Rapescan

[Firecrest]

Tell me how many thieves your car alarm has caught. Yet there it is, a little flashing light on your dash telling predators to stay the fuck away.

Actually, having spoken to a thief or two on the matter, all a car alarm tells you is that knocking out a window's gonna be a bit noisier, and also that the owner probably has nice things inside. Honestly, when was the last time you heard a car alarm and said, "Oh man, someone's breaking into a vehicle!" instead of, "goddamn noisy motherfuckers" and then not investigating?

You trying to tell me that car alarms don't deter thieves? That given the choice between two cars, a thief is equally as likely to break into one that has a security system as one without? Not sure I'm buying.

In any event, my point was that deterrence is a valuable but hard to measure asset.

Park in the ghetto with your car unlocked at midnight, no matter how advanced your car alarm system is your car is getting jacked.

This doesn't even make sense. What would be the point of getting a security system and then leaving my car unlocked? What would be the difference between an unlocked car with an inactive security system and a car without a system in the first place?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Are you likening the whole of the US to a ghetto? Or is the unlocked car the US and the ghetto the TSA? Or are you just drug addled?

[jackslammer]

Park in the ghetto with your car unlocked at midnight, no matter how advanced your car alarm system is your car is getting jacked.

This doesn't even make sense. What would be the point of getting a security system and then leaving my car unlocked? What would be the difference between an unlocked car with an inactive security system and a car without a system in the first place?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Are you likening the whole of the US to a ghetto? Or is the unlocked car the US and the ghetto the TSA? Or are you just drug addled?

The point is no amount of money or security will make your car "safe" if you leave your car unlocked and in a dark infrequently patrolled area of city with high crime. These scanners don't do shit but make people feel safer and put money in the pockets of clients of the previous Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff's security firm.

Ron Paul has the right idea with his The American Traveler Dignity Act dealing with the TSA and he argues it should be airliners responsibility to provide security. Are Ron Paul and I risking the safety of Americans because we want to pay less for flights and pay less taxes to skip the pointless full body scanner with an airliner of our choice? Is my car at risk because I don't waste money on an alarm system for my car but instead I just lock it and am assertive to where I park it? One could claim that my car even parked in a safe area, and locked, would still be safer with the additional security of an alarm system but what if I find it negligible? The additional security of full body scanners has yet to be proven as are the health risks so why are we forced to pay for it and be blasted with radiation or be molested?

And the bottom line to increasing the security of our airlines would be profiling as most of the world already does, that would be analogous to parking my car in a safe area, but I'd be offending neighborhoods by not parking on their "ghetto" streets. :doh:

[Firecrest]

Ron Paul has the right idea

Quoting for posterity.

[Sanderz]

Ron Paul has the right idea with his The American Traveler Dignity Act dealing with the TSA and he argues it should be airliners responsibility to provide security. Are Ron Paul and I risking the safety of Americans because we want to pay less for flights and pay less taxes to skip the pointless full body scanner with an airliner of our choice?

You can't have both Jack. Unless of course you want to subsidize the airline industry even more but then you'd be paying more taxes.

[jackslammer]

You can't have both Jack. Unless of course you want to subsidize the airline industry even more but then you'd be paying more taxes.

There has to be some way to let fliers decide what constitutes security rather than Michael Chertoff's security firm.

[Firecrest]

You can't have both Jack. Unless of course you want to subsidize the airline industry even more but then you'd be paying more taxes.

There has to be some way to let fliers decide what constitutes security rather than Michael Chertoff's security firm.

I think the problem is this word "let". Airlines are companies. That means profit first. You can't "let" them manage security and hope they don't cut corners. You have to -make- them do so. And the only organization that can make an airline do anything is the federal government.

[lawlerbation the hardcore squatter]

consumers dictate who receives their payments

if the consumer thinks that airline a doesnt secure their flights well enough they choose airline b

[jackslammer]

You can't have both Jack. Unless of course you want to subsidize the airline industry even more but then you'd be paying more taxes.

There has to be some way to let fliers decide what constitutes security rather than Michael Chertoff's security firm.

I think the problem is this word "let". Airlines are companies. That means profit first. You can't "let" them manage security and hope they don't cut corners. You have to -make- them do so. And the only organization that can make an airline do anything is the federal government.

I honestly don't think airliners would cut corners at the risk of having their fliers, plane, reputation, etc. all exploded by a terrorist and the government can still do their job of intelligence and surveillance without scanners. Israel, which is known for having the toughest and safest airports in the world, stops and investigates suspicious people nearby airports and on the road to the airport and uses no scanners in order to respect ahahahaha Muslims ahahahaha! :lol:

I'm done. Defending Ron Paul and Israel, something is wrong.

[lawlerbation the hardcore squatter]

ron paul doesnt need defending

his outspoken ideas and stance on recent legislation all speak for them selfs louder then any oregon based hippy could

[jackslammer]

ron paul doesnt need defending

his outspoken ideas and stance on recent legislation all speak for them selfs louder then any oregon based hippy could

I believe Ron Paul would be much better suited as a member of the Cato institute rather than the House of Representatives.