TSA - Pathetic, really
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 13:21 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:11:32 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.15.46.24.271821(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:49 -0500, ByTor wrote: >> >>>> Technology is not able to stop terrorists, but, using will quite often >>>> thwart terrorists and greatly slow the rate at which they can do >>>> attacks. But that's only if technology is employed properly, which the >>>> TSA and other gov't agencies haven't been doing. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Add being *politically correct* to the reasons why technologies are not >>> employed properly and you'll have a much better explanation for >>> ineffectivness. >> >> That's what this whole administration boils down to: what's the >> Politically Correct thing to do? > > > Then logically, the previous administration was also hung up on what's PC. Nice try. Get up off your face.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 18:25 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.18.21.03.3555(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:11:32 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.46.24.271821(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:49 -0500, ByTor wrote: >>> >>>>> Technology is not able to stop terrorists, but, using will quite often >>>>> thwart terrorists and greatly slow the rate at which they can do >>>>> attacks. But that's only if technology is employed properly, which the >>>>> TSA and other gov't agencies haven't been doing. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> Add being *politically correct* to the reasons why technologies are not >>>> employed properly and you'll have a much better explanation for >>>> ineffectivness. >>> >>> That's what this whole administration boils down to: what's the >>> Politically Correct thing to do? >> >> >> Then logically, the previous administration was also hung up on what's >> PC. > > Nice try. Get up off your face. The previous administration didn't push for Israeli-style security procedures because Americans consider those things annoying and perhaps even unconstitutional. Therefore, the previous admin is in exactly the same category as the current one.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 18:26 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as the >>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>> >>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. Your >>>> news >>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>> >>>> Right? >>> >>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour that >>> Bin Laden's followers have one. >>> >>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is stuck >>> on health care...health care...health care... >> >> >> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a better, >> cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track record of >> completely preventing attacks? > > Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you even know what "system" I'm talking about. > You don't even like going through the machines. You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you will fail.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 14:05 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>> >>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. Your >>>>> news >>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>> >>>>> Right? >>>> >>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour that >>>> Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>> >>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>> >>> >>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track >>> record of completely preventing attacks? >> >> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. > > You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you > even know what "system" I'm talking about. I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also because the system works. But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never allow such a system, and you know it. > > >> You don't even like going through the machines. > > You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with > any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you > will fail. Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. So, we need to do something else. Rise of the Machines.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 19:16
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>> >>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. Your >>>>>> news >>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right? >>>>> >>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour that >>>>> Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>> >>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>> >>>> >>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track >>>> record of completely preventing attacks? >>> >>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >> >> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you >> even know what "system" I'm talking about. > > I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it > because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also because > the system works. We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. > But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never > allow such a system, and you know it. How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. Furthermore, it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We have no right to fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive cars. Customs agents already grill people crossing the border. You've never heard the ACLU or any other organization complaining about that. The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of massive propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static regarding health care reform. >>> You don't even like going through the machines. >> >> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with >> any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you >> will fail. > > Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. > > So, we need to do something else. If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. |