was a few years back.