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.

(Daily Mail)   Airport security makes MILF go through body scanner three times, for obvious reasons (w/pics)   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 158
    More: Amusing, radiation doses, female employees  
•       •       •

54615 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2012 at 12:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-15 10:20:41 PM

Head_Shot: Mambo Bananapatch: Mad_Radhu: Mambo Bananapatch: My God, that man must have a gigantic penis. bank account.

Well, one or the other. He's definitely hitting over his weight, which is not inconsiderable.

Maybe he's just a really nice guy.

Never underestimate the power of personality.


RFLMAO *gasp* LOL
 
2012-02-16 02:16:13 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6942507/74986386#c74986386" target="_blank">Gaseous Anomaly</a>:</b> <i>Bomb Head Mohammed: the goal of TSA is not to catch terrorists per se - it's to make aviation a harder target which will consider their chances of success to be less now than it was before due to the ridiculous random searches and "security theater". and, it does do that, even if it is staffed by mouth breathing rent-a-cop wannabees.

IMO, the public knowledge from 9/11 that hijackings can end in kamizake, and locking reinforced cockpit doors, make aviation a hard enough target. There's zero chance of a 9/11-style attack succeeding today, even if we went back to the old-style screenings.

As a bonus we could use the kazillion dollars we spend on the TSA for something more useful.</i>

9/11 may not happen again, but bombs might. but thanks for playing.
 
2012-02-16 04:45:16 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6942507/74986386#c74986386" target="_blank">Gaseous Anomaly</a>:</b> <i>Bomb Head Mohammed: the goal of TSA is not to catch terrorists per se - it's to make aviation a harder target which will consider their chances of success to be less now than it was before due to the ridiculous random searches and "security theater". and, it does do that, even if it is staffed by mouth breathing rent-a-cop wannabees.

IMO, the public knowledge from 9/11 that hijackings can end in kamizake, and locking reinforced cockpit doors, make aviation a hard enough target. There's zero chance of a 9/11-style attack succeeding today, even if we went back to the old-style screenings.

As a bonus we could use the kazillion dollars we spend on the TSA for something more useful.</i>

9/11 may not happen again, but bombs might. but thanks for playing.


You could sneak PCP onto a flights and HULK RAGE SMASH the chairs into the windows, killing everyone. Where are the mandatory drug tests for everyone attempting to board?

For a more realistic unavoidable problem, anyone can get up, stretch, sip a gin and tonic, and then go batshiat crazy (pops). Plus nearly all bombs are in the luggage for many decades now, not in someone's handbag.
 
2012-02-16 05:52:24 AM
www.explosm.net
 
2012-02-16 11:11:31 AM

Bomb Head Mohammed: 9/11 may not happen again, but bombs might. but thanks for playing.


What's the differential bomb-detection rate of pre/9-11 vs. post-9/11 screening procedures? What does that translate to in dollars, delays, inconvenience, etc. per life saved?

(Actually I'd be kind of surprised if that is known. Cost-benefit analysis seems like a lost art sometimes.)

If we funded self-driving cars with that money we could save a lot more lives, I'd wager.
 
2012-02-16 01:00:35 PM
forums.pelicanparts.com

/does not give a sh*t about your personality
//probably wouldn't talk to you at all if you weren't in a solid gold Delorean
 
2012-02-16 03:32:08 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed:

9/11 may not happen again, but bombs might. but thanks for playing.


Nothing the TSA is doing today will secure a flight against a terrorist with a C4 dildo up his ass, including the current scanners. They had "puffer" machines, that would detect minuscule amounts of explosives and couldn't maintain them. So, they got rid of the only effective technology they had and replaced it with technology that is not only ineffective, its hazardous to your health.
 
2012-02-17 02:46:29 AM

quatchi: So... you're cool if some cheeto-stained, male rent-a-cop cops a feel of your wife/daughters then all in the name of "not letting the terrorists win"?

*considers this*

Sure that wasn't your "Captain Oblivious Hat" you had on?

^__^


No. I never said anything even slightly like that.

What I said is that the gender of the person giving the pat down makes absolutely zero difference. There's just as much possibility that it's a bisexual or lesbian woman groping your wife or daughter, or a gay guy getting his jollies from you and your son.

In the real world, the people giving the patdowns find it just about as erotic as your wife's gyno finds their job. It's a job, they probably hate it, and they spend all day patting down bodies that mostly repulse them.

None of which changes the fact that it's all a bunch of meaningless theater, and that you're no safer after the patdowns and scans than you were before them.
 
Displayed 8 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report