Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

reply to post by charlyv

I will supply you with a DD214, that says that I am US Government Property, and that I have an investment in the US Government, and Yes, I am a part owner in the US Government".

I would be interested to see your DD214 that identifies you as part owner of the US Government. However I am confused by the statement that you are the property of something you claim to be a partial owner of.

I will also advise you to read the Constitution before you get on your almighty soap box, and brush up on the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" while you are at it.

I don't believe the UNITED STATES Government to be acting under Constitutional law. Maybe you can give me a synopsis of the "Uniform Code of Military Justice".

As far as a corporation?
The US Government is NOT a corporation, not by any means, and especially, any legal means. You need some political and HISTORICAL education.

Actually departments within the US Government are most certainly corporations. But regardless I never stated the US Government was itself a corporation. However the UNITED STATES is a Corporation.

Originally posted by Lillydale


LOL, awesome. Perhaps your friends will understand context better than you and come read what that was a reply to and actually get it.

What do you think there is to 'get'?

That you believe you have right to infringe on the rights of other people?

-Because that is what the context shows.

You clearly stated that you believe you have a right to steal tobacco product from the individual who own's the gas station and that by making you pay for them, you somehow think that they are impeding your right to commit theft

You say "my right to smoke" as if you believe you actually have a right to smoke other people's cigarettes (if you did this without asking or payment, that would be theft; and infringement on another's rights)

Yup! Just like the gas station is impeding my right to smoke cigarettes by making me pay for them.

There is something wrong with you if you think you have a right to steal and then smoke other people's cigarettes...

Yes, it was an unintelligent statement and not a true one

So now that we know you don't tell the truth - how are we supposed to ever trust you again....

I'm not even sure if you were lying when you said you weren't making a true statement.




[edit on 10-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Tifozi

...but I don't accept being called coward, moron, idiot, incompetent, by kids on a computer (not direct to you, and many others, just some which I didn't even reply to) who don't have any ideia how the world goes around, how safe they really are, and what risks they are saved from, every day

Don't agree with name calling over the net for any reason. Although
your message was directed at me, I know you didn't I know couldn't
have meant me.
We do agree on this. I prefer a much more positive route to making my case.

Of course I also see what you are saying. I refuse to lose any part of
what so many died for to make this place what it is today.
I don't even have to ask if you see this point.
I can tell you do.

I would go on a one man rampage myself if I thought those who died
lonely horrible deaths for us, were someday cast aside and forgotten.

I don't even have any ancestors lost to any wars recently.
So that is just pure patriotism. I just really care about those that have died
and couldn't stand for that to end up being in vain someday.
That would mean that none of us even deserve their sacrifice.
I say f---- that all the way to the deepest hell. You understand, I know.

Man I keep getting pepper in my eyes.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by Lillydale

This is what you believe because you are paranoid based on nothing.

That is the same way I feel about those who are constantly calling for increased security measures when the statistics show that the likely source of my demise is on the other end of the Pareto.


You are very frustrating to have a conversation with due to your constant contradictions. You stated this:

This is capitalist America.

Then I disagree and you state this:

Than you now understand that this has never been a capitalist country I guess.

You do the same thing again here:

No, slaves are not free.

But didn't you state slaves were free here:

You mean the definition you asked me for and then referred to within the same post? I am not sure how being a slave would fit any definition I have not given you YET and I find it amazing that you can be so psychic. Yes, they are free, just as we all are.

Never mind. I really don't care. Either way it sounds like the difference in opinion stems from the difference in how we view freedom. My view of freedom seems to vastly differ from your view. It seems that as long as you are not impeded or as long as you think I should have to be submitted to security check points that means we are all free.

Despite the fact that you admit that if all forms of travel were impeded that you would not be free you believe that up until that last impediment is in place you are free. I disagree.

You also indicate that you believe we are free yet then admit that Government is in "everything everywhere". Again I don't believe that to be indicative of freedom.

But hey you are entitled to your "freedom".

Edit to add:

I think the quotes in my signature are very relevant to your "freedom".



[edit on 10-1-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by harvib
You do the same thing again here:

For the third time now, that was in the context of you already voicing your opinion on an answer you had not gotten. I clearly stated that since you were going to comment on the answer before you even had the answer then fine, have this crappy non-answer and play with it all you like. Now should I explain it a 4th time? You are frustrating because you do not seem to remember from one post to the next what was being said. You asked me something. Then you commented on the answer within that same post. You see, I DID NOT GET TO ANSWER YET and still you had your opinion of my answer all ready to go. I told you that your opinion of an answer you had not yet gotten was equal to this crappy answer that in that context - yep slaves are free. Please pay attention to context when reading, it really does help.

As far as being capitalist...that is absolutely debatable. I am trying to understand your line of thinking here. Personally, I never once believed this was a true capitalist society but then by rigid standards, we are not really a true any of the things we claim to be. For some reason, people like you keep yelling at me that this is a capitalist country and the government has no right to do this or that. I say BS. It never has been and they always have. If you are not one of those capitalist shouters, then I apologize for confusing you there. Clear now?

Never mind. I really don't care. Either way it sounds like the difference in opinion stems from the difference in how we view freedom. My view of freedom seems to vastly differ from your view. It seems that as long as you are not impeded or as long as you think I should have to be submitted to security check points that means we are all free.

No. THAT is exactly what is wrong with your argument right there. "should have to be subjected to." You do not see the problem there? Your view of freedom seems to end with your credit line. Mine does not. No one is going to force either one of us to subject to anything. You are still perfectly free to choose your method of travel. Airplanes have been around a very short time and people have been getting around for a very long time. Were their freedoms being impeded all those years? How do you know they will not eventually invent teleports. Then you can say that just having to use a plane is impeding your freedom because you could have gotten there even faster if you could use the teleport instead. You are free to travel all you like. You have to go through certain security checks to involve yourself with the public and enjoy the comforts of a privately run business. That is how it works. You have to be certain things in order to enjoy certain things. It has always been that way. You have to be safe to use a plane now. That in no way restricts your freedom to travel.

Despite the fact that you admit that if all forms of travel were impeded that you would not be free you believe that up until that last impediment is in place you are free. I disagree.

I never said any such thing. I am not waiting for the last impediment, I am waiting for the first. So far, nothing has gotten in the way of my freedom to move my body from point A to point B. I am as free to do it today as I was 30 years ago and as my ancestors were through all time.

Where we disagree is in what you call freedom, is actually privilege and you do not see the difference.

You also indicate that you believe we are free yet then admit that Government is in "everything everywhere". Again I don't believe that to be indicative of freedom.

I guess it depends on how far you want to take that argument. I am free to do anything I want to myself on my property with my own property. You are not? It is in going outside where there are other people that make up society that suddenly there are rules and regulations. I can fry with all the trans fats I want and my freedom to obtain enough heroin to OD on is only as impeded as my freedom to drive a car on public roads. I am not free to smoke in movie theaters anymore. I guess that is where you would see your freedom to smoke being impeded. I see it as other people's rights to not have to die from it being enforced. Someone wins, someone loses. That is society and it is full of rules. I can still leave that society at any time I choose via travel or too many chicken wings over a lifetime.

What you consider freedom involves other people's freedoms as well as privately run business you must patronize. Do you not see how your freedom can get bumped to the back of the line when you are not the only person that exists?


[edit on 1/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by rnaa
My wife suggested the other day that airlines should just give us all a jumpsuit as required wear on the plane. We would change into the provided clothes and our street wear could then be thoroughly searched and returned at the other end. While we are changing, under the watch full eyes of security guards it can be ensured that we aren't concealing anything under our clothes. She hasn't come up with a solution for cavity searches yet, but I imagine a walkthrough XRay machine would fit the bill.

As ridiculous as this might sound at least your wife is being fair. Her idea requires everyone to make equal sacrifices for their own safety.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
When I'm on a plane, I want the people responsible for that plane to know what's on the other passengers' bodies.

That's easy to say until your the one taken off for further inspection. Look at it from my perspective. We're always held up at security. I know my husband is safe. I stand there watching everyone else go by and guess what? I don't know one damn thing about each of you. I only see the complete waste of time & resources going on right in front of me with my hubby. They are so focused on him who might they be missing?

Originally posted by harvib
I for one will not fill safe until every individual is given a full cavity search.

This is what I'm saying. Those in favor of scanners only care to get themselves through security faster. This mentality has helped set in motion the procedures we are now seeing. You support the system then show your full support be the first to volunteer for the "more thorough search." Take your turn getting hung up in the security system you helped create. If it's so worth it just to feel safe then get in line behind those actually making the bigger sacrifice for the safety of all. Don't ask my husband to do anything you wouldn't be more than willing to do first.

Just remember once you commit yourself to walking through their scanner there's no turning back. Don't be so confident that you won't set off the alarms. Could be just a human error. Too bad for you. It will be too late to plead your case or make other travel arrangements. They won't just let you go. In their mind you are now a suspected terrorist. It will be a hard lesson learned by some naive people. Like the guy who ducked away from security who was dropping off his girlfriend. I saw them taking him away in handcuffs.
www.nytimes.com...
They take this stuff serious.

reply to post by Lillydale

I clearly stated that since you were going to comment on the answer before you even had the answer then fine, have this crappy non-answer and play with it all you like.

I missed your disclaimer that you were going to give me a "non-answer". It is a waste of time to have a debate with someone who is going to give "non-answers" and I don't seem to have the ability to discern the difference between your answers and your "non-answers" that I am to "play with".

You are still perfectly free to choose your method of travel.

Sigh... I was going to end the discussion at the last post but I am too fascinated by your definition of freedom. I just hope I can get an answer and not a "non-answer".

Just out of curiosity. If they instituted cavity checks for all individuals that were going to fly both public and private would you still believe that a free choice? At what level of invasion is it no longer a free choice?

Where we disagree is in what you call freedom, is actually privilege and you do not see the difference.

You realize that a privileged has to be granted by someone right? You aren't free if someone has the ability to grant you a privilege. I hate to break it to you, but you are in no way shape or form living in a free society.

and my freedom to obtain enough heroin to OD on is only as impeded as my freedom to drive a car on public roads.

What? You don't have the freedom to obtain heroin. It is considered illegal by those whose jurisdiction you submit too. Even what you put in your own body is regulated. But hey I guess freedom means "to be protected".

Do you not see how your freedom can get bumped to the back of the line when you are not the only person that exists?

A freedom can not get "bumped". That is not a freedom.

Originally posted by harvib

I missed your disclaimer that you were going to give me a "non-answer". It is a waste of time to have a debate with someone who is going to give "non-answers" and I don't seem to have the ability to discern the difference between your answers and your "non-answers" that I am to "play with".

Yeah um...there is a reason there was no "disclaimer." Because you offered your opinion on an answer that you never even waited to get. When you do something like that, what do you really expect for an answer?

Why should I waste my time giving you a real logical thought out answer when you ALREADY TOLD ME WHAT YOU THINK OF THE ANSWER I HAVE YET TO GIVE?

That is the 4th time now. Please tell me you get it this time. You asked me something. You then followed that question with an opinion of my answer. You did not have my answer yet, but you still had an opinion on it. That is the 5th time. Are you catching on yet? Seriously, if your level of debate is to ask questions, dismiss the answer before it comes, and then get snippy because you did not like the nonsense you finally did get for an answer...then what do you really expect in return?

I at least showed you the respect of letting you answer any of my questions before I decided whether or not to opine on said answers. U2U me when you finally understand this and maybe I will read the rest of your post.

reply to post by Lillydale

and maybe I will read the rest of your post.

Don't bother. You have no credibility. Apparently if you don't like the way an individual presents an argument you will give "nonsense" and "non-answers". It is not productive.

I was asking you if I got your definition correct. A simple no would have been more productive then giving non-sense. It seems to me that you may have gotten caught contradicting yourself and are now back peddling.

Originally posted by harvib
Don't bother. You have no credibility. Apparently if you don't like the way an individual presents an argument you will give "nonsense" and "non-answers". It is not productive.

I was asking you if I got your definition correct. A simple no would have been more productive then giving non-sense. It seems to me that you may have gotten caught contradicting yourself and are now back peddling.

LOL. Horse dead enough for you yet? Needed a 6th one did ya? I would almost be swayed here by your argument if it were not for the simple act of scrolling up. My post history demonstrates quite well that I am not in the habit of contradicting myself but I am in the habit of being sarcastic. Not my fault there is no font for that. I expect people here to get it.

How it is you do not understand that telling someone their answer is worthless before you even get it, kind of kills the mood to give you a real answer. I (wrongly) assumed by your posts that you have some command of the English Language. I apologize as that is obviously not the case. The word "slave" has a pretty specific definition that is the antithesis of "free." Any thinking person would see a sentence stating slaves are free and think there must be something up there because by definition, the sentence is an impossibility. That thinking person should then think to themselves about how they asked the question this was supposed to answer. When you look back and see that you already told me what my answer was worth before you even got it, I gave you just what you wanted.

Would it really help your case if I conceded this point? You then still have to grapple with the fact that you already told me my answer was crap before I had the chance to even offer one so....why would you expect anything else.

Sorry I assumed you knew the definition of the word slave. Please look it up. You will most certainly see how absurd it would be to say that such a thing so defined is free. Almost as absurd as critiquing someone's response before you even get it.

7 times and a little English lesson to help you out. Perhaps now you can move past that point and attempt to make some sense of a cogent argument. Like I said, U2U me when you get it. Or keep displaying your ignorance on the board by pressing the issue. I refuse to explain an eighth time why you should understand an obviously sarcastic response to a question that was judged before it was answered. If you really want to know my actual answer, you would have waited for me to give it before telling me how worthless it was. Darn, that was 8 right there. I really hope it is sinking in. If you want to know my real answers, ask and then let me answer. If not, then take your completely BS little argument to someone willing to play along and be ridiculed before they even get to answer. I do not play that game, as you can now hopefully understand.

This post will more than likely be ignored. Which is a shame, for I am about to impart a bit of information.

This information will not sit well with most people but, never the less, it is the truth. I have visited this site since it's inception, watched it grow, read the posts, denied the ignorance, kept my mouth shut, agreed, disagreed, laughed, cried, banged my head against the wall in frustration and then come back.

I am not a weather expert. I am not a physics expert. I do not spend my time scouring the internet to prove one thing or another.

When I am not making guitars, I am either blowing things up, or being asked about how to STOP things from blowing up. Legally. For what that is worth.

In short, I have a quick flash to bang time when it comes to explosives.

I would like to make Members aware of a word, a happening and a Thing (ugh) that happens all too much, and that is;

Spectacle.

Many of you will know this and many of you will decry this and I make no apologies for the caps lock:

YOU CAN MAKE AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE GOOD ENOUGH TO BRING A PLANE DOWN, WITH INGREDIENTS OBTAINED FROM THE CAFES, RESTAURANTS, BARS, BOOK SHOPS, PERFUMERIES etc....AFTER YOU CHECK IN.

THESE INGREDIENTS CAN BE TAKEN ON A PLANE EASILY AND ASSEMBLED IN-FLIGHT WITHOUT SUSPICION. EASILY. WITH NO NEED FOR A NAKED FLAME. HIGH ORDERED, PLANE DOWNING, DEATH FROM ABOVE, NO CHANCE, NO WARNING, UTTER F....ING CARNAGE. I HOPE THAT IS CLEAR.

I don't have to debate this. I don't need any blessings. I won't go into detail about how to do it. I'm a random bloke on the internet.

Now, I know how to do this. Any self respecting terror organization knows how to do this.

If someone really wants to down an airliner, they will. Please, before you ask me why it doesn't happen that often, think.

Instead, we have spectacle.

Take it or leave it. Peace.

The see-through-your-clothes-machines should be right out side the plane doors, right? Maybe cctv on planes?

Car ferries, motorways, shopping malls, town squares, museums. All easier.

reply to post by Sam Vimes


Hence the ban on taking things like water bottles onto the plane, enforced at the boarding gate (if done correctly).

Shouldn't be giving people ideas though.

Did you here about the ex-football player (Aussie Rules) turned football radio play-by-play man and TV fisherman that got pissed off by a security guard? He tried on the "what do you mean take off my shoes, don't you know who I am?" card when checking in for the flight home after calling a game in Adelaide. The guy flies probably 2 or 3 times a week, and tries to project an image as an easygoing 'mister average Aussie bloke'. You think he would know how to behave himself.

Anyway, after going through security he is still so pissed off he decides to steal a knife from the Qantas lounge and takes it onto the plane with him. Then when the doors are closed for take-off he shows it to the staff and starts shouting about how "f'ing useless all this security is" etc. etc. etc.

He was escorted off the plane of course, I never did hear what the resolution of the case was, he probably got some community service to perform or something.

The Qantas lounges have only had plastic knives ever since, however I heard a rumour that real ones may be coming back after four years.


[edit on 10/1/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Sam Vimes
Hi Sam,
It is true what you say, I amongst others said something similar back a bit about compact explosives in this thread. There is no easy answer, except not to fly. Look also at the Slovak and Irish airport bypassings which have been pretty low key on the news, but around the same time as the Detroit would be bomber. There is too much going on at once, you would not even need a Manchurian candidate in the Dublin/Slovak episode, just someone else with a detonator.You are probably talking about something much smaller anyway. As an aside, it is interesting that most of the testing on the full body X-ray machines in airports was done at Manchester airport. If you live in Manchester, you are called a Manchurian!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Aside from the gross invasion of your privacy every time you want to fly somewhere?

you have the choice - if you think it is a gross invasion of privacy then dont fly

I completely agree, no one is making you choose an airplane as a mean's of travel.

reply to post by youguysareidiots


If you don't feel safe without the body scanner then don't travel...

Simple enough.

did alex jones ever admit on air that this image is a fake?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by youguysareidiots

 

If you don't feel safe without the body scanner then don't travel...

Simple enough.

absolutely right..i mean....what if these body scanners get put on every street corner..would these people say 'well..if you dont like them..no ones making you leave your house..simply stay at home...'?

I have nothing to hide, and I don't care if they see my penis. Let them be jealous of it.

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
I have nothing to hide, and I don't care if they see my penis. Let them be jealous of it.

Maybe they will see it and decide to pull you aside for some 'frisking'.

Predatory homosexuals do work for government, these devices will let them better select their targets.


*People like you who "don't care" are ruining it for everyone. It is pathetic.





[edit on 11-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
I have nothing to hide, and I don't care if they see my penis. Let them be jealous of it.

Maybe they will see it and decide to pull you aside for some 'frisking'.

Predatory homosexuals do work for government, these devices will let them better select their targets.

*People like you who "don't care" are ruining it for everyone. It is pathetic.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

Since this is in the HOAX area now I can add that I showed these images to others because some of the images that I've seen on TV (and haven't captured) look VERY MUCH like this HOAX image... And I fell for the hoax.

Bad me for not spending hours exhastively researching what looks to be very real. The reason it is believable to most ppl is that they have also seen the bluish ghostly images shown on TV as scans.

It didn't take the UK long at all to dub the real scans (of children) as potential Kiddie Pr0n.

Maybe they will see it and decide to pull you aside for some 'frisking'.

Predatory homosexuals do work for government, these devices will let them better select their targets.

Also, If you've taken any Viagra and your erection lasts more than 4 hours after the TSA is done with you... Then you are required to see a doctor (and likely, many nurses).