4 in 5 Support Full-Body Airport Scanners

Discussion in 'Politics' started by targus, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought that this poll might be of interest considering all the discussion here concerning airport security scanners.

    "Although some civil rights groups allege that they represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, Americans overwhelmingly agree that airports should use the digital x-ray machines to electronically screen passengers in airport security lines, according to the new poll. Eighty-one percent think airports should use these new machines -- including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups, and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    One need look no further that our current president to see the populace can get it wrong.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, we're a pure democracy, then?

    So, if 50%+1 approve of abortion, then it's OK?


    careful what metric you use to justify your position...
     
  4. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Of whom does the poll reflect???

    The general populace??

    Only those who fly frequently??

    Does the poll include those who have NEVER flown and who have no intentions of flying??
     
  5. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe that I expressed any of the above.

    I simply posted a poll.

    I a curious as to why there is not a similar protest against metal detectors and the luggage scanners/searches.

    Does not the constitution also protect against those intrusions?
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I fail to understand why you're so upset that American citizens resent being treated like cattle at airports.

    It's almost as if they're taking money out of your pocket or something.

    You work for Micheal Chertoff don't you?

    Say hello to your fascist boss for me next time you bump into him ok? :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #7 poncho, Nov 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2010
  8. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I fail to understand on what basis you make the above characterizations of me.

    I simply posted a published poll as fodder for a discussion.

    Do you feel that being required to pass through a metal detector - putting your personal possessions in the plastic bin to pass through the xray machine - and having your carry on luggage searched is different constitutionally from the body scanners and pat downs?

    Why or why not?
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No you didn't. You posted this poll in the hopes others here would see the folly of resistance against Big Sis and obey all her little dictates no matter how absurd they are so you can feel safe.

    The constituion has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

    How long before we're having the discussion of whether or not full body scanners should be put into use at Wal Mart, or the local gym?

    How long before we're discussing whether or not McDonald's has the right to grope people in public before they can be served a Happy Meal?

    Anytime some "lone wolf" idiot decides to try and sneak explosives on a plane in his shoes or underwear and this is what they are, wannabe idiots. They aren't part of some mystical giant global terrorist conspiracy like the media and the Chertoff company would have us believe. The government overreacts and instates more and more intrusive measures that do little to nothing to keep us safer.

    No real terrorist would be so stupid. The people who belong to "Al-Qeada" if it even exsists must be laughing their heads off at us for letting ourselves be herded like sheep by our knee jerk over reacting Big Sis government at the mere mention of a group that may or may not even be real.

    Chertoff's group got two contracts totaling almost 400 million dollars to put these porno scanners in airports. Who's interest is he serving here, his or your's?

    You think he's in the business of selling these things to keep you safe from terrorists?

    Who's interest is he serving when he gets on tv and paints pictures of our destruction at the hands of "terrorists" if we don't buy these machines and submit ourselves to authority like we're all just cattle to be herded along.

    This is my gripe in a nutshell targus, I am a natural born citizen of the US (and I have the birth and school records to prove it) I am not not a cow and I resent being treated like one. You want to be treated like a cow go for it. Just don't be surprised if no one else wants to be treated like one.
     
    #9 poncho, Nov 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2010
  10. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    There's something hinky about this poll. It doesn't identify how many people were polled. Maybe I missed it. Usually you see a statement along the lines of, "Of xx number of people polled, 81%...."

    One has to wonder: Is this the same poll that the TSA cites says Americans are all for it? Why aren't they being totally forthcoming with the numbers and science behind the poll?
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Please share with me how you are able to read minds! I would love to be able to have that ability.

    "...I'm concerned" s/e

    Salty

    PS, does your computer have spell check? especially for important words?
     
  12. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Targus - what did you think of the scientific statements I posted in another thread that indicated we don't know exactly what the health effects of these scanners is?
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you claiming some special knowledge as to my motivation for posting the poll?

    As it stands you have no empirical basis for this conclusion.

    If in your mind it is not a constitutional issue - what is the basis for your objections?

    To my knowledge this has not been proposed by anyone - but if those companies deicde to make such a condition of entering their establishments I am aware of no legal basis for forbidding them from doing so. It would however impact their business negatively so there is little chance that they would decide to do so.

    Then it is your belief that there are no organized terrorist groups?

    More special knowledge?

    I believe that what you are referring to is a mischaracterization at best.

    Perhaps you could start another thread on that topic.

    Are you being treated as a cow when required to pass through the metal detectors or when your carry on luggage is searched?

    If not what is the difference?
     
  14. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that either the research concerning the safety of the devices should be disclosed for unbiased review or use of them postponed until shown to be safe.
     
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    No my pc has no spell check.

    I reckon I can get close enough so's people will recognize the word I'm trying to type.

    I've read enough of targus' posts to get a good idea of how he thinks.
     
  16. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you share an example of such a post that would indicate to you my thinking on this particular topic?
     
  17. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    These scanners use ioninzing radiation. There is no 'considered safe dose' when pited against the choice of opting out of something which is unnecessary to begin with.

    I say its unnecessary because....
    how many 'terrorist' have been caught by TSA? (Surely, by now, it should be hundreds... if its that necessary!)
    How many people imprisoned or killed as a result of TSA? Several: Were any of them terrorist? No.
    TSA's been in place for a while now.... yet all these recent 'threats'..... the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber....passed through someones's security!

    Why don't they train dogs? They eat and kennel for less pay: They are non-discriminating as to color, religion, language and are less perverted than some of these people..... ......And they can make a boy happy at the end of their long day! ........and if you're a frequent flyer, its doubtful that they'll contribute to you or your kid's cancer.... or develop voyerism or pedophila!
     
  18. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The second that the TSA uses dogs someone will bring up old pictures of the civil rights protest era with police using dogs against marchers.

    It would never fly. (Excuse the pun)
     
  19. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    As I listened to a radio host describe the security at Ben Gurion, it occurred to me--and especially after I saw an article where a military member has identified the threat--we've created more of a threat with this whole TSA mess.

    I would venture to say we've been lucky--nay, blessed--that airports haven't been targeted. The numbers of people at security checkpoints (in US airports) are a huge target of opportunity.

    We need a more layered defense (also known as "defense in depth"). Security personnel who monitor vehicles & personnel before they reach the drop-off points or parking lots. Security personnel who monitor parking lots and drop-offs points. Security personnel with bomb-sniffing dogs or electronic sniffing equipment randomly checking bags at the check-in terminals. Dogs and/or sniffing equipment at the security checkpoints. Security personnel randomly asking for voluntary permission to sniff bags at any time in the airport (refusal would not prevent further travel into the airport, but would flag for subsequent check levels to increase attention).

    Additionally, the security personnel monitoring vehicles/people before they actually enter the parking lots/airport traffic lanes should be trained for psychological "tells" of potential security/criminal threats. Not "profiling"; *everyone* gets observed for behavior.

    Multiple layers before reaching the scanners will create a deterrant that will reduce, or even negate, the requirement for such intrusive procedures.

    I am a conservative, but I'm willing to accept the types of layered security I've described above -- as opposed to submitting to the type of body search conducted on criminals after apprehension by local police.
     
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Nope I explained it all to Salty already.

    I have enough. I explained it all to Salty.

    Um, I already went over all that.


    Legal basis? So a thing just has to be legal for it to be okay with you?

    No this is not my belief. Let me explain again. All throughout history rulers have used fear to control the people. Pay attention now, this is known as knowledge. Okay? Are ya focused? This is how it's always been. Nothing has changed in all that time to this day except for technology which gives today's rulers far greater means of control.

    Let me recommend a good book that covers this topic at length. I think you might have heard of the author. It's called the Holy Bible.

    Study any ancient civilization that amounted to anything and what do they have in common? The rulers used fear to control the people.

    Let me repeat that.

    The rulers used fear to control the people.

    Now, how many times a day do we see some politician telling us that if we don't accept one of their "solutions" the terrorists will git us?

    Let me repeat that.

    Now, how many times a day do we see some politician telling us that if we don't accept one of their "solutions" the terrorists will git us?

    I hate to keep repeating myself but,

    The rulers used fear to control the people.

    Why you ask would rulers use fear to control the people? Because frightened people are easier to control.

    Let me repeat that.

    Frightened people are easier to control.

    That's not just me saying that, it's all of history saying that.

    No special knowledge needed.

    Let me repeat that.

    No special knowledge needed.


    Knowledge is knowledge. Some people retain more of it than others that's all. Not like I ain't willing to share what I've retained. I've tried several times now but you keep refusing. I'd say that makes it "on you".

    Apparently you don't have all the knowledge you could have because you don't want it.

    I asked you a question. Who's interest is he (Chertoff) serving? Just answer it already.


    Working on it. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=68766

    What is this? You expect me to answer all your questions when you haven't answered mine? That'll be the day. :smilewinkgrin:

    To the spell checkers. I'm doin the best I can.
     
    #20 poncho, Nov 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...