NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners + More

Got the automated response marked as spam:

Chaos as much of a pc nerd as you are, tell me why on earth would you use a program that downloads your emails to your system over web based mail?

If this is where your logical thought leads you jet I really think logic lost one today. By that train of thought you could consider an inumerable amount of people to be terrorists. They are in no way a terrorist organization and the fact that you would even suggest that is ludicrous. I'm waiting for you to follow with "I was just making a joke/gesting I have a dark sense of humor". Either way thats a ridiculous statement and you have to know that.

I still use gmail for personal stuff (stays on web), but my server stuff is downloaded. Thunderbird rocks.

it's a terrorist's goal to rule others by fear, that is what the TSA is doing. I was in no way making a joke, your rights being infringed upon by the government that is there to protect your rights is serious business.

I've never understood the concept of putting emails on your machine, it's just asking for trouble.

lol I suck at black boxing stuff, not gonna hide from it though.

If you got my email I deserve more spam.

By that logic you could lump just about anyone in that you wanted. Are bullies terrorists too Jet?

I'm talking about the downloading emails (all) to your machine, at least in web based mail if there's malware you have to open it to get it...

Now lets work this one out together. Why would insurance companies want you to wear seatbelts? (keep in mind these are questions for Jet to guide him to the correct conclusion)

if you have a problem with it, take it up with the dictionary people not me.

Downloading =/= opening attachments?

profit

The day you get Jet to agree with a rational thought is the day SP is president.

Ok now why would they profit from it?

they're still there, and the code can be in the email itself, not just the attachment, again it's just opening yourself to unnecessary risk (imo)

them not having to pay for the injuries sustained = profit

and yes you can argue that they'll get the money either way, but then you'd have to ask why their lobbyists pushed for the bills

I'm going to spam emails with deltree C:/

ftfy

I had this random install once where the main drive installed as E; iirc, was *** strange...

There's more than one defintion for terrorism. The fact that you would lump the TSA in as a terroristic operation with the likes of of those our military fights against is against all common sense.

The common sense Jet doesn't have? :-D

they both instill fear in others, so no it isn't.

This also comes into play as how we're letting the "terrorists" win by complying to this ***.

Yay, now we're getting somewhere. No, you were right. Insurance companies would like you to wear seatbelts as it, as you said, lowers the injury rate of those in car accidents.

Now lets think about this further. Since wearing a seat belt has been proven to lower the injury rate of people in car accidents (not eliminate, lower) would you not think this a good law to enact? Since it lowers the injury rate, therefore allows more people to be healthiar and lowers the amount of money spent on medical care... that could be a good thing couldn't it Jet?

I think someone mentioned earliar that the accident rate for cars is 1 in 6,000 ish? With close to 300,000,000 million people say even a quarter of them own a vehicle and take lets estimate 1 in every 6500 from 75,000,000 thats around 11,500 accidents/year or 31 ish a day. That seems like a lot of people to me and statistics to show that seatbelts help. Plus, how hard is it to put on a seatbelt? I mean cmon.

Let me ask you this Jet? Should we all be allowed to drink and drive too? I mean we can drink and we can drive. Why not just mix em together and forget the outcome all together. Let the dice land where they may because if they don't allow us to drink and drive they are taking away our freedoms unjustly right? You know minus all the death and destruction and lives ruined by it.

Locking people up in their houses would also lower injuries, as well as lower the chance of you getting robbed, shot, raped, victim of a terrorist attack etc etc.

1.no.
2. insurance companies want it only for a pure and simple reason; money.
3. it's not the government's place to tell adult citizens what to do when it comes to their safety, regardless of how much of a "good idea" it is.

4. you have a point on the drin/drive thing up until the point that endangers more than yourself...

yeah, Zanno has the right idea :D

Then the country would fall around us if everyone were locked up in our homes. With everyone locked in their houses nothing could ever get done. The only thing I agree with you is that there would be fewer terror attacks if everyone was locked up in their houses, mainly because no one could get out to commit them.

Basically though you have taken a viable solution of a statistacally proven result and compared it to an outcome that would never realistacally take place. Wearing a seat belt isn't difficult and if you think it is I sincerely hope you have an easy life. Thing is we conform to follow many laws enacted by local and federal government. We don't allow fellow citizens and ourselves to commit certain acts that we feel are harmful to the whole. It gets to become a thin line when we decide what is enough and waht is too far. Most of the arguments I hear here (in all the TSA threads) though are, remember I said most not all, blanket statements that make no real argument.

In the end its not even that I necassarily disagree, my views differ a bit, but that not very many people take the time to try and cinvince you or bring you over to their side. Its mostly oh hey you dont agree with me? screw you you terrorist scum, you let the torroists win, you live in fear you pussy. you preach freedom of speech then slam people for expressing their beliefs. I'm glad you guys can form your own opions or follow others but when did it become worng to disagree and insult others for doing so?

Do you have any statistics what so ever to prove that there are less terror attacks with airplanes involved in the U.S with the enhanced pat downs and new screening system, compared to the old pat down and metal detectors?

I know that's a stupid question, but ypu're the one talking about statistics.

Statisticly, you're more likely to get killed by walking to the grocery store than it is to have your flight hi-jacked by terrorists, with or without the new system.

1. Yes
2. I agree the insurance companies are businesses and they only want money. Other than conjecture and opinion prove to me they are responsible for enacting the laws.
3. So you beleive adult citizens should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want?
4. Your shorsighted if you think all the actions you take only affect yourself. There are many everyday things we do that affect others.

My thing is you haven't listed any examples solutions to any of these problems. Its mostly let me do what I want and damn the consequences. Above you just agreed that I had a point with the drinking and driving but noted that that effects more than just myself. In many cases it does so are you saying that if an action we take affects more than just ourselves it is just to make a law against it? but if something only affects ourselves we should be allowed to do it no matter, and without consequence?

Not passing judgement just trying to get a feel where you stand on these issues.

Oh and one more thing like I asked before, is it really that hard or that big of an inconvenience to wear a seat belt?