UnNews talk:Boston airport gets full-body scanners
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Hmm... How about something related to the fact that the Pants Bomber was allowed onto the plane without even having a passport, so the scanners would not even had made a difference to that anyway? What about the fact that the airport the Pants bomber was at did actually have full body scanners? What about the fact that the authorities covered up the fact that the Pants Bomber was allowed onto the plane by customs when an Indian guy took him up to the desk and said "It's OK, he does not need a passport, he's from Yemen", and authorities tried to cover that up, and nothing was said about that on the news? What about the fact that the authorities changed their story about this 6 or 7 times? What about the fact that the British had to relax their paedophile laws to accommodate these things? What about the fact that the scanners are a health risk? What about the fact that it's a futile security measure anyway, as it's still possible to get around them? What about the fact that so few actual incidents have taken place which this would have prevented (are there any whatsoever???) then this intrusion into privacy is totally not justified and over the top? What about the fact that luggage which does not even belong to a person on the flight can still be taken on a plane? Sorry SPIKE, I love a lot of your stuff but I really don't see much funny or parody here. Where is it? Just that hot chicks will be going through? Maybe it would have been better if done from the POV of a very grateful Paedophile who has just got a new job at the airport? Considering all the potential options for ridiculing these full body scanners this piece looks so pro-Obama it's kind crazy dude. Sorry man. I'm really not a fan of this one. It looks like it was written by one of Obamas own people. Maybe you are being REALLY sarcastic, but if so I'm certainly missing it. MrN 11:05, Mar 1
- Yes I was being sarcastic, and maybe too subtle. The points are brought together in the final paragraph: that all of our airport security is designed to handle an exact repetition of one of the last three notorious attempts. It's certainly beyond the scope of this article to document the many ways in which the systems failed that were designed and able to catch the Pants Bomber. (In Barack Obama, I mention "the failure to watch passengers on the Watch List" as one of the things that bode ill for Obama's health-care plan.) Pro-Obama? Never! The only way he comes in is, as always spending "stimulus money" to score political points.
- A separate theme of the article is the privacy issue, to take small jabs at both the privacy advocates (you must have a small dick!) and security gadflies (it can't be unconstitutional!). Anyway, sorry this one didn't work for you. 14:20 1-Mar-10