NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners + More

so skepticism of ones government is paranoia?

did you forget the 50 other TSA threads?
I dunno about your question.
But I'd imagine a fully fueld jumbo would be a lot more devastating than an lolfrench plane that had just flown over the atlantic.
Your question is just a set up assuming that I disagree with you.
I don't in terms of the "nanny-state"(i like that phrase, first chance to use it), but the sensationalism and misinformation is what I'm arguing about.
I discuss to make you actually think about the ***you say, and possibly to learn from someone who knows more about the subject than I.
But when you regurgitate the same information again and again it gets kind of old.
Is that a good answer to your question?

yes.
but being skeptical of one thing that should be skepticised and accepting another thing as fact(the hoax picture), is where I draw the line.
It's absolutely stupid to distrust one facet of society without giving other facets(the media conservative/liberal all of it)some question as well.

Paranoia: baseless:
I say the claims are groundless because they are hinged upon his personal feelings of mistrust of the government.
so yes it is paranoid.

you can correlate other things explaining why you have those personal feelings, but without knowing for sure either way you have to "trust" the information to an extent.
I go with the "take it with a grain of salt approach."

[/quote]
[/quote]

But I'd imagine a fully fueld jumbo would be a lot more devastating than an lolfrench plane that had just flown over the atlantic.

[/quote]

Dunno if I am quoting this right so sorry if I am not.
But..

I did not know that France only had 'lolfrench' planes.. People in France must not travel much if 'jumbo' planes only exist in America.. Man, now I know why the terrorists only target the U.S.

:s Sorry.

[/quote]

But I'd imagine a fully fueld jumbo would be a lot more devastating than an lolfrench plane that had just flown over the atlantic.

[/quote]

Dunno if I am quoting this right so sorry if I am not.
But..

I did not know that France only had 'lolfrench' planes.. People in France must not travel much if 'jumbo' planes only exist in America.. Man, now I know why the terrorists only target the U.S.

:s Sorry. [/quote]
so they don't burn up ANY fuel when they fly over the atlantic?
those are some amazing planes.
I guess I shouldn't have poked fun at the french, or you wouldn't have got all bent out of shape and got a chance to complain about the syntax.
do you agree that a plane with a full tank of fuel would be more damaging than a plane that does not have a full tank of fuel?
because that was the point I was trying to make that you apparently missed.

You do realize that some planes do have to land to refuel, correct? And I also guess that a plane flying from let's say.. California to New York or so would not burn ANY fuel at all?

Edit:

And lol@ you thinking I am getting bent out of shape, that is far from the truth.

I've still only posted that pic (or link to that pic) in one thread. And since it seems you've been following me through these threads, you should know already that I've said "I wouldn't mind running naked with a *** through the damn airport". I've also said I don't care about these things for myself, I'm going to america aprox 1 time per year, so it doesnt effect me that much.

It's the principle. And by any kind of logic, what TSA is doing is pointless, hence my rethorical question about a terrorist boarding a plane in another country.

And as other have stated before, there's millions of ways to take over a plane, scanning/pat downs only covers a small part.

And you have to ask yourself what's next? People still use car bombs, as well as other explosives. By the PRO TSA ppl's logic, you'd have to scan/pat down people enetering a grocery store, or a mall, or a kindergarden.

No matter what you do on airports, there are other ways and places people can bomb if that's what they really want. If the "next terror attack" occours on a bridge, you gonna have TSA agents monitor every bridge, scanning/pat down people before they drive over the bridge?

So it's ok for the government to be paranoid and start searching random people they feel "may be turrists."

Yeah I guess so. It must be only those lolfrench planes that run on fuel though.

As for this, there are other countries than the U.S on the continent, other countries with airplanes...that has fuel. Not all planes that enters the U.S from another country has just been flown over the atlantic.

yeah but we weren't talking about any plane.
apparently we have some important landmarks on the west coast that must be flown to....
>.>
<.<
I guess if your terrorist wants to make a long flight, sure he could come from france.
but If I were suicide-bombing with a plane and had to spend time with americans for hours upon hours upon hours in a box that whole flight would be the longest damn flight of my life, do you agree on that?
but really this whole part of the discussion is beside the point. :/

Zanno I'm not sure if you're reading my posts.


1) I showed you that the pictures you posted were a hoax, your above post is leading me to believe that you are refusing to recognize that the pictures were fake. Due to some possible conspiracy that the TSA would try and hide the truth of the pictures. Is this the case?
2) It's not like I am someone who wrote letters to the TSA asking for more strict security measures, I am just someone who is not against the new scanners. I have no problems with them. I've walked through one, I'm ok with them.
3) That website you think it would be foolish to visit answered your question already:

TSA details about flights inbound to the US

Q. What changes can the traveling public expect? What can passengers traveling on flights to the U.S. from international destinations expect?
A. On any given day, passengers traveling on flights to the U.S. from international destinations may notice enhanced, random security measures throughout the passenger check-in and boarding process. Aviation security is a shared responsibility and countries around the world are working together to increase the safety of air travel. Passengers traveling on flights to the U.S. from international last point of departure destinations are likely to notice enhanced measures including the increased use of the technology and processes such as explosives trace detection, canine teams, advanced imaging technology, and behavior detection among other measures.

For security reasons, the specific details of the directives are not public.

Q. Which countries are affected by the new directives?
A. The security measures apply to all passengers on international flights flying directly to the U.S. worldwide.

there ya go tweek, i did not know that.
there's my answer for the french plane idea.

nope, like to put words in my mouth?
i am against the whole TSA search thing if you had even read this damn thread.
but that doesn't automatically mean that we have to see eye to eye just because we agree on one thing.
i think there needs to be more lady tourists.

There was another thread on here a year or 2 back. People were arguing about weapon laws.

The majority of the americans on here went "DONT YOU DARE TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON! BY DOING THAT YOU TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!!!"

It's funny to see how some people prioritize freedom.

It's ok to invade my privacy, fondling my children and wife, just as long as you don't take my gun.

Now if you'll excuse me, since I live in LOLEurope, where we obviously don't have any freedom what so ever, I'm going to have to go to bed. Gotta be on time and work for the comunists in the morning :(


If only I were allowed to carry a gun *sadface.png*

Sorry, meant for that to be a rhetorical question, not a statement.

Just pointing out the double-standard that one cannot be skeptic/paranoid of the government, but the government can be intrusive as it wishes because of it's skepticism/paranoia.

yup, I wasn't denying that the government is overly paranoid, just that being overly paranoid doesn't really help as we see how it doesn't help with the government.

yeah brah, you gotta use those fists of the north star brah!
I myself think it really depends on the appropriate situation.
bringing a gun to a knife fight is a bad faux pas.
i like guns though.
as well as i like other things that are less legal than guns.
the U.S. has never really been about rights, more like privileges.
you hear people going on about rights all the time.
but these "rights" are just privileges and they've been privileges for a long time.

Zanno, I like you, you helped me learn a lot about NIN and melee... however that's twice you've asked me questions, I provided sound answers and you have completely ignored my responses.

I am not being aggressive, or confrontational. ***, I'm not even talking about pat downs, I'm just trying to understand why people are scared of scanners.

Unless the person with the knife is more skilled than the person with a gun.

There was a shooting at a bar me and my friends were at this past weekend, and the guy unloaded his entire clip. He didn't hit a single *** person. I'd imagine the person with the knife might win this one.

because they can't trust the government is pretty much the answer.
but getting on a big government mandated flying box seems pretty trusting to me.


there's that crazy inner stuff that mabs talking about :P
i know my gun would beat a knife depending on how close I was though. :P

but essentially if you have a problem with "Americans" having guns that essentially makes you have a problem with the legislature that gave us this "right" to bear arms, and if you pick apart that you pretty much have to pick apart everything else and that's where it gets complicated :/
all i know is that it'd be pretty hard to successfully govern so many people :/

completely related video:

People are scared because, no matter how you look at it, you're losing freedoms and, historically, you never get those freedoms back. It's not like in 20 yrs the government is gonna up and say "war on terror is over, no more scans or pat downs to board your flight."

Just like they did when they outlawed alcohol right?
I always forget that alcohol is illegal in the states since they never give ***back. I was silly to assume otherwise.
Paranoia is legitimate.
But my Grandma in her 70's doesn't really need to give a ***about the TSA, she hasn't been in an airport period and I doubt she ever will.
The fear isn't the bad part.
It's the fear-mongering that the media is constantly pushing that is the problem for me.
Does that mean I agree with the TSA and support them(to anyone who replies to this who just got in but decided to not read the rest of the thread), No.
I think the pat-downs are stupid.
I think the scanner is stupid to an extent, metal detector is just fine.
But I think the overstated fear of the scanner is stupid.

why would you trust a government that obviously dont trust you?