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.

(White House)   TFer's friend's petition to force TSA to review "full body imaging" at airports has more than 20000 signatures; will go in front of Obama if it gets 4600 more. Difficulty: By tomorrow. DIT   (petitions.whitehouse.gov) divider line 290
    More: Spiffy, TSA, White House, rulemaking process, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

8524 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-08 03:07:08 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


...aaaannddd I'm done.
 
2012-08-08 03:07:29 PM  
Done and done.
 
2012-08-08 03:07:30 PM  
Not that I disagree with the spirit of it, Peterquince... I just think that the petition is both premature and somewhat useless.

When I fly, I opt-out of the screening and demand a pat down... And during the pat down, I express my concern for the worker and discuss the Johns Hopkins TSA cancer study, the study on the imaging machines "unzipping DNA", the study about the number of machines that are out of specification and leaking radiation, the fact that all the comments about how the machines are safe for passengers who are only near them for a few seconds is irrelevant to the workers, and the fact that under any other circumstance, OSHA would require them to wear radiation badges, but the TSA is explicitly exempt from OSHA regulations...
Then I suggest they talk to their Union rep about those safety issues.

Mind you, this was even more fun a few months ago when I could then say, "but oh, wait, you guys aren't allowed to be in a union."
 
2012-08-08 03:07:46 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


How YOU doin'?
 
2012-08-08 03:07:46 PM  

dok9874: oh yeah, I also always opt out of the scanners, on account it really pisses 'em off to see a citizen exercising their right to opt out. Plus I like to make the pat-downer uncomfortable by never wearing a bra when I fly so she's forced to touch my unbridled boobies.


I'll bet they like you! This is a win-win situation. They get to fondle and you get fondled without any entanglements. Smart girl.
 
2012-08-08 03:08:22 PM  
4500 left to go.

Ya got sign in (the captcha is REALLY bad and watch out for the mailings checkbox), return an email, and then click to sign it. And when they get it, they all laugh at the new mail list they just received and throw the petition in the trash.

/I did it, but I don't expect anything to happen.
//It's an election year. Promises are just promises
///but all the same...vote for Mitt? That's funny
 
2012-08-08 03:08:54 PM  

spiderpaz: 3) Nothing - which means terrorists will be able to easily get knifes and bombs on the plane with you and your kids (a side benefit is that this is the cheapest option per ticket)


Metal detectors are good, and quick xrays are fine too.

I see no rational reason to demand that I am safer on a plane than I am on a bus or standing in line for a movie.
 
2012-08-08 03:09:12 PM  

JK47: Another Pretentious Nickname: Also, leaning on a little bit of credibility as a cancer survivor, take your cancer alarmism about these things and shove it directly up your ass. It's not credible and it's not proportional. If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.


Father died of cancer, both grandfathers died of cancer, my sister (at 22) had cancer. I prefer to avoid X-Ray machines operated by inexperienced, under-paid, and under-qualified personnel who may or may not have properly calibrated it that morning and have, in the last decade, developed a "stellar" reputation for maintaining and operating complicated pieces of equipment. What's more, since it's government operated, in the event they do fark up I have almost no recourse to redress my injury.

In any event, to match your tone, shut the fark up you ignorant prick.


It's amazing that your grandfathers died of cancer... how could that have happened before these devices were in use? My grandmother died of cancer and never even flew on a plane! She should have been immortal!

I'm sick of people trying to use bullshiat cancer scare tactics as a trump card against anything ever being done. You are all Jenny McCarthy to me.

ElusiveWookiee: Another Pretentious Nickname: If you want to ban scanners for cancer risk you'd have to ban air travel entirely. Not to mention cell phones, WiFi, and probably chocolate cake.

Because, you know, there's absolutely no difference in ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation.


You mean non-ionizing radiation like that produced by millimeter wave technology? Or ionizing radiation like that you're already exposed to, in quantities far exceeding the backscatter scanning, during even the shortest flights?

Besides, you always have the pat down option. So if you can't do math or science and are freaked out about radiation, just do the pat-down. Why make everyone else wait? Just go be slow over in the paranoid line.
 
2012-08-08 03:10:00 PM  

qorkfiend: All of you: the point of the petition isn't the scanners or their effectiveness. The point of the petition is to get the TSA to comply with a federal court order. I imagine most of us would be on board with government agencies complying with court orders.


A few things.

1. There is already a standing court order for the TSA to respond to the (initial) petition by Aug. 30th. If that doesn't get the job done, it's doubtful that 25K signatures on a new petition is going to change that.
2. The We The People petitions really only compel them to respond - not to actually comply. "No" is a response, and is basically what was given the last time a WH petition was directed at the TSA.

I signed it, of course, because I loathe the TSA, but it's little more than a gesture at this point.
 
2012-08-08 03:10:10 PM  

Surpheon: I see no rational reason to demand that I am safer on a plane than I am on a bus or standing in line for a movie.


trendwire.com
Problem?
 
2012-08-08 03:10:50 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: If you believe that then I have a rock that keeps aliens away to sell you.

No thanks, I already have a rock that keeps lions away, and I'd kind of like to get probed by an alien once or twice (the closest I have come was when I dated an Armenian--boy do I miss that girl).

Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.


Are metal detectors not also a deterrent? It would be a deterrent to make everyone strip naked and have anal cavity exams before flying but (at least for the time being) we've deemed that an inappropriate over reach. It seems that there are limits.
 
2012-08-08 03:11:33 PM  

indarwinsshadow: qorkfiend: darwin

Simple. I'm not crazy about some nut who wants to see Allah, Buddha, Brahma, God, Jesus, the Jetsons or whoever blowing me up. Somethings are worth a little invasion of privacy. And, being Canadian we're used to Americans pushing their wants and needs on us even though it inconveniences us. You get used to having your privacy violated. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But. It's a fact of life. Terrorism is here to stay, this is a way of pretending that we're averting terrorism but it's pure security theater and has already been shown to not be able to detect something viewed edge on, so I can put up with it. End of story.


FTFY
 
2012-08-08 03:11:37 PM  

qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.


You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:01 PM  

profplump: wineskigolf: I have yet to see a credible study as to the cancer risk. I'm open to reading one if it exists.

The presence of a cancer risk is not up for debate. These devices emit x-rays into live human flesh, which will cause cancer in some of the people exposed, full stop. This same risk applies to medical x-rays and all other emitters of ionizing radiation, including the sun.

The magnitude of the cancer risk is more difficult to answer. If you believe the manufacturer about the operating specs, and assume the machines are working properly and being used as intended (neither of which is monitored in the ways we require for all other x-ray emitters), it's probably not very big*. But as you note there have been no studies -- not because no one cares, or because no one believes there's a risk, but because no study has ever been allowed by the TSA or the manufacturer.

*Also note that even if the actual risk as used is small, which is at least somewhat plausible even in spite of the ridiculous lack of safety controls, it still could be large in comparison to the risk of terrorist attack that this device could prevent, making the device a net loss to the safety of citizens


The cancer risk to passengers is probably miniscule. The cancer risk to TSA workers, standing around those things all day long, is probably orders of magnitude higher. So we won't know for sure until about 10 years from now when there is a sudden rise in cancer cases, and subsequent legal action, by former TSA workers who could have been protected, but weren't because terrorism.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:25 PM  

China White Tea: qorkfiend: All of you: the point of the petition isn't the scanners or their effectiveness. The point of the petition is to get the TSA to comply with a federal court order. I imagine most of us would be on board with government agencies complying with court orders.

A few things.

1. There is already a standing court order for the TSA to respond to the (initial) petition by Aug. 30th. If that doesn't get the job done, it's doubtful that 25K signatures on a new petition is going to change that.
2. The We The People petitions really only compel them to respond - not to actually comply. "No" is a response, and is basically what was given the last time a WH petition was directed at the TSA.

I signed it, of course, because I loathe the TSA, but it's little more than a gesture at this point.


Sure. Doesn't change the fact that the petition is only tangentially related to the scanners themselves.
 
2012-08-08 03:12:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: But if someone wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, which seems to be your fear, they would simply find another way. I can think of several offhand, but I don't post suggestions like that on line. But it is entirely possible.


Well there are always more complicated ways of getting something done that people have put measures in place to make it more difficult to do. There are ways to hack your bank account. Hopefully your bank has put up some measures to make this harder than typing in your name. But you don't remove all security just because perfect security is unobtainable.
 
2012-08-08 03:13:33 PM  
Signed, but it's a bit unsettling that you don't want to show your weiner to strangers.
 
2012-08-08 03:14:15 PM  

gilgigamesh: While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.


I'm not convinced but leaning in this direction.
4086 to go.
 
2012-08-08 03:14:30 PM  

Mikey1969: qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.

You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.


FTF Boobies:

peterquince: So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.

 
2012-08-08 03:15:02 PM  

qorkfiend: pute kisses like a man: The My Little Pony Killer: cameroncrazy1984: wineskigolf: Since flying is optional, the 4th amendment probably does not apply

Driving is optional. The 4th amendment still applies there.

This. And the people who have been staging naked protests lately have had their right to do so upheld by judges citing the 4th amendment.

the car is your property. that's why the 4th amendment applies. reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, there is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement when an officer has cause.

the airport is not your property and provides no reasonable expectation of privacy. furthermore, you have consented to the search by entering the secure area. it's not a matter of 4th amendment applying, it's a matter of satisfying the protections afforded.

oh well... not a big issue to me... unless it actually causes cancer. then i might sign

The petition is not about the scanners or their effects. It is about getting federal agencies to comply with court orders.


More specifically, it's about whether "promptly" means "within a year". It's not a given that TSA is in violation of the court order.

If they are, suing TSA is more likely to accomplish something than a petition.
 
2012-08-08 03:15:52 PM  
i'm sorry subby. the money spent on this pork project cannot be recovered. no logic here.

/support denied
//please try again
 
2012-08-08 03:16:56 PM  

GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?


Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.
 
2012-08-08 03:17:01 PM  

China White Tea: qorkfiend: All of you: the point of the petition isn't the scanners or their effectiveness. The point of the petition is to get the TSA to comply with a federal court order. I imagine most of us would be on board with government agencies complying with court orders.

A few things.

1. There is already a standing court order for the TSA to respond to the (initial) petition by Aug. 30th. If that doesn't get the job done, it's doubtful that 25K signatures on a new petition is going to change that.
2. The We The People petitions really only compel them to respond - not to actually comply. "No" is a response, and is basically what was given the last time a WH petition was directed at the TSA.

I signed it, of course, because I loathe the TSA, but it's little more than a gesture at this point.


So there's a set date for response, it hasn't been reached yet, and people are all up in arms? Sheesh. This petition is truly pointless.

I mean, they'll probably miss the deadline, but why submit a petition before it's even been reached?
 
2012-08-08 03:17:19 PM  

sweetmelissa31: peterquince: They cause cancer

Flying "causes" cancer. The risk is small in comparison.


I'm willing to undergo the small risk of cancer by flying. That's a risk I'm unwilling to take by going through a cancer-rape machine, just because some ex-government employee wants to scam the government out of billions by making me walk through them. Plus, you say the risk is small, but that is only if the machine maintains proper calibration, and if it doesn't break down, malfunction, and continuously zap you in a single point on your body. What are the chances of that happening? well, the machines are maintained by these people:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-08 03:17:23 PM  
I'll sign it because I GET THINGS DONE!


heh heh heh.
 
2012-08-08 03:18:46 PM  
qorkfiend:


maxheck: qorkfiend:

maxheck: And another thing!

Why doesn't Obama show us his REAL birf cerficate!

Seriously...

If you want something more than a circus, then provide actual citations on what is going wrong and what you want changed. Don't let your enthusiasm carry you to to point where you post an information-free online petition.

"The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months" is an insufficient indicator of "what is going wrong"?

Which one. Citation?

I'm not even unsympathetic, but if you can't do your own homework before crafting a petition, don't expect 10,000 people to do it for you before they sign said online petition. You should be the adult in the room. It's your petition.

Do you in fact know the circumstances where ""The TSA has ignored a court order for the last 18 months?"

I don't. I am willing to look it up further, but..

It says it exactly where you'd expect - on the farking petition page. It's hilarious to see someone complaining about not doing your homework when crafting a petition, when you haven't bothered to read the petition you're criticizing.


Funny thing that. Here is the text that anyone outside of Fark will read, and I don't think that Fark is the audience that matters.

"In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines."

I'm wrong about the 18 months, it's actually 13. Doesn't change anything.My bad. I worked with what the petition said and what anyone outside of Fark would read:

we petition the obama administration to:
Require the Transportation Security Administration to Follow the Law!

In July 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that the Transportation Security Administration had to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its policy of using "Advanced Imaging Technology" for primary screening at airports. TSA was supposed to publish the policy in the Federal Register, take comments from the public, and justify its policy based on public input. The court told TSA to do all this "promptly." A year later, TSA has not even started that public process. Defying the court, the TSA has not satisfied public concerns about privacy, about costs and delays, security weaknesses, and the potential health effects of these machines. If the government is going to "body-scan" Americans at U.S. airports, President Obama should force the TSA to begin the public process the court ordered.
Created: Jul 09, 2012


You know... The part that isn't on Fark.

It's very easy to get enthused about an idea and write an online petition. This one has zero information in it, and I (for my part) wouldn't sign anything of the sort. The author should read up and provide a little more by way of facts to go with his indignation, just saying.
 
2012-08-08 03:21:06 PM  
As someone who flies alot and has two artificial joints, these scanners have been a godsend. I used to have to get the patdown every single time.
 
2012-08-08 03:24:03 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?

Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.


Must be exhausting to be so afraid all the time.

Also, you've just pointed out a work around to that specific security system. It's comforting to know that there couldn't possibly be workarounds to other security systems.
 
2012-08-08 03:25:03 PM  
Entered my email, got a message that there were too many attempts from my IP and that it had been blocked. After one attempt.
 
2012-08-08 03:25:30 PM  
Ah, the power of the InterWeb to promote Dumbassery (Zat a word?)

And the really scary thing is the petitioners are expecting Obama to do the smart thing
 
2012-08-08 03:26:16 PM  
Personal experience, YMMV, but pretty much the only thing that is new to me in 20+ years of flying is the "take off your shoes" thing.

So far as the scanners, I'm having a hard time picturing even a TSA employee so hard up that they're getting off on a blurry picture of your bod or mine, so... Why exactly are we giving a damn other than feeling sorry for those people?

If you're going to claim "fifth amendment" then boy howdy do I have an earful for you.
 
2012-08-08 03:27:15 PM  

gilgigamesh: While some of your premises are highly questionable, Submitter, I can't argue that these rape-scan things are nothing more than an expensive set-piece in security theater.

Signed, and passing it on.


THIS
 
2012-08-08 03:28:18 PM  

arethereanybeernamesleft: Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.


You mean like that time that Adam Savage got a 12" razor through TSA security?
Or that time that a guy got a loaded gun past the TSA?
Or the guy with the knife in his carry on that the TSA totally missed?
Or how about the guy who would have gotten on the plane with a couple of box cutters if they hadn't fallen out of his luggage after he'd passed the security checkpoint?

At this point, the rock would be more effective than the TSA.


arethereanybeernamesleft: GhettoWinter: Are metal detectors not also a deterrent?

Not to a plastic explosive, they aren't. Not to a plastic knife, either.

So, not really.


And if the person takes the incredibly devious step of strapping said explosives or knife to their side, the full body scanner won't catch them either.

FFS people, it's like someone broke into your home so you called Jimmy-Ray's Fly-by-Night Home Security to install an alarm, only to discover that anyone can disable the alarm just by jiggling the doorknob, but by golly that's just fine with you, because it's a "deterrent."
 
2012-08-08 03:28:44 PM  

GhettoWinter: Must be exhausting to be so afraid all the time.


Not afraid at all. I fly all the time, for work and pleasure. Zip through the lines no problem, and although I wish we lived in a perfect world where crazy people didn't try to do stupid shiat on a plane, we do. And because the TSA is basically staffed by retards, I'd like an extra layer or two of security to make sure one of them isn't asleep, looking at the tits on the girl in line, or being bribed.

Also, you've just pointed out a work around to that specific security system. It's comforting to know that there couldn't possibly be workarounds to other security systems.

Of course there can be. But the more you have, the fewer work arounds there are. I've flown to Israel, and believe me, we don't have to deal with hardly anything compare to what they put you through.



Your problem is that all you have is hyperbole and anger, backed by nothing. I know people who have chosen not to fly because they feel the scanners are intrusive and TSA pat-downs are sexual assaults. That's their choice. I'm married though, so I'll take all the pat downs I can get.
 
2012-08-08 03:29:14 PM  

maxheck: Personal experience, YMMV, but pretty much the only thing that is new to me in 20+ years of flying is the "take off your shoes" thing.

So far as the scanners, I'm having a hard time picturing even a TSA employee so hard up that they're getting off on a blurry picture of your bod or mine, so... Why exactly are we giving a damn other than feeling sorry for those people?

If you're going to claim "fifth amendment" then boy howdy do I have an earful for you.


Fine - I'll claim fifth amendment. Lay it all out for me big dawg.
 
2012-08-08 03:30:07 PM  
Welp, signed.

4000 to go.

Good luck!
 
2012-08-08 03:34:52 PM  

Teufelaffe: At this point, the rock would be more effective than the TSA.


That's ind of an argument for more security, not less, don't you think?

You're new at this logic and arguing thing, aren't you?

Teufelaffe: And if the person takes the incredibly devious step of strapping said explosives or knife to their side, the full body scanner won't catch them either.


[Citation needed]

FFS people, it's like someone broke into your home so you called Jimmy-Ray's Fly-by-Night Home Security to install an alarm, only to discover that anyone can disable the alarm just by jiggling the doorknob, but by golly that's just fine with you, because it's a "deterrent."

Your example is a straight-up non-sequitur. Your arguments lend credence to the folks who want more security, of various types, not less. You are pure anecdote, with nothing to prove that you know a better way to get it done.

Which, I suppose, is something you have not been asked. In your opinion, what should be done instead of metal detectors, scanners, and pat-downs?
 
2012-08-08 03:36:12 PM  
The sign-up page has, hands-down, the worst CAPTCHA images I've ever seen. I had to refresh about 20 times to get one I could read. Confirmation email too 5m. But I signed and Facebooked - and I never go on Facebook, so hopefully that should get some attention just for the pure shock of a post from me.
 
2012-08-08 03:38:55 PM  
I'm amused at Fakers who normally downplay cancer risks from other radiation sources and are now suddenly concerned about cancer risks from using these airport scanners.
 
2012-08-08 03:40:45 PM  
Signed
 
2012-08-08 03:41:19 PM  
All these posts and no doctor-facebook like picture? Fark I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-08 03:41:27 PM  
I'd much rather the Judge grow a pair and Issue a injunction barring the TSA from operating until it complies. SHUTDOWN EVERYTHING style.

I'm pretty sure the outrage would solve the little TSA problem really fast.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:03 PM  
www.lolroflmao.com
 
2012-08-08 03:43:15 PM  
Wow some of the answers here are pretty surprising!

All this petition does is suggest the TSA (a gov't department) comply with a legally required court order, which they have apparently not done yet.

So by that reasoning, if the TSA doesan't have to follow the law then I do not have to either, correct?

If that is a false statement I would like to see what reasoning is used to arrive at your conclusion.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:23 PM  
Kome:

maxheck: Personal experience, YMMV, but pretty much the only thing that is new to me in 20+ years of flying is the "take off your shoes" thing.

So far as the scanners, I'm having a hard time picturing even a TSA employee so hard up that they're getting off on a blurry picture of your bod or mine, so... Why exactly are we giving a damn other than feeling sorry for those people?

If you're going to claim "fifth amendment" then boy howdy do I have an earful for you.

Fine - I'll claim fifth amendment. Lay it all out for me big dawg.

Pook. Meant 4th. Although the 5th does raise some amusing questions.

F'rinstance, if you're passed by a scanner by a proper representative of the law, have you passed the first instance of a potential double jeopardy?

/ facetious mode off, but you KNOW someone is going to try that.
 
2012-08-08 03:43:41 PM  
Lots of bootlickers in this thread. Even worse, they know it's theater AND STILL DEFEND IT.

Talk about the definition of sheeple.

/go sit in the corner until you're called
//that's a good citizien
 
2012-08-08 03:44:42 PM  

Teufelaffe: arethereanybeernamesleft: Still, if you think that TSA checkpoints don't keep people from taking things through, maybe you should keep your alien-fighting rock. Get one for knives and guns, too.

You mean like that time that Adam Savage got a 12" razor through TSA security?
Or that time that a guy got a loaded gun past the TSA?
Or the guy with the knife in his carry on that the TSA totally missed?
Or how about the guy who would have gotten on the plane with a couple of box cutters if they hadn't fallen out of his luggage after he'd passed the security checkpoint?

At this point, the rock would be more effective than the TSA.


At least if a terrorist does get on the plane, you can throw the rock at his head.
 
2012-08-08 03:45:39 PM  

mdeesnuts: Talk about the definition of sheeple.


We're just not as brave, smart, independent, or good-looking as you, I guess.
 
2012-08-08 03:49:42 PM  

qorkfiend: Mikey1969: qorkfiend: The petition is not about the damned machines.

You should tell that to the farker that opened up that page as if he had just started this thread. He's the one that talked about cancer, the 4th amendment and weiner visibility. I merely answered that.

FTF Boobies:
peterquince: So of course, it's been a year and no action at all. This petition is asking the administration to force TSA to comply.


Yeah, a little farther up in that post:
Aside from the fact that the scanners cause cancer, and they probably violate the 4th amendment, AND they have cost us $2.4 billion, they have never even once uncovered a bomb. This is pure pork money.

Hmmmmm, scanners, scanners, scanners, scanners everywhere!
 
2012-08-08 03:59:08 PM  
mdeesnuts:

Lots of bootlickers in this thread. Even worse, they know it's theater AND STILL DEFEND IT.

Talk about the definition of sheeple.

/go sit in the corner until you're called
//that's a good citizien


Funny thing that...

Imagine the squeals if if the TSA *didn't* make you take off your shoes or dump bottles with X amount+ of liquid.

It's Kabuki theatre. You know it's bullshiat, they know it's bullshiat. But you (you being the public) demand they keep it going. Purely reactive from start to finish. Anyone with half a brain could circumvent whatever "magic bullet" safeguards they put in place.

There isn't a magic bullet.

On the other side, we don't yet have internal checkpoints, and it's not as stupid as some of the countries I've visited.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report