Listening to your overseas phone calls?- WRONG! Fondling your balls?- OKAY!

[Jarod]

No, I really wouldn't have been FOR this, even if Ronny Reagan rose from the dead and implemented it! I would be just as livid, and just as outraged! I was pretty vocal against the establishment of the TSA to begin with, but you were too busy immersing yourself in koolaid from MoveOn.org to notice it. I felt that private security companies, paid for by the airliners, could have handled it, and at a much lower cost. I still DO feel that way, nothing has changed. If you want to call it being on the side of the terrorists to want better more effective security measures, then so be it... you're a fucking clueless idiot anyway, that's nothing new to me.

Maybe Palin can get Bin Ladden to run as her VP!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're just using the attack the messenger fallacy. While I think it would be cool if we all had our own private jet and didn't have to bother with it at all therefore, making that policy is stupid, we can't afford it.

The reality is, Israel's system is unwieldy at best in the US. And I am a realist, Congress isn't going to vote for that, I may as well hope they'll vote for us all to be provided those jets.

Well, no, Congress certainly won't vote on it as long as idiots like you accept TSA and are okay with 'tweaking' that government-run system instead. I didn't say any damn thing about private jets, that's your logical fallacy, not mine. As I said before (twice), the cost of the security is no different per capita or per passenger. You haven't given me any evidence to support that argument, and I can't let it stand. Yes, it would cost us considerably more to do the same type security as Israel, but it would be spread out among considerably more passengers, so the cost per person would be about the same.

 

[Damocles]

Anyway, Dix. I thought you might like to see some of my posts in this thread before saying "You support this?" again. It's intellectually disingenuous to ignore what people say and replace it with what you want to argue against. That we don't see eye to eye on the capacity for us to absorb the costs of such a plan like Israel's we definitely agree on this idiotic and inept attempt to give a larger illusion of "safety".

Absolutely unacceptable. There is zero chance those pervs would get one finger on any of my daughters. Humbly accepting a pat-down more extensive than when you are arrested because you want to be "safe" is preposterous.

They are packing explosives into breast implants, twisting nipples isn't going to discover that. They are packing their colons, feeling your nuts isn't going to discover that. The idea that this is somehow making you "safe" is beyond foolish. Why would we subject ourselves to this? We let them listen to our calls, we let them peek at our e-mail, we let them feel us up in the name of safety?

Disgusting.

This is beyond party, every American should be disgusted by this. Listening to idiots on the radio willing to undergo any humiliating nonsense to be "safe" almost made me ill. This is how terrorists win, they fundamentally change us into fearful idiots willing to be molested by Big Brother in the hopes that we'll be "safe"...

I can't imagine allowing this to happen to myself or my children. I guess we won't be able to fly for a while, sanity must be restored.

 

[Damocles]

Well, no, Congress certainly won't vote on it as long as idiots like you accept TSA and are okay with 'tweaking' that government-run system instead. I didn't say any damn thing about private jets, that's your logical fallacy, not mine. As I said before (twice), the cost of the security is no different per capita or per passenger. You haven't given me any evidence to support that argument, and I can't let it stand. Yes, it would cost us considerably more to do the same type security as Israel, but it would be spread out among considerably more passengers, so the cost per person would be about the same.

You are flat wrong about what you think I "accept"...

I have explained why the costs increase by at least a factor of four earlier if we implement such a system. You are a fool to pretend that such a system doesn't have a cost or that the cost would be overcome by "more passengers". You have no evidence that we'd have "more passengers" simply because we decided to pay more money.

It's like you suddenly got a dose of liberalism. If you aren't happy with the way things are, throw more money at it! We'll cover it by the imaginary "more passengers"... or if you are Obama, it's "the cost savings" of his health care debacle would be realized because insurance would "go down" when "more people" were covered...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are flat wrong about what you think I "accept"...

I have explained why the costs increase by at least a factor of four earlier if we implement such a system. You are a fool to pretend that such a system doesn't have a cost or that the cost would be overcome by "more passengers". You have no evidence that we'd have "more passengers" simply because we decided to pay more money.

No, you really didn't explain it. You proclaimed that it would be cost prohibitive. Then you claimed it would be "unwieldy" (whateverthefuck that means!) but you never explained how per-customer cost for Americans would be any greater than per-customer cost for Israelis. The same system, on a larger scale, with the cost spread to a larger number. It's not that complicated to understand. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I have no evidence we'd have more passengers... than Israel? Certainly we do! By far, MANY more passengers. Our price would be about what Israelis pay, because the cost is spread out over all the passengers, which we have many more of than Israelis. Good god, Damo, I can't believe I'm having to break this down to you like you're Jarhead!

It's like you suddenly got a dose of liberalism. If you aren't happy with the way things are, throw more money at it! We'll cover it by the imaginary "more passengers"... or if you are Obama, it's "the cost savings" of his health care debacle would be realized because insurance would "go down" when "more people" were covered...

There is no imaginary "more passengers!" We already have FAR MORE passengers traveling by air in American than in Israel! THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE! If it costs an Israeli an extra $30 per ticket for security, why would it cost Americans more? You've not explained it... you just seem to want to pretend that our cost would be prohibitive because we have more airlines and more airports to cover with more screeners... and I guess you think we have the same relative number of people flying as Israel? We have exponentially more passengers, therefore, the cost would be spread out among all of those people who already fly everyday in America! Yes, more airports, more airplanes, more college-educated screeners... but MORE PASSENGERS to pay for it too! Scale is the only difference, cost per passenger would be about the same as Israel. This cost might be slightly higher than we're currently paying, but with private sector handling security as opposed to the wonderfully inefficient federal government, maybe not! In any event, regardless of cost, it would be MARKEDLY better security!

And OH BY THE WAY..... The TSA has NEVER stopped a single terrorist at screening! ...NOT ONE!

 

[Canceled2]

I did read this, as well as other items that informed me that all of these screeners are highly paid college graduates, specially trained (more expense). Again, there are two international airports in Israel, the list for the US is so unwieldy that even Wiki separates them out into many different lists...

List of airports in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reality of it is, even TSA doesn't have 1/4 of the budget that it would take to hire that many highly trained people. Instead we make do with this crappy system. Saying we should do it exactly like Israel is kind of silly, it ignores the very real cost of such a system to a nation like the USofA...

I don't believe many would be willing to pay what it would cost to set this up across the US.

This is the equivalent of a Small Business with forty or so employees trying to say that AT&T should do it just like they do. Their boss hand-writes all their checks and looks their employee in the eyes as they hand them to them...

How many TSA employees do we currently have? Imagine if we quadrupled all their pay...

You know Damo saying we can't do it is well...just plain retarded. A cost analysis would definietly have to be done. And airlines would have to pass along those costs. The streamlining of security measures is not as employee needy as you suggest. Much of the security where questioning is done happens at check in...airlines already have employees in place. Again, when they hand over their boarding passes more security...again already have employees. Screening luggage before it is loaded...already happening. That leaves parking garage. The profiling behind the scenes with regards to no fly lists etc. is also already in place. When boiled down it would come down to specialized training- which airlines could put their people through over a period of time that would best generate success. I am certain that is something the Israeli's could provide us with...no need to reinvent the wheel after all.

 

[Canceled2]

Well, no, Congress certainly won't vote on it as long as idiots like you accept TSA and are okay with 'tweaking' that government-run system instead. I didn't say any damn thing about private jets, that's your logical fallacy, not mine. As I said before (twice), the cost of the security is no different per capita or per passenger. You haven't given me any evidence to support that argument, and I can't let it stand. Yes, it would cost us considerably more to do the same type security as Israel, but it would be spread out among considerably more passengers, so the cost per person would be about the same.

I hear that an airport in Florida is going to fire TSA and hire a private company...have you heard this?

 

[Damocles]

You know Damo saying we can't do it is well...just plain retarded. A cost analysis would definietly have to be done. And airlines would have to pass along those costs. The streamlining of security measures is not as employee needy as you suggest. Much of the security where questioning is done happens at check in...airlines already have employees in place. Again, when they hand over their boarding passes more security...again already have employees. Screening luggage before it is loaded...already happening. That leaves parking garage. The profiling behind the scenes with regards to no fly lists etc. is also already in place. When boiled down it would come down to specialized training- which airlines could put their people through over a period of time that would best generate success. I am certain that is something the Israeli's could provide us with...no need to reinvent the wheel after all.

No, in Israel it isn't the ticket counter person asking you the questions. It is silly to believe that security won't increase costs once we replace the TSA checkpoints with enough highly trained college graduates that make four times (actually more) than what the TSA employees make. The specified training levels alone are cost prohibitive if you add only a few more airports than Israel has.

But by all means, do a cost analysis. If I am wrong and it is cost efficient than I say let's get it done. But if it is equivalent to increasing our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution, then I say it isn't worth it.

 

[Damocles]

I hear that an airport in Florida is going to fire TSA and hire a private company...have you heard this?

Private companies hired by airports must still follow the policies of the TSA. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, at all will change for them, other than the people at the checkpoints will make even less money (usually) than the TSA employees.

 

[Damocles]

No, you really didn't explain it. You proclaimed that it would be cost prohibitive. Then you claimed it would be "unwieldy" (whateverthefuck that means!) but you never explained how per-customer cost for Americans would be any greater than per-customer cost for Israelis. The same system, on a larger scale, with the cost spread to a larger number. It's not that complicated to understand. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I have no evidence we'd have more passengers... than Israel? Certainly we do! By far, MANY more passengers. Our price would be about what Israelis pay, because the cost is spread out over all the passengers, which we have many more of than Israelis. Good god, Damo, I can't believe I'm having to break this down to you like you're Jarhead!



There is no imaginary "more passengers!" We already have FAR MORE passengers traveling by air in American than in Israel! THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE! If it costs an Israeli an extra $30 per ticket for security, why would it cost Americans more? You've not explained it... you just seem to want to pretend that our cost would be prohibitive because we have more airlines and more airports to cover with more screeners... and I guess you think we have the same relative number of people flying as Israel? We have exponentially more passengers, therefore, the cost would be spread out among all of those people who already fly everyday in America! Yes, more airports, more airplanes, more college-educated screeners... but MORE PASSENGERS to pay for it too! Scale is the only difference, cost per passenger would be about the same as Israel. This cost might be slightly higher than we're currently paying, but with private sector handling security as opposed to the wonderfully inefficient federal government, maybe not! In any event, regardless of cost, it would be MARKEDLY better security!

And OH BY THE WAY..... The TSA has NEVER stopped a single terrorist at screening! ...NOT ONE!

Oh, Dix. We have more passengers and the costs of what we already have is prohibitive, let alone adding the (as described in the three stories I've read on this subject) highly trained college graduates who are well-compensated for their work. Adding the expense will make it more expensive for us, and the fact that there are more airports doesn't change that.

I'm not arguing that the TSA is "good" and I've already reposted what I think of this particular practice. I am simply telling you that the cost of setting up a system exactly like Israels is cost prohibitive because of the differences in our nations.

 

[old retired fella]

No, in Israel it isn't the ticket counter person asking you the questions. It is silly to believe that security won't increase costs once we replace the TSA checkpoints with enough highly trained college graduates that make four times (actually more) than what the TSA employees make. The specified training levels alone are cost prohibitive if you add only a few more airports than Israel has.

But by all means, do a cost analysis. If I am wrong and it is cost efficient than I say let's get it done. But if it is equivalent to increasing our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution, then I say it isn't worth it.

Doesn't El AL have some security function in place at all the airports that fly directly TO Israel? I flew to Israel once, a long time ago, from NYC... and El AL agents were monitoring everyone that boarded that plane.

 

[Damocles]

Doesn't El AL have some security function in place at all the airports that fly directly TO Israel? I flew to Israel once, a long time ago, from NYC... and El AL agents were monitoring everyone that boarded that plane.

Probably they do, but again, they fly to at most one of two airports and only specific places have direct flights to either of those airports.

I'd love to have a system like theirs, they are designed to seek terrorists rather than bottles of shampoo and attempt to find "stuff". However I fully understand that having enough lines to question every single American passenger before they board a flight, spreading them out so no terrorist could successfully kill a large number of people, etc. would be extremely expensive, and that's before you add in the factor of how educated these people are and how much they are paid.

 

[Canceled2]

No, in Israel it isn't the ticket counter person asking you the questions. It is silly to believe that security won't increase costs once we replace the TSA checkpoints with enough highly trained college graduates that make four times (actually more) than what the TSA employees make. The specified training levels alone are cost prohibitive if you add only a few more airports than Israel has.

But by all means, do a cost analysis. If I am wrong and it is cost efficient than I say let's get it done. But if it is equivalent to increasing our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution, then I say it isn't worth it.

Actually it IS the person at check in that does the security questioning. I never said their won't be a cost increase...what I said is a cost analysis would certainly need to be done and of course costs wil be passed on to the traveler. What I also said is that the need to hire more employees is not as overwhelming as you intimate. You do not know what those costs would be and your thinking it is impossible is what is silly.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, in Israel it isn't the ticket counter person asking you the questions. It is silly to believe that security won't increase costs once we replace the TSA checkpoints with enough highly trained college graduates that make four times (actually more) than what the TSA employees make. The specified training levels alone are cost prohibitive if you add only a few more airports than Israel has.

But by all means, do a cost analysis. If I am wrong and it is cost efficient than I say let's get it done. But if it is equivalent to increasing our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution, then I say it isn't worth it.

Damo, what policy "increases our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution"? If you say Cap n' Trade, report to the nearest cliff, because you're an idiot.

 

[midcan5]

'My that is a large penis!' Oh I am a porn star, maybe you have seen me? No not into porn, but have a good trip. 20 minutes later, what was that large explosion? Hope that penis was real.'

This makes me laugh, we went through these Xray machines not long ago and few seemed to care. Fear is a funny thing, allows you to invade a sovereign nation and kill thousands of men women and children, but look at your privates and all hell breaks loose.

If I and family are safe they can fondle me anytime. LOL

 

[Damocles]

Damo, what policy "increases our gasoline taxes by a factor of eight to protect us from pollution"? If you say Cap n' Trade, report to the nearest cliff, because you're an idiot.

No such policy suggests that, it was an hypothetical. Quit being retarded.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually it IS the person at check in that does the security questioning. I never said their won't be a cost increase...what I said is a cost analysis would certainly need to be done and of course costs wil be passed on to the traveler. What I also said is that the need to hire more employees is not as overwhelming as you intimate. You do not know what those costs would be and your thinking it is impossible is what is silly.

It's no use, ID, you may as well be arguing with a fence post. When Damo has made his mind up, nothing anyone has to say is ever going to penetrate his thick head. He'll argue his same inane points for another 4 pages, or more.

No one has suggested we adopt a system identical to Israel, with the same intensity down to every meticulous detail, yet that is what Damo heard. I suggested a system "like" Israels, not "identical" necessarily. I didn't suggest we hire only college graduates who've gotten degrees in how to stop terrorists, I actually suggested we use ex-military personnel who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, many of which have not had a college education, but are slightly more qualified to spot terrorists than the average fry cook at Burger King... but Damo doesn't hear that. He only hears the argument he wants to hear, and continues to form his inane arguments to counter that. I've not argued the new system would cost less, but I reject the idea that it would be "cost prohibitive" because, if that were the case, Israel couldn't (and wouldn't) do it. Again, Damo simply ignores what he doesn't want to hear.

The really frightening thing is, Damo is considered to be part of the "RIGHT" as opposed to the left! It's one thing to budge the leftist liberal terrorist appeasers on their politically correct sentiments about profiling and getting them to sign off on a much more aggressive and proactive system of security, but we've also got to contend with people lie Damo on the right, who are content with continuing to allow Big Brother to fondle us and molest our children, trashing our 4th amendment rights. While we have idiots on the left screaming about civil liberties, we have idiots on the right screaming about cost. So we end up with ex-Burger King employees checking shampoo bottles and groping us, while we are no safer. What it will ultimately take, is some terrorist getting past our joke of a TSA security system, and blowing up a plane. Then idiots like Damo might stop and listen to others, instead of adopting a stubborn and inane position of clinging to the system that doesn't work.

 

[Canceled2]

It's no use, ID, you may as well be arguing with a fence post. When Damo has made his mind up, nothing anyone has to say is ever going to penetrate his thick head. He'll argue his same inane points for another 4 pages, or more.

No one has suggested we adopt a system identical to Israel, with the same intensity down to every meticulous detail, yet that is what Damo heard. I suggested a system "like" Israels, not "identical" necessarily. I didn't suggest we hire only college graduates who've gotten degrees in how to stop terrorists, I actually suggested we use ex-military personnel who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, many of which have not had a college education, but are slightly more qualified to spot terrorists than the average fry cook at Burger King... but Damo doesn't hear that. He only hears the argument he wants to hear, and continues to form his inane arguments to counter that. I've not argued the new system would cost less, but I reject the idea that it would be "cost prohibitive" because, if that were the case, Israel couldn't (and wouldn't) do it. Again, Damo simply ignores what he doesn't want to hear.

The really frightening thing is, Damo is considered to be part of the "RIGHT" as opposed to the left! It's one thing to budge the leftist liberal terrorist appeasers on their politically correct sentiments about profiling and getting them to sign off on a much more aggressive and proactive system of security, but we've also got to contend with people lie Damo on the right, who are content with continuing to allow Big Brother to fondle us and molest our children, trashing our 4th amendment rights. While we have idiots on the left screaming about civil liberties, we have idiots on the right screaming about cost. So we end up with ex-Burger King employees checking shampoo bottles and groping us, while we are no safer. What it will ultimately take, is some terrorist getting past our joke of a TSA security system, and blowing up a plane. Then idiots like Damo might stop and listen to others, instead of adopting a stubborn and inane position of clinging to the system that doesn't work.

I understand how he argues himself into the corner of "Damos Last Stand" and his cousin "Damos Final Word" in arguments. It happens when he makes statements that he passes off as settled history when in all reality they are mere speculations...Still some dogs should not be immediately withdrawn and instead used to peel away the hyperbole of his positions

 

[Damocles]

I understand how he argues himself into the corner of "Damos Last Stand" and his cousin "Damos Final Word" in arguments. It happens when he makes statements that he passes off as settled history when in all reality they are mere speculations...Still some dogs should not be immediately withdrawn and instead used to peel away the hyperbole of his positions

Which might make sense if I hadn't said, "By all means, let's study it. If I am wrong and it would be cost effective, let's implement it."

But I did, you can even read back and check where you quoted that very remark paraphrased above.

The reality is you and Dix cannot accept that, while I like it and would very much like to see it here, I believe it would be too expensive for the reasons I listed above. I don't argue that we should keep what we have, just that I think what you are wishing for here is exactly that, a wish. Were I magic and capable of making it thus, it would be thus... however I am a realist and recognize that there is a cost that would associate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Damo, was this you?

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=124&a=2389

Body Scanner Operator Caught Masturbating at Colorado Airport

Airport officials at Denver International airport were on high alert yesterday when a full body scanner operator was caught masturbating in his booth as a team of High School netball players went through the scanner.

"The young ladies were going through the scanner one by one, and every time one went through, this guys face was getting redder and redder. His hand was moving and then he started sweating. He was then seen doing his 'O' face. That's when the security dragged him out of his booth and cuffed him. He had his pants round his ankles and everybody was really disgusted," Jeb Rather, a passenger on a flight to New York told CBS news.

The controversial scanners display every minute detail of a person's body and have been called intrusive by privacy campaigners. Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual porn shoot. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing highly detailed pictures of genitals, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

"What do you want to do, get blown up by a goddamn Arab at 30,000 feet or we get to see your private parts? It's up to you, the ball's in your park," head of the TSA's scanning department, Rodney Schroeder, told CNN.