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

[Jarod]

Who am I to get in the way of the Federal Govt offering free Handjobs....


IT could really save a lot of in flight frustration and end the mile high club problem.

 

[Damocles]

Who am I to get in the way of the Federal Govt offering free Handjobs....


IT could really save a lot of in flight frustration and end the mile high club problem.

I'm thinking of dropping by the airport for a quick fix later today. Just hop in the security line a couple times and BAM, I can get my exhibitionism and a free hand job all in one!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They interrogate every single passenger in Israel. Asking about things like who you visited, etc. looking for tells.

Now, this may seem like a fantabulous idea, but the reality is it would be INCREDIBLY expensive.

First of all, it's certainly not "cost prohibitive" or the Jews wouldn't be doing it! And since when did "expense" become a mitigating factor regarding safety? You can't argue with the results, they've not had a hijacking since 1969, when they began implementing these procedures.

They have two international airports, two. We have a ton, 300,000,000+ people, hundreds of thousands flying each and every day. The people who ask those questions are graduates of a college program on that very thing, they are specially trained and highly paid.

That's why I said we should do this with people who fit the profile or send up red flags. A 3-year-old is obviously NOT going to hijack the plane, so why spend 10 minutes frisking them? We weren't attacked on 9/11 by someone's grandmother, so why pat them down? Indeed, we need highly trained and well paid people to do this job, and it should be done by the airliners, not the federal government. We've obviously got the time to grope and fondle the many passengers, why wouldn't we have the time to ask a few pertinent questions?

What we need to do is use technology to our advantage.

First, they could easily fix those scan machines to only show "not human", therefore remove the pornographic images we're being asked to provide for pervs in a closed room.

Regardless of how you "fix" the scan machines, they are inadequate to detect the type of explosives being used by terrorists. Small amounts of liquids and plastics, hidden in the anal cavity, simply won't show up on ANY scan. Metal detectors are fine, they keep the boxcutters and guns off the plane, and we can prohibit lighters and nail files, or other items that could potentially be used as a weapon, like we are already doing. But beyond that, we need to drop the PC crap and PROFILE passengers who are a potential risk. This is another reason the airlines should be doing this, and not the Federal Government.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, it's certainly not "cost prohibitive" or the Jews wouldn't be doing it! And since when did "expense" become a mitigating factor regarding safety? You can't argue with the results, they've not had a hijacking since 1969, when they began implementing these procedures.

Which doesn't change that for us it would be cost prohibitive, we simply couldn't afford to hire people with that expertise in the numbers that would be necessary.

That's why I said we should do this with people who fit the profile or send up red flags. A 3-year-old is obviously NOT going to hijack the plane, so why spend 10 minutes frisking them? We weren't attacked on 9/11 by someone's grandmother, so why pat them down? Indeed, we need highly trained and well paid people to do this job, and it should be done by the airliners, not the federal government. We've obviously got the time to grope and fondle the many passengers, why wouldn't we have the time to ask a few pertinent questions?

Regardless of how you "fix" the scan machines, they are inadequate to detect the type of explosives being used by terrorists. Small amounts of liquids and plastics, hidden in the anal cavity, simply won't show up on ANY scan. Metal detectors are fine, they keep the boxcutters and guns off the plane, and we can prohibit lighters and nail files, or other items that could potentially be used as a weapon, like we are already doing. But beyond that, we need to drop the PC crap and PROFILE passengers who are a potential risk. This is another reason the airlines should be doing this, and not the Federal Government.

I'm good with intelligent profiling, and improving what we can afford is way better than getting fondled by Big Brother.

 

[Jarod]

Which doesn't change that for us it would be cost prohibitive, we simply couldn't afford to hire people with that expertise in the numbers that would be necessary.



I'm good with intelligent profiling, and improving what we can afford is way better than getting fondled by Big Brother.

Hip Hip Hurray!

 

[Jarod]

First of all, it's certainly not "cost prohibitive" or the Jews wouldn't be doing it! And since when did "expense" become a mitigating factor regarding safety? You can't argue with the results, they've not had a hijacking since 1969, when they began implementing these procedures.



That's why I said we should do this with people who fit the profile or send up red flags. A 3-year-old is obviously NOT going to hijack the plane, so why spend 10 minutes frisking them? We weren't attacked on 9/11 by someone's grandmother, so why pat them down? Indeed, we need highly trained and well paid people to do this job, and it should be done by the airliners, not the federal government. We've obviously got the time to grope and fondle the many passengers, why wouldn't we have the time to ask a few pertinent questions?



Regardless of how you "fix" the scan machines, they are inadequate to detect the type of explosives being used by terrorists. Small amounts of liquids and plastics, hidden in the anal cavity, simply won't show up on ANY scan. Metal detectors are fine, they keep the boxcutters and guns off the plane, and we can prohibit lighters and nail files, or other items that could potentially be used as a weapon, like we are already doing. But beyond that, we need to drop the PC crap and PROFILE passengers who are a potential risk. This is another reason the airlines should be doing this, and not the Federal Government.

Here is the problem with your way of thinking...


A three year old will NOT hijack a plane, but a terrorist is not above straping a bomb to a three year olds crotch set to blow up 30 mins into the flight.

A terrorist is not above tricking some senile old lady into putting some TNT between her tits.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Which doesn't change that for us it would be cost prohibitive, we simply couldn't afford to hire people with that expertise in the numbers that would be necessary.

I'm good with intelligent profiling, and improving what we can afford is way better than getting fondled by Big Brother.

Your first sign of inanity and incompetence, should be the fact that Jarhead is cheering you on! The cost is passed on to the customer on a 'per-customer' basis, it doesn't matter how many or how few passengers you have. WE don't have to hire these specially trained people, the AIRLINES would! The airlines have a vested interest in keeping their passengers safe, and ensuring their planes don't go down. Let free market capitalism work to solve this problem, and get Big Brother the hell out of our lives!

Here's a really novel idea... how about giving the screening jobs to returning Afghanistan and Iraqi vets? Who is better trained at spotting radical Islamic terrorists? Some geek in a TSA uniform, or a veteran who fought a war with them? Who would you feel more safe with, doing these screenings? But the first and foremost thing we need to do, is cut the PC crap about profiling! As long as we are falling all over ourselves to appease the liberal whiners, we're never going to be able to effectively implement ANY procedure to efficiently deal with this problem.

 

[Canceled2]

Which doesn't change that for us it would be cost prohibitive, we simply couldn't afford to hire people with that expertise in the numbers that would be necessary.

I'm good with intelligent profiling, and improving what we can afford is way better than getting fondled by Big Brother.

The Israeli's use private companies to do their security. Let the airlines pay for it and let the government regulate that.

 

[Canceled2]

They interrogate every single passenger in Israel. Asking about things like who you visited, etc. looking for tells.

Now, this may seem like a fantabulous idea, but the reality is it would be INCREDIBLY expensive. They have two international airports, two. We have a ton, 300,000,000+ people, hundreds of thousands flying each and every day. The people who ask those questions are graduates of a college program on that very thing, they are specially trained and highly paid.

What we need to do is use technology to our advantage.

First, they could easily fix those scan machines to only show "not human", therefore remove the pornographic images we're being asked to provide for pervs in a closed room.

They do not interrogate "every single passenger"- The passegers are intermingled. The list is used for more direct interrogations.

Passengers leaving Israel are checked against a computerized list. The computers, maintained by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, are connected to the Israeli police and Interpol in order to catch suspects or others leaving the country illegally.

 

[Damocles]

Your first sign of inanity and incompetence, should be the fact that Jarhead is cheering you on! The cost is passed on to the customer on a 'per-customer' basis, it doesn't matter how many or how few passengers you have. WE don't have to hire these specially trained people, the AIRLINES would! The airlines have a vested interest in keeping their passengers safe, and ensuring their planes don't go down. Let free market capitalism work to solve this problem, and get Big Brother the hell out of our lives!

Here's a really novel idea... how about giving the screening jobs to returning Afghanistan and Iraqi vets? Who is better trained at spotting radical Islamic terrorists? Some geek in a TSA uniform, or a veteran who fought a war with them? Who would you feel more safe with, doing these screenings? But the first and foremost thing we need to do, is cut the PC crap about profiling! As long as we are falling all over ourselves to appease the liberal whiners, we're never going to be able to effectively implement ANY procedure to efficiently deal with this problem.

1. I agreed on profiling.
2. You are wrong. Since TSA is just the hands of Big Brother the government would have to hire these people, not the airlines. And pretending that such large expenses wouldn't immediately cause outrage over pricing if passed on to airlines and hence to the consumer due to the bad policy, we'd be right back to Big Brothers hands in our pants.

 

[Canceled2]

1. I agreed on profiling.
2. You are wrong. Since TSA is just the hands of Big Brother the government would have to hire these people, not the airlines. And pretending that such large expenses wouldn't immediately cause outrage over pricing if passed on to airlines and hence to the consumer due to the bad policy, we'd be right back to Big Brothers hands in our pants.

You really should read this

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

no answer jarod?

i'm still waiting, retard. were you referring to me as part of your group of those that didn't complain about warrantless wiretapping?

 

[Damocles]

You really should read this

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.

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...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United_States"]List of airports in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_outdated_content.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox outdated content.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Ambox_outdated_content.svg/42px-Ambox_outdated_content.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b1/Ambox_outdated_content.svg/42px-Ambox_outdated_content.svg.png[/ame]

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...

 

[Jarod]

i'm still waiting, retard. were you referring to me as part of your group of those that didn't complain about warrantless wiretapping?

I dont know if you are in that group or not, thats why I asked.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1. I agreed on profiling.
2. You are wrong. Since TSA is just the hands of Big Brother the government would have to hire these people, not the airlines. And pretending that such large expenses wouldn't immediately cause outrage over pricing if passed on to airlines and hence to the consumer due to the bad policy, we'd be right back to Big Brothers hands in our pants.

TSA doesn't even HAVE to exist! What you're saying is, since we have this bloated ineffective government-run security system, we should stick with it, even though it's not making us safer, because it would cost airlines too much money to hire college educated competent people to do the job of keeping their passengers safe... so, best to stick with what we have! It's just pure lunacy!

The COST factor, is spread out over ALL customers! It doesn't matter if it's one airlines and two airports, with 20 screeners, or 50 airlines, 2,000 airports, and 20,000 screeners! The place with MORE airports and MORE airplanes will have MORE customers to absorb the cost, the end result is the same bottom line with regard to cost! It would not be any more expensive per passenger here, than it is in Israel, and you've not established any sort of an argument to support that.

 

[Damocles]

TSA doesn't even HAVE to exist! What you're saying is, since we have this bloated ineffective government-run security system, we should stick with it, even though it's not making us safer, because it would cost airlines too much money to hire college educated competent people to do the job of keeping their passengers safe... so, best to stick with what we have! It's just pure lunacy!

The COST factor, is spread out over ALL customers! It doesn't matter if it's one airlines and two airports, with 20 screeners, or 50 airlines, 2,000 airports, and 20,000 screeners! The place with MORE airports and MORE airplanes will have MORE customers to absorb the cost, the end result is the same bottom line with regard to cost! It would not be any more expensive per passenger here, than it is in Israel, and you've not established any sort of an argument to support that.

It does, because we passed a law creating it. In order to get rid of it, you'll need to pass another.

This was one of the things I warned against when we handed security over to the government directly. And the "cost factor" for security was spread over all the passengers previous to TSA as well (and still is, passed through to the airlines and charged on your plane ticket). That cost would ensure that the tickets would increase by a large margin.

 

[Jarod]

Had this policy been in effect when Republicans were in power.... and I was argueing against these unconsitutional searches Dixie would be accusing me of being on the side of the terrorists and making our nation less secure...

Good to see these Republicans are siding with the terrorists on this one!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It does, because we passed a law creating it. In order to get rid of it, you'll need to pass another.

This was one of the things I warned against when we handed security over to the government directly. And the "cost factor" for security was spread over all the passengers previous to TSA as well (and still is, passed through to the airlines and charged on your plane ticket). That cost would ensure that the tickets would increase by a large margin.

So? Pass another goddamn law! Our Congressmen seem to understand how to do that! So you warned us against it, but now you're okay with it? That doesn't make any sense, Damo! Yes, we consumers pay for the cost of security, regardless of who does it! And yes, it might cost slightly more to have college educated personnel who know how to prevent terrorists from hijacking and blowing up planes, but isn't it worth paying a little more for that, as opposed to the incompetency of the TSA, which we are currently paying for? All things considered, the private sector is likely going to do a better job at a lower overall cost, than the government could EVER do it! Do you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Had this policy been in effect when Republicans were in power.... and I was argueing against these unconsitutional searches Dixie would be accusing me of being on the side of the terrorists and making our nation less secure...

Good to see these Republicans are siding with the terrorists on this one!

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.

 

[Damocles]

So? Pass another goddamn law! Our Congressmen seem to understand how to do that! So you warned us against it, but now you're okay with it? That doesn't make any sense, Damo! Yes, we consumers pay for the cost of security, regardless of who does it! And yes, it might cost slightly more to have college educated personnel who know how to prevent terrorists from hijacking and blowing up planes, but isn't it worth paying a little more for that, as opposed to the incompetency of the TSA, which we are currently paying for? All things considered, the private sector is likely going to do a better job at a lower overall cost, than the government could EVER do it! Do you agree or disagree with that?

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.