BigSqwert

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) If the government wants to listen to my wife and I discuss why the dog has the s***s or what I forgot to take out for dinner, then they could go right ahead. This doesnt bother me because there's not gonna be anything worth listening to anyway. I never understood these types of responses with regards to privacy issues. "Who cares if a federal agent looks through my windows occasionally? I always wear a robe after I shower." "Who cares if my phone calls are being listened in on? I NEVER talk about things I don't want others to know about." "Who cares cares if the government opens my mail/email and reads it before I get it. I NEVER have anything to hide."

And thank goodness I purchased my own hover craft recently.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) In the EXACT LINK you posted. UPDATE: Now that I seem to be getting a lot of links to this post, let me please direct your attention to the second comment in the comment thread below. The commentator points out that the image below is not an actual TSA-created scan, but a stock image that Mr. Drudge used to illustrate his story. I have independently verified this. While this makes the story here less sensational, it does not make the TSA's scanners any less invasive, outrageous, ineffective, or unconstitutional.

via the same link I provided above

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) Hot. These (NSFW) photos look much more revealing if you ask me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:47 PM) If you actually want to kill hundreds of people in a train station, you're probably going to need to use gas. Which is also not being checked for.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:45 PM) Its been our thinking since 1991 at least, which is far before terrorism was even a buzz word. There are consequences to a conservative controlled Supreme Court, one of them is that they do not really believe in "criminal" rights. So they have no problem making arguments that "criminals" have no expectation of privacy so anything goes. I entirely disagree with it, but to act like this is because of terrorism completely ignores that basically the same issue was decided by the Supreme Court 20 years ago. This is about govt control and we lost the battle decades ago, and the current court would probably like to take away more protections if it gets the chance. Indeed.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:43 PM) Well yeah, and those other methods definitely need to ramp up their security as well, but are much harder to contol. Also, the damage one can do with an airplane is far greater than a train or in the subway. So you still think they're groups of terrorists to get on a plane to take over the controls and fly them into buildings? I don't see a 9/11 type scenario taking place now that the cockpit doors are locked. A plane blowing up is not as bad as a very large train station blowing up where there could be several hundreds of people.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) Do you think deep down that Kate Middleton would like to strip down to a bikini and do Jägerbombs? No

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) You can't fly a train into the side of a building. A bomb detonating during rush hour at Union Station would be pretty damn bad. Probably worse than 200 people dying in a plane crash.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) This point, of course, is not an argument against the TSA instituting intrusive measures if they're effective...it's an argument that other methods of transportation need securing as well. And like you mentioned earlier, this particular method can and will likely be breached anyway.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) there are tons of other modes of transportation out there available. Exactly. And for each one of them there are virtually no actions taken to prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks (see: London Subway Bombing).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) Im pretty sure that Scalia believes that criminals have no right to privacy because if youre committing a crime you had no expectation of privacy. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now we're all suspected criminals?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) I have no issue with it. You obviously don't have a 15 year old daughter. Having some creepy ass TSA agent that probably only has a GED staring at images of my nude daughter is unsettling.

Since this scan will not see what's inside your mouth or other orifices what the hell is the point? More exposure to radiation? I'd hate to be a flight attendant that's pregnant and has to walk through one of those everyday.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) I've not noticed anything new lately You haven't seen the fully body scanners yet at O'Hare?

I already refused my first scan a couple weeks back. Couple of article worth reading: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff TSA Opt-Out Day, Now with a Superfantastic New Twist!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) http://www.porsche.com/usa/aboutporsche/po...ronment/hybrid/ His neighbors will scoff at him. I rented a Volvo for a work trip in Texas once and I was almost laughed out of the facility.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) Ensure a second term for the incumbent and then fade away?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 12:29 PM) POOP! Quintessential post of this thread.

Jon Stewart on John McCain's DADT waffling:

On the other hand, Balta makes a good point....for me to poop on.

My concern is that we may not be a division contender by the mid-point of the season and he'll become the usual cancer that we've seen in the past.

Lots of worthless crap to wade through if you were to try and read it all.

Hmm...i'm getting slow.