Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on January 03, 2010, 10:25:28 PM
-
I know, I know... you don't see a problem at all lol...
Body scanner, with detailed genitalia reporting
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908
-
I've stated before and I can do it again: definitely not. I believe it just leads to a more closed and more scared society.
-
I've stated before and I can do it again: definitely not. I believe it just leads to a more closed and more scared society.
Its hysterical to me that things some of you guys have issues with yet completely ignore much larger issues that impact you day to day.
The left has no problem with the looting the govt does of everyone who goes to work yet gets upset over this? You guys have no problem with the economic tyranny we have by the govt robbing everyone, and in fact you guys applaud it, yet someone sees you in an airport and your panties are all upset?
Cry me a river you leftists.
-
I have no problems with it.
-
I am not happy with this at all, however, due to massive govt incompetence from the top down I see this as possibly a last ditch effort that can avoid a catastrophe. We are already treated like cattle at the airport and this is just an additional headache to deal with.
However, from what I see from the top down, we really can't rely on the CIA, DHS, etc to stop these people at that level, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAVAGES IN THEIR SIGHTS AND RADAR, I am ok with one last ditch type of thing to avoid potentially thousands of deaths because the incompetents at the top are not doing their job.
Otherwise, let me have my gun on the plane and we will deal with it.
-
why not just stip everyone down. The only thing different in those scans is that they're not in color and looked shaved.
-
why not just stip everyone down. The only thing different in those scans is that they're not in color and looked shaved.
Hugo - this latest incident proves the govt is completely incompetent, EVEN when they have the guy in their sights and know about him. What I see this as, and I am not happy about it, is perhaps one final backstop before one of these beasts is let on a plane with bombs.
We are already treated like shit the airport so to me this is really a phoney argument to get upset over this. Its not as if you are free now as it is. You already are wanded, metal detectors, cameras everywhere, etc.
Additionally, I have ZERO faith that the govt will all of sudden really do its job and stop these people before getting to the airport.
This is not an issue of security over freedom. You dont have freedom now so get over it.
-
Shit happens. Human errors are made. I think people put these guys in the CIA and in govt. on a pedestal when in the end a lot of them are every day guys like anyone else. And considering the amount of information they probably go through, it's not surprising that someone eventually slips through. There are probably thousands of active terrorist plots against the US every day.
Oh wait, it was a US plan. Illuminati. Mossad. OooOOhOoOhohO!!!! ::)
That said, I don't find this to be the least bit invasive. Then again, I've got a great physique so I couldn't care less if some people saw it.
And one can always remedy it by NOT flying.
Because that's a waste of time? You can't even see their face. And it can be changed to hide the genitals. Or do you think the guy that will be looking at your image is going to be jacking it to the white picture of your flaccid dick? ::)
To me the issue is that they knew about this guy and should have stopped it. If it was some random guy they never heard of, thats one thing, but thats not the case here.
-
Otherwise, let me have my gun on the plane and we will deal with it.
If guns were allowed on planes...
Is there any risk that a secret member of Al-Qaida or a sympathizer could get a license for a gun and then would bring them on?
And what do you think could happen in that case?
-
If guns were allowed on planes...
Is there any risk that a secret member of Al-Qaida or a sympathizer could get a license for a gun and then would bring them on?
And what do you think could happen in that case?
MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
-
This just goes to show the low level intellect of third world countries.
For everything we do, there are at least a dozen ways to get around it. However, they really don't think that far in advance. For instance, they don't let you bring liquids in your bags past the security checkpoint if over 3 oz.
However once at the terminal you can buy a liter of bottle water. What is to stop a terrorist cell from infiltrating the concession stands there and swapping out bottle water for clear bottled flammables?
Hell, why even bother to blow up an airplane and kill a couple hundred people when you can blow up a cruise ship and kill several thousand.
-
Hugo - this latest incident proves the govt is completely incompetent, EVEN when they have the guy in their sights and know about him. What I see this as, and I am not happy about it, is perhaps one final backstop before one of these beasts is let on a plane with bombs.
We are already treated like shit the airport so to me this is really a phoney argument to get upset over this. Its not as if you are free now as it is. You already are wanded, metal detectors, cameras everywhere, etc.
Additionally, I have ZERO faith that the govt will all of sudden really do its job and stop these people before getting to the airport.
This is not an issue of security over freedom. You dont have freedom now so get over it.
The priceless part in all this? 3333 likes my sigline banner.... WOW
-
The priceless part in all this? 3333 likes my sigline banner.... WOW
No. Unless you are ok with getting rid of wands, scanners, metal detectors, etc, your outrage on this issue is misplaced IMHO.
My issue is that if I am not permitted my means of self defense, than it is not fair to possibly allow others to come on board with weapons and bombs.
You dont understand that?
-
No. Unless you are ok with getting rid of wands, scanners, metal detectors, etc, your outrage on this issue is misplaced IMHO.
My issue is that if I am not permitted my means of self defense, than it is not fair to possibly allow others to come on board with weapons and bombs.
You dont understand that?
oh, now you don't like the image in my sigline. Wow, didn't take you long to do a total flip flop.
-
The priceless part in all this? 3333 likes my sigline banner.... WOW
Another thing, until you start to adopt Ron Paul'esqe, Adam Smith, Milton Freidman, type economic policies your banner does not fit you at all.
-
oh, now you don't like the image in my sigline. Wow, didn't take you long to do a total flip flop.
I like the image but am being honest about this issue and you are not.
Just be honest and stop with this phony outrage act.
Are you prepared to get rid of metal detectors, scanners, etc at the airport?
-
after a year of spending 24/7 here, I'm really amazed at how little you understand in regards to what I believe and what I don't. It's clear how little you read of others so that you can just post in mass. That's probably why you so often reply with a post that doesn't address what you're replying to.
Save your fingerpointing douchebag. I'm not the one giving up on freedom. I wouldn't even be posting if I had. Have no fucking clue what your motive is shill.
-
after a year of spending 24/7 here, I'm really amazed at how little you understand in regards to what I believe and what I don't. It's clear how little you read of others so that you can just post in mass. That's probably why you so often reply with a post that doesn't address what you're replying to.
Save your fingerpointing douchebag. I'm not the one giving up on freedom. I wouldn't even be posting if I had. Have no fucking clue what your motive is shill.
Just be honest and stop the outrage act over this scanner issue unless you also think we should get rid of metal detectors, wands, random searches etc as well.
You cant give up something you dont have already. Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?
-
3333, why do you hate America? :D
-
3333, why do you hate America? :D
Ha ha funny.
Serious though, are you in favor of getting rid of metal detetectors, random searches etc?
I am not ok with these scanners, but am even more not ok with the level of govt incompetence to where even when the govt gets a terrorist in its sight, it won't or can't do anything, and I am left to duking it out with a book or pen since my 2nd amendment rights dont apply on a plane.
If I am going to die in a terrorist attack I would hope at least that the savage of Allah was not on the govt radar, list, etc. After what I see going on, it appears to me perhaps the best bet is just to drive or take a train if feasible.
-
one of the things you should know about me by now is that I almost never idenitfy anything as a single issue at only this point in time. Everything is part of a direction. A path that can be followed from the past to the future. I don't look at things only as they effect us today, but think it's best to address things with the direction in mind. I understand you don't get any of that and I understand you like to give up on what is probably the most important thing to Americans, freedom. That's your problem, not mine.
-
one of the things you should know about me by now is that I almost never idenitfy anything as a single issue at only this point in time. Everything is part of a direction. A path that can be followed from the past to the future. I don't look at things only as they effect us today, but think it's best to address things with the direction in mind. I understand you don't get any of that and I understand you like to give up on what is probably the most important thing to Americans, freedom. That's your problem, not mine.
I am responding this this particular issue which I dont find any more intrusive than anything else we all have to endure.
Just look at your 1040 at the end of the year. That to me is far more intrusive than a body scan.
-
I am responding this this particular issue which I dont find any more intrusive than anything else we all have to endure.
Just look at your 1040 at the end of the year. That to me is far more intrusive than a body scan.
start a thread about it then. I know you love to turn other people's threads into what you want to talk about and that little annoyance is getting old real fast.
-
I am not ok with these scanners,
Why?
I would gladly submit myself to a scan/search if every other person on the plane with me was given the same. Why would I oppose something that is for my safety and well being? I have nothing to worry about so I don't care. I am not conspiring to do anything, but I certainly want to know if some of those other bozos are.
You are attempting to compare your 2nd amendment right with TSA safety procedures. If they let you bring a gun, then that would apply to everyone else. Even terrorists. Which isn't accomplishing a damn thing. If shit goes down, then I would rather have 3-4 terrorists without guns on a plane facing dozens of other unarmed passengers than a couple of heroic vigilante types staging an Ok Corral type shoot out which will only seal the fate for everyone else when a stray bullet punches through a window or the hull.
That is a stupid comparison.
-
start a thread about it then. I know you love to turn other people's threads into what you want to talk about and that little annoyance is getting old real fast.
LOL!
+1
-
Ok - I am souring this now. BTW - adding me into your screen name on the bottom is stupid. You know I was right about that. You dont have an expectation of unlimited privacy in the airport.
If you disagree, sue the govt, the govt agencies, airlines, etc and see how far you get.
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion
January 2, 2010
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| Text size – + WASHINGTON -
Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.
An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.
“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.
Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government.
Currently 40 body scanners are in use among 19 US airports. The number is expected to skyrocket, at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration has said it will order 300 more machines.
In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)
-- Washington Post
-
I certainly hope they do not increase security for non international flights. That would be a waste of time, money and huge inconvenience to people.
I don't like body scanners either, it is invasive but for the greater good, I am less resistant to them on international flights.
The failure is clearly with our security agencies who need to prevent potential terrorists from boarding any flights. If someone is a credible threat, the person cannot fly internationally and cannot get a Visa. Sorry if that is profiling or discriminatory, too bad. We also need better intra-agency communication.
-
There's nothing strange about trying to identify a direction for things. Certainly it's not hard to see the past portion of an issue and determine a direction for it. Why more people don't do this, I don't know. The NRA has been spot on using this method to inform the people. Now if a current change is happening, can one not easily weigh it with the established direction from the past until now and establish if the current change is contrary to the direction of events that they would politically prefer? Yup, and if that's above your head, that's your malefunction, not mine.
-
The UK needs to wisen up on immigration and what's going on with radical muslims in their country. They have dropped the ball big time in allowing so many radical muslims into their country. They also need to get a better handle of what is being taught at muslim schools in their own country. Many terrorists have been educated in England (london). It's unacceptible and it affects the safety of other nations outside their own.
We should be very critical of England for being so lax with immigration policies and so PC as to ignore home grown terrorists. Their over PC ways have helped these terrorists learn and recruit from England and kill innocent westerners.
(see other thread)
-
Why?
I would gladly submit myself to a scan/search if every other person on the plane with me was given the same. Why would I oppose something that is for my safety and well being? I have nothing to worry about so I don't care. I am not conspiring to do anything, but I certainly want to know if some of those other bozos are.
You are attempting to compare your 2nd amendment right with TSA safety procedures. If they let you bring a gun, then that would apply to everyone else. Even terrorists. Which isn't accomplishing a damn thing. If shit goes down, then I would rather have 3-4 terrorists without guns on a plane facing dozens of other unarmed passengers than a couple of heroic vigilante types staging an Ok Corral type shoot out which will only seal the fate for everyone else when a stray bullet punches through a window or the hull.
That is a stupid comparison.
I think it is degrading personally. However, I am against it since we dont need it if the govt could be counted on to do its a job. The govt had all it needed to get this savage yet it did nothing. Thus, while I hate the idea of this, if its a last stop gap against govt incompetence, then that is the price, sadly. To me, its awful that perhaps 300 or more people would have been killed here due solely to govt incompetence.
And Hugo - GET THE HELL OVER IT - you dont have any freedom in the airport to give up as it is.
-
what's next. Possibly random checkpoints all over the country were everyone is scanned right down to giving them information of the size of your ballsack, your wifes tits and your kid's development. Afterall, hey what could we bitch about, we've all submitted to it being ok for air travel. All it would take is for the next set of attackers to have come in over the border or by boat on the coast. and hey, if you're ok with a scanned 3d representation of your privates, you couldn't possibly have an issue with total information awareness in all other areas. It's for your safety don't ya know ;) Don't worry, the information will never be misused. We have well trained people earning 11 bucks an hour to know your every detail.
Hugo - I am not in favor of this, but you dont have an unlimited right to privacy in the airport or other places. This is well settled law the same way you dont have an unlimited right to free speech or any other right.
-
These scanners didn't just appear. They've been in use in some airports for a while now. As of yet there hasn't been one story popping up of these scans being abused or misused. So basically Hugo is operating on the assumption that they MAY be abused, which in reality, doesn't mean shit.
Just about anything in this world can be misused in some way. Does it mean it's guaranteed to happen? Nope.
-
These scanners didn't just appear. They've been in use in some airports for a while now. As of yet there hasn't been one story popping up of these scans being abused or misused. So basically Hugo is operating on the assumption that they MAY be abused, which in reality, doesn't mean shit.
Just about anything in this world can be misused in some way. Does it mean it's guaranteed to happen? Nope.
You always have the option to drive no?
-
You always have the option to drive no?
I've been saying that for days. Flying isn't a right. And if you don't agree with how the safety measures work in the airports you have the option of not flying. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to walk through the scanner. ::)
Hugo's entire argument is built around his perceived notion that these will be parlayed into this grand "freedom-eroding" scheme. His entire argument is built around opinion and devoid of facts.
-
start a thread about it then. I know you love to turn other people's threads into what you want to talk about and that little annoyance is getting old real fast.
X 3
-
I think it is degrading personally. However, I am against it since we dont need it if the govt could be counted on to do its a job. The govt had all it needed to get this savage yet it did nothing. Thus, while I hate the idea of this, if its a last stop gap against govt incompetence, then that is the price, sadly. To me, its awful that perhaps 300 or more people would have been killed here due solely to govt incompetence.
And Hugo - GET THE HELL OVER IT - you dont have any freedom in the airport to give up as it is.
Why is it degrading? Even if it were, I would rather be degraded than dead. What is the most that can happen? The scanners see you have a little pee-pee or silicone tits? So what?
Maybe we should resort to the honor system? Everyone, terrorists included, promise not to bring guns or explosives onboard. We take them at their word.
-
I know, I know... you don't see a problem at all lol...
Body scanner, with detailed genitalia reporting
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908
:o who's the first guy? john holmes?
-
L-3 Communications
Jimmie V. Adams
Robert W. RisCassi
;)
-
L-3 Communications of Pinellas gets $165 million contract for body scanners
A defense contractor that builds body-imaging scanners at a St. Petersburg plant is positioned to sell Uncle Sam hundreds of machines for U.S. airports after the Christmas bomb scare on a Northwest Airlines flight approaching Detroit.
The Transportation Security Administration last week awarded a contract to L-3 Communications to buy up to $165 million worth of its ProVision scanners. The devices scan air travelers' bodies and generate X-ray-like images that can reveal weapons hidden under clothes.
Security experts, members of Congress and travel industry groups have called for stepping up deployment of the machines since a 23-year-old Nigerian man hid an explosive and other components in his underwear and smuggled them onto the plane.
Forty of the L-3 scanners are in use at 19 U.S. airports, including Tampa International. L-3 and Rapiscan Systems of Torrance, Calif., produce the only whole-body imagers approved for passenger screening by the TSA.
The contract last week isn't an order for L-3 scanners, said Lauren Gaches, a TSA spokeswoman. It identified funding sources and set a ceiling for purchasing an unspecified number of units over an indefinite time period.
The TSA recently said it ordered 150 Rapiscan scanners to be installed this year and had funding for an additional 300 from an unidentified source.
A huge defense contractor, L-3 set up shop in a nondescript business park on Bryan Dairy Road in Clearwater to enter the airport security business. In 1998, the company won government certification for its eXaminer luggage scanner.
In 2003, L-3 moved to a new location at Gateway Business Park on Gandy Boulevard in St. Petersburg. About 190 employees assemble and test eXaminer machines, X-ray devices for carry-on bags and the body scanners.
Five other companies are trying to win TSA certification for their body scanners, said Harry Glenn, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores.
"I think (TSA officials) are trying to figure out how much capacity these companies have to produce them," he said.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/l-3-communications-of-pinellas-gets-165-million-contract-for-body-scanners/1063076 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/l-3-communications-of-pinellas-gets-165-million-contract-for-body-scanners/1063076)
::)
-
NBC revealed this one sunday on meet the press, with chertoff as the guest.
Chertoff Linked to Body Scanner Manufacturer
WASHINGTON – Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.
-
NBC revealed this one sunday on meet the press, with chertoff as the guest.
Chertoff Linked to Body Scanner Manufacturer
WASHINGTON – Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.
I am deadset against these things now. I completel ychanged my mind seeing the Chertoff thing as well as the fact that we already had enough info to stop this savage trying to blow up the plane.
-
You guys think just because you don't have the RIGHT to fly that that is free reign to force people to surrender privacy RIGHTS? I honestly think random searches at airports is pushing the limit...if you think this is all for our safety you are kidding yourselves. Wake up! Hugo is dead on with his analysis of this situation. It stinks like hell.