https://twitter.com/RepRonPaul/status/4945382488416256#

i'm starting to like this ron paul guy

Ron Paul: Saving our Testicles from the TSA

Ron Paul: He's no punk - he's protecting our junk!

What?? This honor goes to the War of 1812. Way to rewrite history lol.

Just with people being aware that their plane being flown into a building is actually a possiblity they would not be able to. 9/11 was a one time thing. Once they changed the "rules" of plane hijacking like that, it became impossible to repeat.

FYMeter

I have a fairly standard question that applies to government intervention like this. Other posters alluded to it yesterday but I would really like to see one of these knuckleheads like Pistone answer it. The question is what is the marginal benefit from doing this in quantitative terms? Put another way, the chances of flight being blown up are very low, how much will these measure decrease the frequency at which a plane is blown up? I'm guessing there's little benefit at the margin. If a question like this isn't considered then what is the basis for doing this? I'd like to know and I'm fairly certain the answer isn't all that comforting. I'm fairly certain that this is a "seat of the pants" type decision where some bureaucrat used their "logic" and came up with this idea and has no clue if there's any marginal benefit let alone quantify the benefit. Is there any chance that these changes in passenger screening increased the probability a plane could be blown up by someone?

I'm not sure anyone can argue that this machine would be more effective against the underwear bomber than the explosive-sniffing puff machines that were already in use and that aren't nearly the same invasion of privacy. The puff machines would also have a chance of being effective against anally or vaginally concealed explosives.

ffs wookie, make a proper Haiku if you're gonna do this.

70% was reported by FOX back b4 the invasion, if I remember correctly. However, that was a poll of FOX viewers.
this link (if you scroll down to Jan03): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular...vasion_of_Iraq

The Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made, which was a jump from 47% just prior the speech. However, many more Republicans than Democrats watched the speech, so this may not be an accurate reflection of the overall opinion of the American public.

So my bad........I used FOX reporting in this instance, when I know damn well FOX is biased.

said already but clearly what allowed them to get away with it was that in the past hostage takers always diverted the plane to an airport to make demands. this is what made that day so extraordinary, it was a shocking departure. and it's why the last flight was unsuccesful.

Well, of course, but planes don't get diverted without some sort of weapon as a threat. Even pre-9/11, you couldn't just stand up on a flight from LAX to LGA and declare "I'm taking this plane to Puerto Vallarta!" in the hopes of getting a cheaper vacation and expect everyone to comply unless you threatened them with something that would kill them if they didn't.

The hijackers of at least one plane used the plane's intercom to threaten the passengers with a "bomb". I think it's unlikely there actually was a bomb, but the threat of one was enough to keep the passengers in the first 3 planes docile enough. So at least pre-9/11, it may not have been necessary to have an actual weapon as long as you could gain access to the cockpit and subdue the pilots.

What bureaucrat would that be? The decision to take these steps had to come from the highest levels-- certainly higher than Pistone.

Or do you think it was somebody at his level or lower and now with the **** storm that this is creating they are circling the wagons?

thank you- much improved

Not sure who it came from. Le'ts say you're right it came from a higher level than Pistone, do you think that they can answer the question as to how much it decreases the frequency at which a plane will be blown up? I have my doubts and if they can't answer that question what was the basis for making their decision? If they just "reasoned" it would be safer that's a seat of the pants decision and I do consider Napolitano a bureaucrat.

has anyone been watching the CSPAN thing, did ron paul speak yet?

Well, I don't think their motives are about increasing safety but if they were, then that would obviously be something impossible to quantify.

if he already spoke im going to kill someone, this is the most mind numbing **** to watch.

votes so far:

1) vote to rename a post office after someone
2) vote to congratulate a football coach for his 400th win


jfc.

I doubt that approval ratings were anywhere near 70% nationally. Folks in "the west" (Ohio etc.) mostly favored the war, but much of New England was strongly against it. And iirc, war fervor was spotty in the south.

its irrelevent. Because the safeguards protect for something they've done. It doesn't protect from what they'll do next.

Someone made a simple point... the next time a terrorist might strap a bomb on themselves and blow up a few hundred people waiting in line with their shoes in their hand waiting to be scanned.

Just came to this thread to post exactly this. I turned it on before 3pm EST so I'm guessing he hasn't spoken yet.

BUt seriously WTF IS WRONG WITH CONGRESS?!?! The best was when a rep from California was going to speak about banning some chemical from children's food but started with a 3 min talk about the SF Giants. She obv knew nothing about baseball. But even the **** that's on now is such fing ********. Resolution to "condemn" (ya meaningless words) Burma's elections... now bs stories of valor from first persian gulf war.

do these people understand that there are actual problems facing americans which they could be addressing? its ****ing incredible.

NOW SOME GUY IS JUST REMINISCING JFC