• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whole Body Scan vs. Your Privacy: How Far Is Too Far?

The airlines won't get hurt. Here's what would happen if the airlines lost a lot of money due to people not flying. The government would take more of our money to support and subsidize the airline industry so they don't go under. More people will die because more people will choose to drive over fly. That's it. More dead and more stolen money. That's all that would happen if this really caused people to not fly.
 
Ikari said:
The airlines won't get hurt. Here's what would happen if the airlines lost a lot of money due to people not flying. The government would take more of our money to support and subsidize the airline industry so they don't go under. More people will die because more people will choose to drive over fly. That's it. More dead and more stolen money. That's all that would happen if this really caused people to not fly.
Click to expand...

The airline industry would shrink, period. No amount of government aid would fill the seats; they might throw money at the airlines for a while to keep them afloat, but the airlines would eventually have to downsize, and some would go out of business. They would lose some of their control, giving them a valid complaint: the government would essentially be hurting the companies and then taking advantage of the resulting weakness.

Besides, should one bad idea be propped up by yet another? How about just avoiding that whole mess of extra subsidies by reining in the TSA?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Try paying attention, you said:

Notice the underlined part? Nothing correct or proactive can come from our government because political parties scrutinize every action for opportunity to bash the other side. We can only "patch" things because anything big or new is beaten down and turned into a "patch".

Fine, we spend 12 hours training and pay them a little more than minimum wage. My point is, and I thought at least that part was clear, that we can't have good screeners like Al El because we don't like to pay people.
Click to expand...
You don't have a point do you? Just a really sophomoric stance, which leaves you as unable to come up with a realistic logical point as you say the TSA is unable to come up with salary for well trained security experts. Thanks be to God for the highly visible ability to dissemble and make excuses for keeping the status quo. Run along junior.

EnigmaO01 said:
This post of yours was short enough to know I needed to report it. ;)
Click to expand...
How did that work out for you? Chuckle.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks.
 
I'm all for body scanning, after passengers have been singled out because of other indicators that they may be a threat. I think body scanning a 15 y/o cheerleader from Jackson Hole, Wyoming and an 80 y/o Maw-maw from Commanche Gap, Texas is a diabolical waste of time and will only weaken the system.
 
Z3n said:
What happens when a scandanavian white woman has the items to construct a dirty bomb in her backpack, and all the racially profiled arabs have to wait in line while she blows up a plane?

What makes people think Al-Qaeda are only arab men?
Click to expand...

Exactly naked is the only way.I have no problem with scandanavian women getting naked.
 
epieikeia said:
The airline industry would shrink, period. No amount of government aid would fill the seats; they might throw money at the airlines for a while to keep them afloat, but the airlines would eventually have to downsize, and some would go out of business. They would lose some of their control, giving them a valid complaint: the government would essentially be hurting the companies and then taking advantage of the resulting weakness.

Besides, should one bad idea be propped up by yet another? How about just avoiding that whole mess of extra subsidies by reining in the TSA?
Click to expand...

Then again...

...

the federal government wastes tons of tax dollars propping up Amtrak, even though the LOSSES on the run from Los Angeles to San Antonio are $342, or TWICE what it costs to fly.

The government will prop up AmPlane, don't you worry. Or maybe it will be called Amflot, or some such, but taking over the airlines is certainly a chapter in the Messiah Manual of Spreading the Manure...er Wealth, after the Steal Healthcare Chapter.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then again...

...

the federal government wastes tons of tax dollars propping up Amtrak, even though the LOSSES on the run from Los Angeles to San Antonio are $342, or TWICE what it costs to fly.

The government will prop up AmPlane, don't you worry. Or maybe it will be called Amflot, or some such, but taking over the airlines is certainly a chapter in the Messiah Manual of Spreading the Manure...er Wealth, after the Steal Healthcare Chapter.
Click to expand...

The government owns Amtrak. It does not own airlines. And if it did start pouring funds into them to keep them running, it would still downsize them in the process, because otherwise there would just be a lot of empty planes flying around. I'm not saying that the government would allow airports to go without airplanes; they would ensure that at least some airlines survived, but they would also have fewer flights and smaller planes.

Again, pumping in more money is not the same as getting more customers.
 
Scanning everyone who flies on an airplane is an over reaction. The reason we are considering full body scans and god knows what else is so you can feel safe fling and not offend anyone.

Terrorists may be un-scrup-you-les but they are not masters of disguise. You check people who are young, fit, angry and look like they can pull something off. Check them. Offended them. If terrorists have recruited grandma, or your 8 year old, they deserve to win.

Now lets look at a risk benefit annalist here. How many people fly? A lot. How many planes are flying around? A lot. What are the chances that your plane is going to be flown into a building? Not very.

Can we all stop over reacted, and come up with ideas that may not radicalize people to the point where they not only want to end their lives and take as many people with them, but can take the time, effort and expend the money to learn how to counter every measure we come up with as fast as we can spend our money doing it?
 
Sir Loin said:
You don't have a point do you? Just a really sophomoric stance, which leaves you as unable to come up with a realistic logical point as you say the TSA is unable to come up with salary for well trained security experts. Thanks be to God for the highly visible ability to dissemble and make excuses for keeping the status quo. Run along junior.
Click to expand...
My point is that, in this country we can never do the right thing, we always have to do the expedient or cheap thing (which is always more expensive in the long run). It's quicker and cheaper to pay someone from the Philippines $10 an hour to wave a wand and run a scanner than to spend the time and money on getting intelligent and well trained screeners to correctly profile people.
 
Fly "Freedom Airlines"---Buy yer ticket, for cheap, get on board and take yer chances. Guns optional.---sign me up.
 
I deduce that it should only b used on suspected terrorists. And fugitives.
 
It is invasive, but I understand the person viewing the scan will be in another room remote from the scan location.. and the scan will not show the face, only from the neck down.

Suspect though, the queue of volunteers for scanning duty will be longer than the queue of scanees, men being what they are.:shock:
 
The problem is nothing will work all these actions are reactive rather than proactive.A shoe bomber comes everyone now takes of their shoes its pointless its never gonna happen again.Do you not think terrorists cant just find out the rules and follow them?

If you want that kind of thing why not go through naked? I go swimming most weeks and i get naked before and after.
 
mikhail said:
The problem is nothing will work all these actions are reactive rather than proactive.A shoe bomber comes everyone now takes of their shoes its pointless its never gonna happen again.Do you not think terrorists cant just find out the rules and follow them?

If you want that kind of thing why not go through naked? I go swimming most weeks and i get naked before and after.
Click to expand...

I agree, terrorists aren't stupid people. Whenever we change our security, they will try to find new ways around it.
 
It is impossible to predict what a determined person will do next. Just say your Prayers and face each day like you have a pair.---Fear is never a good thing to give in to.
 
AgentM said:
I agree, terrorists aren't stupid people. Whenever we change our security, they will try to find new ways around it.
Click to expand...
Skateguy said:
It is impossible to predict what a determined person will do next.
Click to expand...
Pretty much why the TSA will always be one step behind. By the time a terrorist arrives at the airport he's already reconnoitered the security set-up and already knows how to bypass it.
 
AgentM said:
I agree, terrorists aren't stupid people.
Click to expand...

Yeah they are. This guy couldn't light is pants on fire. And they haven't figured out that they'd be well more successful in bombing the TSA line itself than to try to bring down a plane.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah they are. This guy couldn't light is pants on fire. And they haven't figured out that they'd be well more successful in bombing the TSA line itself than to try to bring down a plane.
Click to expand...
I still can't figure out why he didn't go to the lav, disable the smoke alarm, take off his shorts and light them there. Nobody would have bothered him most likely.
 
samsmart said:
I should preface my comment by saying that I have never flown in my life because of a fear of flying, and don't ever plan to.
Click to expand...
Is it a fear of heights? I'm terrified of heights but flying doesn't phase me and I do it all the time.
 
danarhea said:
Like I said, this has nothing to do with the government coming into your home without your consent. You have a choice - Get on a plane or don't get on it. If you choose to get on the plane, part of the deal is to get the body scan. That is your CHOICE. Nobody is putting a gun to your head.
Click to expand...

Some of us have lives that require us to fly a lot, either for personal or business reasons, I'd like to be able to continue doing that without being forced to take this scan. For some people its not a choice of get on or don't, its a choice between how we like to live our life and a fully body scan.

Personally I think its unnecessary. The underwear bomber could just put his underwear in a carry on bag, they havent changed the carry-on scanners yet. At least they havent said they have publicly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom