How Do You Feel About Body Scanners In Airports?

[TruthBringer]

Scrat;1281872 wrote: I disagree. TSA is not filled with incompetent people, it's filled with humans. People make mistakes. Those shotgun shells could have easily been mistaken for bottles of pills. Was this an international airport?

I once forgot a 1/4 in ratchet at the bottom of my bag at Seattle international. They saw it and took me aside to go through my bag. When the guy took it out he said I could keep it, had it been 3/8 or 1/2 he would have taken it.

No system is perfect, somebody will get something through. I think they do a good job. 1 person in 10 million getting through with something is a good record. The problem is it takes only one person. A bomber only has to be lucky once, they have to be lucky every time.


How bout we just stop voting for things that crack down on all of us (the law abiding citizens), and start voting for things that crack down on people like greedy corrupt bankers and greedy corrupt politicians?

Only in the case of the body scanners, there wasn't even a vote on them. Just another example of how corrupt the system is.

[cars]

Scrat;1281872 wrote: I disagree. TSA is not filled with incompetent people, it's filled with humans. People make mistakes. Those shotgun shells could have easily been mistaken for bottles of pills. Was this an international airport?



I once forgot a 1/4 in ratchet at the bottom of my bag at Seattle international. They saw it and took me aside to go through my bag. When the guy took it out he said I could keep it, had it been 3/8 or 1/2 he would have taken it.



No system is perfect, somebody will get something through. I think they do a good job. 1 person in 10 million getting through with something is a good record. The problem is it takes only one person. A bomber only has to be lucky once, they have to be lucky every time.
When in doubt, check it out!!! :-2 No assumptions!

[spot]

TruthBringer;1281877 wrote: Only in the case of the body scanners, there wasn't even a vote on them. Just another example of how corrupt the system is.


The system operates on a societal consensus. If body scanners were widely unpopular they'd not be adopted. Perhaps you regard consensus politics as inherently corrupt?

[TruthBringer]

spot;1281882 wrote: The system operates on a societal consensus. If body scanners were widely unpopular they'd not be adopted. Perhaps you regard consensus politics as inherently corrupt?


BS. The government ordered these machines before the majority of the people ever knew that they did it. We were told they were going to be installed as a result of the underwear bomber. The truth is that they were already planned to be installed. The crisis had nothing to do with it.

[Nomad]

TruthBringer;1281877 wrote:

Only in the case of the body scanners, there wasn't even a vote on them. Just another example of how corrupt the system is.


Vote on airline security?

Its a private enterprise with Federal restrictions.

Why would we get to vote on private business practices or Federal laws?

[TruthBringer]

Nomad;1281886 wrote: Vote on airline security?

Its a private enterprise with Federal restrictions.

Why would we get to vote on private business practices or Federal laws?


Thanks for making my point even clearer. No say so = No say so.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1281883 wrote: BS. The government ordered these machines before the majority of the people ever knew that they did it. We were told they were going to be installed as a result of the underwear bomber. The truth is that they were already planned to be installed. The crisis had nothing to do with it.


You're still in write-only mode?

Perhaps you missed my rebuttal of that earlier discredited point.

spot;1280680 wrote: BBC NEWS | Europe | Europe eyes airport X-ray vision is from 2008, the discussion has been public for quite a while.

[TruthBringer]

spot;1281902 wrote: You're still in write-only mode?

Perhaps you missed my rebuttal of that earlier discredited point.


Funny how no one I know and no one on this board was talking about them in 2008 though. Even though the information was so "publicly available".

There was no open debate about them on the media back in 2008 I can tell you that much. They weren't brought up in any town hall discussion I can tell you that much. It wasn't being printed in too many (if any) newspapers in 2008, I can tell you that much. Yahoo, Google, or any other internet media source weren't heavily covering them in 2008, I can tell you that much.

So the information may have been publicly available but people would have had to use their psychic sense to alert themselves to it. And by the time they had figured out what it was all about, the plans for the machines had already been drawn up. And the machines were in the process of being manufactured.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1281882 wrote: The system operates on a societal consensus. If body scanners were widely unpopular they'd not be adopted. Perhaps you regard consensus politics as inherently corrupt?


Given how widely unpopular the Iraq war was even before it started then yes.

[Nomad]

TruthBringer;1281891 wrote: Thanks for making my point even clearer. No say so = No say so.


I think that was clear from the beginning.

So whats your next move?

[spot]

TruthBringer;1281904 wrote: Funny how no one I know and no one on this board was talking about them in 2008 though. Even though the information was so "publicly available".

There was no open debate about them on the media back in 2008 I can tell you that much. They weren't brought up in any town hall discussion I can tell you that much. It wasn't being printed in too many (if any) newspapers in 2008, I can tell you that much. Yahoo, Google, or any other internet media source weren't heavily covering them in 2008, I can tell you that much.

So the information may have been publicly available but people would have had to use their psychic sense to alert themselves to it. And by the time they had figured out what it was all about, the plans for the machines had already been drawn up. And the machines were in the process of being manufactured.


That's the UK's national news provider I quoted, not some obscure out-of-the-way flysheet. I even recall the prime-time national TV news carrying the story, and that's 18 months ago. If your preferred news provider didn't bring it up, change your preferred news provider to a better one.

As for "no one on this board was talking about them in 2008", http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/socie ... earch.html is an FG discussion from 2006 and it's US-sourced.

[LarsMac]

TruthBringer;1281883 wrote: BS. The government ordered these machines before the majority of the people ever knew that they did it. We were told they were going to be installed as a result of the underwear bomber. The truth is that they were already planned to be installed. The crisis had nothing to do with it.


Yes. They had already been installed at several airports and in use long before this last thing, and it is only the hysterical media gossip-mongers who said the activation of the things was because of the underwear guy.

The Dutch were the ones that said they will now implement the scanners for all US-bound flights, because of this incident. They were embarrassed by this thing.

If you really read the news, you would know that.

[TruthBringer]

LarsMac;1281959 wrote:

If you really read the news, you would know that.


Well I would watch the news but the only problem is I think it's a joke. And I can't take something serious if it makes me laugh every time I watch it. Or read it.

At the moment, I get much of my news from infowars.com. Why? Because it's the only place that tells you what's really going on. Though I am sure there are a few others.

I don't want to know about Brittany spears shaving her head again. I want to know about the World bank expanding it's powers even further into countries that it hasn't yet conquered.

[Bryn Mawr]

TruthBringer;1282078 wrote: Well I would watch the news but the only problem is I think it's a joke. And I can't take something serious if it makes me laugh every time I watch it. Or read it.

At the moment, I get much of my news from infowars.com. Why? Because it's the only place that tells you what's really going on. Though I am sure there are a few others.

I don't want to know about Brittany spears shaving her head again. I want to know about the World bank expanding it's powers even further into countries that it hasn't yet conquered.


Trouble is, the whole site is one person's opinion - fine if you happen to agree with that person's opinion but far more likely to be biassed than taking a variety of sources and comparing the differences.

Having looked up the person involved it sounds very likely that the info on the site is deliberately skewed to suit his tastes :-



Mainstream news sources have referred to him as right-wing, conservative, and a conspiracy theorist. Journalist Michelle Goldberg has stated in The New Republic that Jones represents "an old strain of American conservatism—isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies—that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday."

Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger. He also calls himself a paleoconservative. In a promotional biography he is described as an "aggressive constitutionalist".

[TruthBringer]

Bryn Mawr;1282081 wrote: far more likely to be biassed




Alright then my challenge for you for the day is to find me one media source out there, it can be any, that isn't biassed at it's core. Be careful what you post, because in order to find one you would need to first make sure that it's perfectly balanced. Good luck with that.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282082 wrote: Alright then my challenge for you for the day is to find me one media source out there, it can be any, that isn't biassed at it's core. Be careful what you post, because in order to find one you would need to first make sure that it's perfectly balanced. Good luck with that.


You can't distinguish between a degree of inherent bias and an outright agenda?

How about if you simply say you came into the thread with a mistaken notion about the degree of public discussion in the past about Body Scanners In Airports, and that the thread's increased your awareness? That would bring you toward discussing rather than proclaiming.

[Bryn Mawr]

TruthBringer;1282082 wrote: Alright then my challenge for you for the day is to find me one media source out there, it can be any, that isn't biassed at it's core. Be careful what you post, because in order to find one you would need to first make sure that it's perfectly balanced. Good luck with that.


I wouldn't begin to try - all summaries are inherently biassed due to the fact that they are selective and someone is making the selection and doing the summarising.

The trick is to de-select those with a self-evident agenda and to take in as wide a variety of the rest to do a comparison so that you can recognise and filter out their built in bias.

[spot]

Al Jazeera's impressive, as a comprehensive news outlet. "In 2008 Al Jazeera's English language channel won the Golden Nymph award in the category of Best 24 Hour News Program at the Monte Carlo Television Festival."

Pravda, sadly, isn't, and I speak as one who uses the site. It has lots of stories nobody else carries though.

[TruthBringer]

spot;1282089 wrote: You can't distinguish between a degree of inherent bias and an outright agenda?

How about if you simply say you came into the thread with a mistaken notion about the degree of public discussion in the past about Body Scanners In Airports, and that the thread's increased your awareness? That would bring you toward discussing rather than proclaiming.




Or, we can stick to my original point, which is that the body scanners are immoral, dangerous, perverted, sick, unnecessary, wrong, invasive, disgusting, and illegitimate.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282090 wrote: Or, we can stick to my original point, which is that the body scanners are immoral, dangerous, perverted, sick, unnecessary, wrong, invasive, disgusting, and illegitimate.


And it's an opinion. And mine is that they're something to applaud and be thankful for. Which is why we're discussing the way other people have reacted to them over the years they've been developed and deployed, for comparison. And we have a problem when it comes to the validity of what each of us asserts as true about those reactions, since several of your points have been blatantly and demonstrably inaccurate, despite your head-in-the-ground refusal to respond to the counter-examples.

[LarsMac]

TruthBringer;1282078 wrote: Well I would watch the news but the only problem is I think it's a joke. And I can't take something serious if it makes me laugh every time I watch it. Or read it.

At the moment, I get much of my news from infowars.com. Why? Because it's the only place that tells you what's really going on. Though I am sure there are a few others.

I don't want to know about Brittany spears shaving her head again. I want to know about the World bank expanding it's powers even further into countries that it hasn't yet conquered.


I didn't say anything about watching the bobble-heads on Fox, or CNN, or the network claptrap.

I said, "If you really read the news..."

It is become obvious you don't really read anything.

[TruthBringer]

"The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees." George Washington

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282390 wrote: "The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees." George WashingtonWhere on earth did he ever say that? It sounds very unlike him. It sounds extremely made up and unhistorical.

As evidence of my doubt, this is Thomas Jefferson discussing George Washington's unlikeliness to refer to Christianity:Feb. 1. [1800] Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.

Online Library of Liberty - The Works, vol. 1

The seduction of Hollywood is to think that if it's desirable for something to have happened then merely pretending it happened is just as good as if it really had. On the contrary, pretence is a disaster, it stops people from bringing out the truth. It makes people lazy. It reduces any incentive to explore reality. I'm sure I've tried to get you to see that before, to no avail. What you do when you post claptrap is you destroy your credibility in the eyes of anyone bothering to read your posts.

[TruthBringer]

spot;1282400 wrote: Where on earth did he ever say that? It sounds very unlike him. It sounds extremely made up and unhistorical.

As evidence of my doubt, this is Thomas Jefferson discussing George Washington's unlikeliness to refer to Christianity:Feb. 1. [1800] Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.

Online Library of Liberty - The Works, vol. 1

The seduction of Hollywood is to think that if it's desirable for something to have happened then merely pretending it happened is just as good as if it really had. On the contrary, pretence is a disaster, it stops people from bringing out the truth. It makes people lazy. It reduces any incentive to explore reality. I'm sure I've tried to get you to see that before, to no avail. What you do when you post claptrap is you destroy your credibility in the eyes of anyone bothering to read your posts.


Well if you knew your history about The Star Spangled Banner and what it really represents than you would know that Francis Scott Key was there when George Washington said it, and he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying).

But I wouldn't expect you to know your American history, most people don't these days.

The Star Spangled Banner

And for the record, your insults don't bother me. I've had many arguements with you in the past and they have gone nowhere because you usually just resulted to insulting my character, which is when you become pathetic in my eyes, and when I lose interest in arguing with you.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282410 wrote: Well if you knew your history about The Star Spangled Banner and what it really represents than you would know that Francis Scott Key was there when George Washington said it, and he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying).

But I wouldn't expect you to know your American history, most people don't these days.

The Star Spangled Banner

And for the record, your insults don't bother me. I've had many arguments with you in the past and they have gone nowhere because you usually just resulted to insulting my character, which is when you become pathetic in my eyes, and when I lose interest in arguing with you.


I didn't ask about the spreading Internet myth (which claims, wrongly, that Francis Scott Key quoted George Washington), I asked for a reliable reference to Francis Scott Key claiming George Washington said it. Francis Scott Key was born in 1779, Washington died twenty years later in 1799, they never met.

It was never said by George Washington, not in anyone's hearing. Being able to find the myth on the Internet is nothing to do with showing a reasonable source for it happening, the page you linked to is just as much an instance of the spirit of Hollywood triumphing over truth as your original post was. If you search Google Books for "American Christian apart", for instance, you'll find no hits. That's a very good indicator that the quote is recently constructed and ascribed to George Washington by someone who has more regard for patriotism than for veracity.

The phrase originates in Joseph Heller's 1961 novel "Catch-22", "Because it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees," Nately retorted with triumphant and lofty conviction. "I guess you've heard that saying".

Kenneth Tynan turned it around to "Better Red than dead seems an obvious doctrine for anyone not consumed by a death-wish: I wish rather to live on my knees than die on my knees.", as quoted by William Buckley in a 1961 speech. This was deliberately and spitefully mis-quoted by Ronald Reagan in his 1964 speech to the Republican National Convention, "from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet."

Nobody, then or now, claimed that George Heller was paraphrasing George Washington. There are an astounding number of analyses on Catch-22, it's one of the most famous anti-war novels of the 20th century. It would be beyond belief for nobody to have written about the link if the link existed. The link doesn't exist. There was no George Washington quote to link it to. As it happens, Joseph Heller took the phrase from "Secret weapons - secret agents‎", a history book by Jacques Bergier written in 1956, "I think they'll understand that it's better for a man to die on his feet than live on his knees", a book of total obscurity. Whoever Jacques got it from, if he didn't think it up himself, it certainly wasn't George Washington.

I realize you take this criticism personally. That's entirely your own problem, it's not written that way. You'd do far better to try discussing the nature of truth in the context of unverifiable claims on the Internet. If you'd only engage I'd happily see where it takes us, it would be productive.

Let's consider the nature of Internet content for a moment. You wrote "he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying)."

Now, are you trying to say that's true (it's certainly not claimed in the page you cited, and I've never heard it before), or did you invent it from hazy memory? Is it something you can verify?

Someone in the future - admittedly someone incredulously naïve - could well pick that out and cite it as a reference to the event being truth, in just the way that you keep quoting passages from the Internet. Does that make it true? Did it, in fact, happen, or is it fictional? Is it yet more Hollywood pretence masquerading as history because it shores up the accumulated patriotic mythology which underpins the United States?

You know because you wrote it. I don't know, all I did was read it. Would you like to comment on its truth?

[TruthBringer]

spot;1282416 wrote: I didn't ask about the spreading Internet myth (which claims, wrongly, that Francis Scott Key quoted George Washington), I asked for a reliable reference to Francis Scott Key claiming George Washington said it. Francis Scott Key was born in 1779, Washington died twenty years later in 1799, they never met.

It was never said by George Washington, not in anyone's hearing. Being able to find the myth on the Internet is nothing to do with showing a reasonable source for it happening, the page you linked to is just as much an instance of the spirit of Hollywood triumphing over truth as your original post was. If you search Google Books for "American Christian apart", for instance, you'll find no hits. That's a very good indicator that the quote is recently constructed and ascribed to George Washington by someone who has more regard for patriotism than for veracity.

The phrase originates in Joseph Heller's 1961 novel "Catch-22", "Because it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees," Nately retorted with triumphant and lofty conviction. "I guess you've heard that saying".

Kenneth Tynan turned it around to "Better Red than dead seems an obvious doctrine for anyone not consumed by a death-wish: I wish rather to live on my knees than die on my knees.", as quoted by William Buckley in a 1961 speech. This was deliberately and spitefully mis-quoted by Ronald Reagan in his 1964 speech to the Republican National Convention, "from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet."

Nobody, then or now, claimed that George Heller was paraphrasing George Washington. There are an astounding number of analyses on Catch-22, it's one of the most famous anti-war novels of the 20th century. It would be beyond belief for nobody to have written about the link if the link existed. The link doesn't exist. There was no George Washington quote to link it to. As it happens, Joseph Heller took the phrase from "Secret weapons - secret agents‎", a history book by Jacques Bergier written in 1956, "I think they'll understand that it's better for a man to die on his feet than live on his knees", a book of total obscurity. Whoever Jacques got it from, if he didn't think it up himself, it certainly wasn't George Washington.

I realize you take this criticism personally. That's entirely your own problem, it's not written that way. You'd do far better to try discussing the nature of truth in the context of unverifiable claims on the Internet. If you'd only engage I'd happily see where it takes us, it would be productive.

Let's consider the nature of Internet content for a moment. You wrote "he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying)."

Now, are you trying to say that's true (it's certainly not claimed in the page you cited, and I've never heard it before), or did you invent it from hazy memory? Is it something you can verify?

Someone in the future - admittedly someone incredulously naïve - could well pick that out and cite it as a reference to the event being truth, in just the way that you keep quoting passages from the Internet. Does that make it true? Did it, in fact, happen, or is it fictional? Is it yet more Hollywood pretence masquerading as history because it shores up the accumulated patriotic mythology which underpins the United States?

You know because you wrote it. I don't know, all I did was read it. Would you like to comment on its truth?


spot;1282416 wrote: I didn't ask about the spreading Internet myth (which claims, wrongly, that Francis Scott Key quoted George Washington), I asked for a reliable reference to Francis Scott Key claiming George Washington said it. Francis Scott Key was born in 1779, Washington died twenty years later in 1799, they never met.




lol. Spot, I am embarrased for you, seriously.

Francis Scott Key (August 1, 1779 – January 11, 1843) was an American lawyer, author, and amateur poet, from Georgetown, who wrote the words to the United States' national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Francis Scott Key was born to Ann Phoebe Penn Dagworthy (Charlton) and Captain John Ross Key at the family plantation Terra Rubra in what was Frederick County and is now Carroll County, Maryland. His father John Ross Key was a lawyer, a judge and an officer in the Continental Army. His grandfather Philip Key immigrated to Maryland in 1726 from England.

He studied law at St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland and also learned under his uncle Philip Barton Key.

During the War of 1812, Key, accompanied by the American Prisoner Exchange Agent Colonel John Stuart Skinner, dined aboard the British ship HMS Tonnant, as the guests of three British officers: Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane, Rear Admiral Sir George Cockburn, and Major General Robert Ross. Skinner and Key were there to negotiate the release of prisoners, one being Dr. William Beanes. Beanes was a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland and had been captured by the British after he placed rowdy stragglers under citizen's arrest with a group of men. Skinner, Key, and Beanes were not allowed to return to their own sloop, they had become familiar with the strength and position of the British units and with the British intent to attack Baltimore. As a result of this, Key was unable to do anything but watch the bombarding of the American forces at Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore on the night of September 13–September 14, 1814.

When the smoke cleared, Key was able to see an American flag still waving and reported this to the prisoners below deck. On the way back to Baltimore, he was inspired to write a poem describing his experience, "The Defence of Fort McHenry", which he published in the Patriot on September 20, 1814. He intended to fit the rhythms of composer John Stafford Smith's "To Anacreon in Heaven". It has become better known as "The Star Spangled Banner". Under this name, the song was adopted as the American national anthem, first by an Executive Order from President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 (which had little effect beyond requiring military bands to play it) and then by a Congressional resolution in 1931, signed by President Herbert Hoover.

Francis Scott Key Hall at the University of Maryland, College Park is named in his honor. The George Washington University also has a residence hall in Key's honor at the corner of 19th and F Streets.

Francis Scott Key - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, he had 20 years to be able to hear George Washington say what he said. And he is the one who claims that he said it. So you can pretend they never met, but the truth is, you don't know whether they did or didn't, so quit pretending like you do.

Obviously if there is a residence hall in honor of Francis Scott Key in the GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY than there might just be a connection there don't ya think?

[TruthBringer]

To me it's not important whether they met or didn't meet. Francis Scott Key said that George Washington said that and I for one believe him.

Here's another quote from George Washington that I think would get under your skin:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligation." --George Washington

NH Patriots

By the way if you click on that link you will also find the same quote I posted above:

"The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is, he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees..." ---President George Washington

And how about this quote here which is a direct reference to Christianity?

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." --- George Washington

George Washington was not an atheist. As much as you might wish he was.

When I go to yahoo and type in "The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is, he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees..." ---President George Washington in the search engine, I come up with 74 different sources. Now either all of those sources are wrong or you are wrong. But it can't be both.

[TruthBringer]

Other great leaders who referenced God and Christianity:

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests" --- President Andrew Jackson

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.” --John Adams, June 21, 1776; 23 days before signing the Declaration of Independence.

"Of all the dispositions which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who would labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.... The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them." -- George Washington

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." --- George Washington

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis - a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." --- President Thomas Jefferson

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- President John Adams

"Don't let anyone claim to be a true American. Don't let them claim the tribute of American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." --- President George Washington, farewell address

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God, I know not what course others may take, but give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry"

"Those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." --- Abraham

Lincoln

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." --- Thomas Jefferson

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." --John Adams, Second President of the United States

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." --- Daniel Webster, 1851



"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." --- John Adams

"The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources." --James Madison

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." ---Patrick Henry

"We have staked the whole future of America's civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." --- James Madison

"He who shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." --- Benjamin Franklin

"I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men." --- Daniel

Webster



"If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." --- William Penn

"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and genius of America. America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." --- Alexis de Tocqueville

"Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." --- Benjamin Franklin

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." --- President John Adams

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and law... All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." --- Noah Webster

"I have alternatively been called an Aristocrat or a Democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat!" --- Benjamin Rush

[TruthBringer]

Now I don't know what to tell you Spot. If you live in America, than you live in a country that was founded by Christians and believers in God. If you can't accept that fact, than perhaps you should move to a country that wasn't. It might make you more comfortable.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282482 wrote: When I go to yahoo and type in "The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is, he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees..." ---President George Washington in the search engine, I come up with 74 different sources. Now either all of those sources are wrong or you are wrong. But it can't be both.


That's the nature of Internet myths. They spread.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282477 wrote: Now, he had 20 years to be able to hear George Washington say what he said. And he is the one who claims that he said it.


You really do have a problem with logic, don't you. It's the people who distribute the Internet myth who claim it, not Francis Scott Key. To show that Francis Scott Key claimed it you have to see a respectable source - preferably roughly contemporary, or a published biography for example - which says it. At that point you have good reason to think he made the claim, but not before.

Would you as a matter of courtesy answer the question I put to you about the truth of your dead soldiers propping up the flagpole? It's a serious question, it's relevant and it relates to something you did today that's testable. You wrote "he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying)." Are you trying to say that's true (it's certainly not claimed in the page you cited, and I've never heard it before), or did you invent it from hazy memory? Is it something you can verify?

[TruthBringer]

spot;1282500 wrote: You really do have a problem with logic, don't you. It's the people who distribute the Internet myth who claim it, not Francis Scott Key. To show that Francis Scott Key claimed it you have to see a respectable source - preferably roughly contemporary, or a published biography for example - which says it. At that point you have good reason to think he made the claim, but not before.

Would you as a matter of courtesy answer the question I put to you about the truth of your dead soldiers propping up the flagpole? It's a serious question, it's relevant and it relates to something you did today that's testable. You wrote "he was there when the bodies of American soldiers piled up together to hold up the flag against the British, who kept trying to knock it down but never succeeded (due to all the dead american soldiers who died to keep it flying)." Are you trying to say that's true (it's certainly not claimed in the page you cited, and I've never heard it before), or did you invent it from hazy memory? Is it something you can verify?


Well it's kinda like that movie glory see. The soldiers running up the hill with the flag and the job of the flag bearer was to hold that sucker up. If one went down, the others held it up. The flag represented morale. Morale and winning a battle go hand in hand.

On a side note, did anyone else realize that as soon as John Candy died the World started going to ****?

[Ahso!]

TB - What about God and all the angels and saints looking at you and your wife any time you undress or use the bathroom? Santa too for that matter! Kinda weird, don'tcha think?

Does any of that bother you?

[TruthBringer]

Ahso!;1282537 wrote: TB - What about God and all the angels and saints looking at you and your wife any time you undress or use the bathroom? Santa too for that matter! Kinda weird, don'tcha think?

Does any of that bother you?


Do you take pleasure in watching people use the bathroom? I don't. So why would God?

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282525 wrote: Well it's kinda like that movie glory see. The soldiers running up the hill with the flag and the job of the flag bearer was to hold that sucker up. If one went down, the others held it up. The flag represented morale. Morale and winning a battle go hand in hand.


So was it a true statement of fact or was it something you invented out of your head? I'm only stuck not knowing because you won't say one way or the other, and yet it's the reason you said "I wouldn't expect you to know your American history, most people don't these days". Is it American history or is it patriotic myth-making? It can't be both. Do you know it to be true or is it your imagination working overtime?

[spot]

TruthBringer wrote: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." --- George Washington

George Washington was not an atheist. As much as you might wish he was.Nowhere have I claimed George Washington was an atheist, what I quoted Thomas Jefferson writing was "he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion". George Washington may well have been a deist, that fits both with the 18th century setting and his Freemasonry, it would be practically impossible for George Washington to have expressed himself an atheist, they were as rare as hens' teeth during his time.

The "impossible to rightly govern" quote is an interesting one though. It first appears in print 93 years after his death with no hint of the occasion he's claimed to have said it, and it's in an explicitly evangelical Christian book, "A lawyer's examination of the Bible‎" by Howard Hyde Russell who at least had the grace to say it was merely attributed to him. It's nowhere near contemporrary, not by a hundred years. Nobody at the time described him as saying it. The setting makes it pretty unlikely it's a quote as opposed to a propagandist invention but at least it's older than the Internet this time. By all means show I'm mistaken by finding an earlier use of the phrase with a context, but I don't think there is one.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1282486 wrote: Now I don't know what to tell you Spot. If you live in America, than you live in a country that was founded by Christians and believers in God. If you can't accept that fact, than perhaps you should move to a country that wasn't. It might make you more comfortable.
Just to clarify this bit, I do accept that as fact. Some of them were Christians, and some of them were deists who believed in God in some sense (though that certainly didn't make them Christians).

As to the country I live in, it's multicultural and has many adherents to many religions. It's rather like America in that regard. It also resembles America in that at one time the Christian church had a stranglehold here on acceptable belief after a period where Christianity was unknown and other faiths were observed. In neither country is that true any longer.

[spot]

This, I suppose, could have been foresawn.

Full-body scanner blind to bomb parts ? The Register

[TruthBringer]

Scrat;1284975 wrote: Strip searches, aggressive, thorough and enthusiastic cavity searches coupled with water boarding of select passengers is the only way to be sure.


Good thing you're not the guy who gets to watch the naked body scans of the children, because if you were, you and I would be outside and it wouldn't be to talk. Course my kids would never get scanned so, doesn't really matter.

[spot]

TruthBringer;1284978 wrote: Good thing you're not the guy who gets to watch the naked body scans of the children, because if you were, you and I would be outside and it wouldn't be to talk. Course my kids would never get scanned so, doesn't really matter.


Nobody's kids will get scanned, there's a lower permissible age for people being fed through the scanner. The scanner only works on people going through it.

[TruthBringer]

spot;1284980 wrote: Nobody's kids will get scanned, there's a lower permissible age for people being fed through the scanner. The scanner only works on people going through it.


Well there's one less thing to worry about then.

[spot]

Actually, looking at the recent exchanges in the House of Commons, there is no minimum age. Anyone, however, can refuse to go through the scanner and opt for a manual search instead.

[TruthBringer]

Scrat;1285004 wrote: Just so you know. I don't find nude children attractive, hell I don't even find 20 somethings attractive.



I wouldn't even bother to take you outside. I'd beat some sense into you right on the spot. Get a grip TB.


Look I'm just like you Brother. I don't know if you have kids, but if someone was looking at them naked, I take it you'd be upset too. And I take it you wouldn't think twice about raising hell.

[TruthBringer]

Digital STRIP SEARCH – Inverted Airport Body Scanner Image Shows NAKED Bodies In Full Living COLOR!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[TruthBringer]

Drudge: Big Sis Wants to See Under Your Clothes

Kurt Nimmo

Infowars.com

January 8, 2010



Drudge hit the nail right on the head. It headlined a Reuters story as follows: “Big Sis Wants to See Under Your Clothes. The website put up a montage of Janet Napolitano, boss of the Department of Homeland Security, staring at the now infamous Bild photographic recreation of a young woman rendered naked by a full body scanner.

Obama and crew are determined to install these expensive and dangerous machines in airports across the nation. Napolitano said “she will travel to Spain this month to meet with her international counterparts to seek tougher international aviation security measures, i.e., she will peddle full naked scanners to “international counterparts.

Obama’s “two-pronged approach Obama outlined Thursday will have little effect on domestic airline passengers and will involve many behind-the-scenes changes aimed at keeping suspected terrorists off U.S.-bound international flights, including naked body scanning machines, according to USA Today.

“The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) bought 150 scanners in September for $25 million, but none has been installed. The machines create vivid images of passengers underneath their clothing. They would improve the detection of weapons such as the explosive powder a Nigerian passenger got through a metal detector in Amsterdam and allegedly tried to use to detonate on Dec. 25 in an airliner over Detroit, Napolitano said at a briefing after Obama addressed the nation.

In fact, according to scientists, full naked body scanners will not detect chemicals and liquids of the sort supposedly used by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Last week it was reported that these intrusive machines are being promoted by former DHS boss Michael Chertoff.

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Talk about a communication breakdown. It should be obvious by now that the federal government is a revolving door of corruption where former officials “retire to work for defense contractors and other corporations that do business at taxpayer expense.

[TruthBringer]

Mind Reading Machines: The Next Step If We Accept Naked Body Scanners

Three years ago on a cold Christmas day in 2009, a Nigerian national without a passport was aided on board a plane from the Netherlands bound for Detroit by a mysterious sharp dressed man.

The Nigerian had a small amount of explosives in his underpants which he attempted and failed to detonate.

Two weeks later the U.S. government ordered the Department of Homeland Security Department to acquire $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment, including naked imaging body scanners, for screening passengers at airports, pushing all foreign governments to do the same.

Previous efforts to ban the use of such invasive technology - House passes Chaffetz amendment limiting 'whole body' imaging | Deseret News suddenly became secondary to a mass media driven effort to champion the scanners as the grand solution to future security breaches at airports.

Dissenting citizens were told to “Shut up and get scanned already” Shut up and get scanned, already - thestar.com and the machines became commonplace by the end of 2010 in all airports despite fierce opposition from freedom advocates.

Now everyone, including children must step through the naked imaging machines, not only in airports, Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets such as train stations, stadiums and any other large public gatherings.



In early 2011, however, the naked body scanners failed to stop a man of Yemeni descent being escorted onto a plane by another sharp dressed man in an American airport and attempting but failing to blow it out of the sky. The man said he was seeking revenge for attacks on his country by U.S. military forces. 'US intervention in Yemen could strengthen al-Qaeda'

By the end of 2011, governments all over the world had implemented, in all public places, mind reading technology - New airport screening 'could read minds' - Telegraph which had been in development since the mid 2000’s.

Now, under something called “Project Hostile Intent” - Project Hostile Intent plans 'non-invasive' DHS brainscan ? The Register everyone is remotely screened by passive scanners that pick up brain waves in order to to determine whether they intend to commit violent or terroristic acts.



Almost all forms liberty have been replaced by a greater need for safety against terrorism and America has adopted wholesale the Israeli model of security. - My Way News - Mind-reading systems could change air security

But alas, now on an extremely cold Christmas day in 2012, I have just read that the mind readers have failed to stop a man without a passport being helped on board a plane bound for New York and trying to blow it up.

Now the media and the government are calling for traceable microchip implants for everyone.

Oh how I wish more people would have stood up to the freedom stripping technology in 2010 before it had gotten this far!

Coming tomorrow: Notes from 2016 on the mass implementation of placing everyone in sealed pods in response to the failed Christmas day “escorted onto a plane by yet another sharp dressed man” bomber.

OK, that’s not coming tomorrow, but you get the idea.

[TruthBringer]

Now Mobile Devices Will Scan Your Naked Body On The Streets

Naked body scanners are being readied to go mobile and scan you on the street, at football games and any other event where masses of people are congregated, according to a leaked paper written by Dutch authorities.

As we have been warning all along, the tyranny now being metered out at airports was always intended to be rolled out onto the streets, with mobile metal detectors already being stationed at various transport hubs in the UK in the name of stopping knife crime.

Now Dutch police have announced that they are developing a mobile scanner that will “see through people’s clothing and look for concealed weapons”.

According to a confidential document, “The scanner could first be used as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas. The mobile detector would enable the search to be carried out more quickly and would only be used on people suspected of carrying concealed weapons,” reports Dutch News.nl. DutchNews.nl - Dutch police develop mobile body scans

The device would also be used from a distance on groups of people “and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

“The biggest challenge is making it portable and ensuring it can carry out a scan in seconds,” Giampiero Gerini, a professor at Eindhoven University, told the paper.

The aim is to develop and deploy the device within three years. With police in major American and British cities already carrying out random searches of innocent people under routinely abused terrorism laws, mobile scanners are likely to be added to their arsenal, especially if people have been trained to accept their use as routine in airports.

Three years ago, leaked documents out of the Home Office revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”. BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Could X-ray scanners work on the street?

“The questions are when is this a useful addition to security and when does it become unduly intrusive and worrying to the public?” said Professor Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism expert.

Since everything that we see being installed at the airports is now gradually being introduced on the streets, how long will it be before mind-reading devices that scan individuals for behavioral psychology, now being discussed for use in airports, are stationed on every major street corner?

The technologies now being prepared not just for the airport, but for our everyday lives, are far more frightening and technologically advanced than anything George Orwell wrote about in 1984. Unless we stand up in unison and say enough is enough, our world will become a literal hi-tech prison grid characterized by a caste system of slaves and controllers.