Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   The Christmas Day bomber is about to cost taxpayers $734 million   (blogs.abcnews.com) divider line 357
    More: Asinine, Christmas Bombing, Christmas Day, History of the United States, Peter Orszag, airport security, List of diplomatic missions of the United States, cost overruns, Office of Management and Budget  
•       •       •

35049 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2010 at 2:19 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-01 11:18:25 AM  
He's already cost us more than that.

/you can't put a price on a reputation
//home of the brave? Maybe in the 50s...
 
2010-02-01 11:18:55 AM  
A bunch of religious nutjobs in caves are going to do to America what the Russians never could: Make us spend ourselves into oblivion.
 
2010-02-01 11:19:35 AM  
The Icelander: A bunch of religious nutjobs in caves are going to do to America what the Russians never could: Make us spend ourselves into oblivion.

that arms race was super cheap.
 
2010-02-01 11:22:39 AM  
One of Usama Bin Laden's objectives was to bankrupt the US. Looks like he and his buddy w found a way to do it.
 
2010-02-01 11:23:16 AM  
Wow. $734 million so the government can look at my Johnson in the airport.
 
2010-02-01 11:23:18 AM  
Gitmo is already payed for.
Why put on a dog and pony show?
 
2010-02-01 11:25:01 AM  
The Icelander: A bunch of religious nutjobs in caves are going to do to America what the Russians never could: Make us spend ourselves into oblivion.

Yes, the addition of $734 million to the $3.8 trillion budget is going to break us. Why, that's almost 0.02% of the budget right there!
 
2010-02-01 11:25:43 AM  
UberDave: $734 million so the government can look at my Johnson in the airport.

i5.photobucket.com

"Johnson?"
 
2010-02-01 11:26:57 AM  
jehovahs witness protection: Gitmo is already payed for.
Why put on a dog and pony show?


amazing how much power you're willing to give the government for a little perceived security.

next up, americans tried by foreign military tribunals for domestic crimes. hooray!
 
2010-02-01 11:27:05 AM  
Just think. If ten years ago someone had told you that not only would the Federal government be taking naked pictures of you and your family in order to fight terrorism and would have the support of the country, you would have looked at them and laughed your ass off.
 
2010-02-01 11:27:07 AM  
jehovahs witness protection: Gitmo is already payed for.
Why put on a dog and pony show?


Now-now! Even the Nazis had to pony-up some start-up costs for their camps. You should know this.
 
2010-02-01 11:30:03 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: jehovahs witness protection: Gitmo is already payed for.
Why put on a dog and pony show?

amazing how much power you're willing to give the government for a little perceived security.

next up, americans tried by foreign military tribunals for domestic crimes. hooray!


i don't think that's something that you should be cheering about.
 
2010-02-01 11:32:28 AM  
Bin Laden won long ago. Look how many trillions of dollars we've been spending on this BS. He got exactly what he wanted, succeeded beyond all measure.
 
2010-02-01 11:34:20 AM  
content8.flixster.com
 
2010-02-01 11:36:37 AM  
WaltzingMathilda: amazing how much power you're willing to give the government for a little perceived security.



That's what I'm saying. Like I said, they have the power to look at my Johnson before I can board a plane.


/And that sucks because there's no way they'll think it's real.
 
2010-02-01 11:36:52 AM  
thomps: WaltzingMathilda: jehovahs witness protection: Gitmo is already payed for.
Why put on a dog and pony show?

amazing how much power you're willing to give the government for a little perceived security.

next up, americans tried by foreign military tribunals for domestic crimes. hooray!

i don't think that's something that you should be cheering about.


only troop hating fa*gots wouldn't cheer for that. USA! USA! USA!
 
2010-02-01 11:38:01 AM  
bberg: Yes, the addition of $734 million to the $3.8 trillion budget is going to break us. Why, that's almost 0.02% of the budget right there!

Nickels and dimes, my friend, nickels and dimes.
 
2010-02-01 11:42:48 AM  
The Icelander: Nickels and dimes, my friend, nickels and dimes.

I understand the concept (A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money) but I can't get outraged over a few hundred million when we're spending $9.4 billion (of the DoD's budget of $664 billion) on a Missile Defense system that won't work.

I can get outraged over the fact that this expenditure of money won't make us the least bit safer when we fly and will only inconvenience us and further erode our civil liberties. But this is about the money, and that's just a drop in the ocean.
 
2010-02-01 11:44:13 AM  
Why the living fark are we spending money for scanners for a new kind of threat that didn't even work?
 
2010-02-01 11:45:25 AM  
I'm sure none of those machines will have USB ports and that none of the TSA staff will have USB drives on their keychains in case celebrities or unusual folks wander through their Nakedariums.
 
2010-02-01 11:47:29 AM  
Safe at last, safe at last, thank the Lord, we'll be safe at last!
 
2010-02-01 11:49:04 AM  
Subby, you say "Christmas Day bomber", and I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Undibomber" or "Crotch Bomber", please.
 
2010-02-01 11:51:08 AM  
bberg: I can get outraged over the fact that this expenditure of money won't make us the least bit safer when we fly and will only inconvenience us and further erode our civil liberties. But this is about the money, and that's just a drop in the ocean.

It's a symptom. People demand to feel safe, and so they'll okay any spending at all, even if it's completely ineffective against the enemy they're scared of. Same goes for civil liberties. That's why Obama's spending "freeze" doesn't include the largest chunk of discretionary spending in the budget.
 
2010-02-01 11:51:37 AM  
tallguywithglasseson: Subby, you say "Christmas Day bomber", and I have no idea what you're talking about.

"Undibomber" or "Crotch Bomber", please.


as much as i hate rush, i think his "fruit of the boom" bomber was the winner.
 
2010-02-01 11:55:09 AM  
thomps: as much as i hate rush, i think his "fruit of the boom" bomber was the winner.

LMAO, hadn't heard that one.
 
2010-02-01 11:57:14 AM  
tallguywithglasseson: thomps: as much as i hate rush, i think his "fruit of the boom" bomber was the winner.

LMAO, hadn't heard that one.


Say what you want about Rush, he's pretty good with one liners.

I almost pity the poor TSA bastard who gets to inspect his naked ass next time he flies.
 
2010-02-01 11:59:25 AM  
The Icelander: bberg: I can get outraged over the fact that this expenditure of money won't make us the least bit safer when we fly and will only inconvenience us and further erode our civil liberties. But this is about the money, and that's just a drop in the ocean.

It's a symptom. People demand to feel safe, and so they'll okay any spending at all, even if it's completely ineffective against the enemy they're scared of. Same goes for civil liberties. That's why Obama's spending "freeze" doesn't include the largest chunk of discretionary spending in the budget.


You mean diverting security funding from major coastal cities to help protect grange halls and bingo parlors in South Dakota was just to appease terrified neocons furiously praying that "them Al-kayders miss the turnoff by Luly's Roadhouse?"
 
2010-02-01 12:07:41 PM  
UberDave: Wow. $734 million so the government can look at my Johnson in the airport.

So, Ron Jeremy goes through the airport and the TSA employee yells out..."We're gonna need a bigger scanner."
 
2010-02-01 12:21:55 PM  
Awesome- because we all know he could possibly be innocent.
 
2010-02-01 12:23:22 PM  
If these things become widespread I'm going to make sure I always go through security sporting an erection.
 
2010-02-01 12:23:55 PM  
An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: Awesome- because we all know he could possibly be innocent.

His innocence or guilt has what to do with the Federal government taking naked pictures of citizens, with little to no oversight over the machinery?
 
2010-02-01 12:24:19 PM  
Trying to think of what my previous thought would sound like with no context...
 
2010-02-01 12:25:02 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: Trying to think of what my previous thought would sound like with no context...

A line from an airline themed porn?
 
2010-02-01 12:30:14 PM  
I'll be spending twice that on pre-screening Fluffers.
 
2010-02-01 12:31:13 PM  
The Democrats are showing the Republicans were just amateurs at blowing taxpayer funds.


They are taking spending to epic levels.
 
2010-02-01 12:33:38 PM  
This is going to go from practical joke to some sort of fetish.

Wonder what nickname it will be given.
 
2010-02-01 12:34:59 PM  
brap: I'll be spending twice that on pre-screening Fluffers.

i don't know about your airport, but at mine there's usually homeless people hanging by the designated smoking areas that will perform the service gratis.
 
2010-02-01 12:35:32 PM  
Aarontology: Just think. If ten years ago someone had told you that not only would the Federal government be taking naked pictures of you and your family in ____(Fill in Blank with more stuff)____ order to fight terrorism and would have the support of the country, you would have looked at them and laughed your ass off.

List to supplement your statement would be too long to post.
 
2010-02-01 12:36:36 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: This is going to go from practical joke to some sort of fetish.

Wonder what nickname it will be given.


tall guy with x-ray glasses on?
 
2010-02-01 12:39:02 PM  
tallguywithglasseson: This is going to go from practical joke to some sort of fetish.

Wonder what nickname it will be given.


Back scat?
 
2010-02-01 12:43:13 PM  
oldernell: UberDave: Wow. $734 million so the government can look at my Johnson in the airport.

So, Ron Jeremy goes through the airport and the TSA employee yells out..."We're gonna need a bigger scanner."


And a can of air freshener.
 
2010-02-01 12:44:39 PM  
I was pretty sure based on the headline that this article was going to be about the taxpayer cost of trying the guy as a civilian. Either way, I leave disgusted.
 
2010-02-01 12:51:29 PM  
Toots McGee: I was pretty sure based on the headline that this article was going to be about the taxpayer cost of trying the guy as a civilian. Either way, I leave disgusted.

Wow. You really don't know what things cost, do you?
 
2010-02-01 12:53:57 PM  
I don't recall hearing about this bombing. I guess the press was so busy talking about the guy who set his nuts on fire it must have gotten buried.

Was he a homicide bomber or the other sort?
 
2010-02-01 12:55:39 PM  
shiat like this is why I only fly when it's absolutely necessary. Unfortunately one of those occasions is happening next month. My desire to see Japan finally became greater than my hatred of airports.

I'm just going to keep my head down and my mouth shut until for the 16 hours or so of airport and flying time. Once I got pulled aside for extra screening because I appeared "too happy" for the TSA agent's liking. Apparently a 27 year old white American female being excited about eloping to Vegas is something to profile about.
 
2010-02-01 12:57:50 PM  
Also, have everyone farking forgotten that flight didn't even originate in America?
 
2010-02-01 12:58:29 PM  
I think they call this "sacrificing essential liberty for temporary security"

With the bonus being that we're giving up rights for nothing - considering he was on an inbound flight, these scanners wouldn't have done a single thing to prevent him from boarding. He was also on a no-fly list, which also failed to prevent him from boarding. And yet we have 8 year olds on the list after being mistaken for terrorists. Does this leave us any safer? no. It just leaves us more control.

//and of course, people will complain and complain. But will they take 2 minutes to simply call a congressman to express their view? Of course not, they're too busy complaining.

//I realize the irony of this rant against complaining, but I do call my congressman...'s secretary.
 
2010-02-01 01:00:43 PM  
Somaticasual: but I do call my congressman...'s secretary...'s intern
 
2010-02-01 01:03:09 PM  
Execu-tor: (reading) To my lazy, spoiled son, Tandy, who never learned the value of a dollar, I leave my entire $10 million fortune.

Tandy: (whispering) Is that a lot?
 
2010-02-01 01:09:38 PM  
The Icelander: A bunch of religious nutjobs in caves are going to do to America what the Russians never could: Make us spend ourselves into oblivion.

There's a pretty interesting interview in this month's Rolling Stone with Omar bin Laden. He explicitly says something that I've been thinking for years: bin Laden is doing the same thing to us that he did to the Russians. We are arguably on the way to ruining our economy thanks to our obsession with looking for this jackass.

I also learned that Omar bin Laden is totally whipped by his wife.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report