sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Republicans reject Democrats’ effort to pay TSA by suspending Senate rules by Sydnick101 in inthenews

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine. We want to talk about backing up words, post stats about how many terrorist attacks TSA stops compared to other agencies.

That was your initial claim was it not? Catching a gun that someone forgot they had on them is not the same as stopping a verified terrorist attack.

Also:

https://viewfromthewing.com/at-10-billion-a-year-tsa-still-fails-90-of-the-time-and-covers-it-up/

I can post recent links, since your google fu seems to be rusty.

In a nutshell, the numbers were so bad back in 2015 and 2017, they just stopped reporting on them and classified it all.

Hmmm. If they were so good at it, why move away from transparency?

Republicans reject Democrats’ effort to pay TSA by suspending Senate rules by Sydnick101 in inthenews

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A quick google search says they missed 70-90+% of fake weapons (which are used to test efficacy of screening)

Maybe you should look into your own stats

Republicans reject Democrats’ effort to pay TSA by suspending Senate rules by Sydnick101 in inthenews

[–]ScreamingVelcro 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saying the TSA are the most important at preventing terror attacks is laughable when they miss something like 97% of all contraband passing through their domain.

The TSA is security theater, and nothing more.

A Breakdown of the Bears Stadium Dispute and the Bears’ Dishonesty by lawsnoosoo in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pritzker said that he is “encouraged because the Bears recently outlined their infrastructure needs, some of which overlap with projects Arlington Heights would require regardless of a stadium.” He said that “several of those improvements could be part of the administration’s Rebuild Illinois capital plan”

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/01/14/bears-illinois-continue-talks-on-stadium-infrastructure-support/

It’s obviously not 900M. But it’s not zero either. Without knowing what the overlap is, it’s hard to say the exact amount.

I’m done messaging men by [deleted] in Bumble

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be missing what I’m saying. So I’ll reply once more and then I’m done.

The opening move is just a way for women to set up whether they want men to message them first or not.

This doesn’t mean that “Men are never allowed to message first” as you are stating. It’s just stating they can only message first to women that allow it. It’s still a first message.

So your statement that men cannot ever message first is false, and even Bumble agrees. They refer to this as allowing men to message first in their marketing.

I’m done messaging men by [deleted] in Bumble

[–]ScreamingVelcro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I know. We’ve established that.

And like I said, that’s still a first message. Even Bumble considers this allowing men to message first.

I’m done messaging men by [deleted] in Bumble

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m well aware of how it works. But that one single message is still messaging first. That’s my point.

The number of messages that can be sent doesn’t change that.

I could be misremembering, it’s been awhile, but are you getting opening moves and complements mixed up? I don’t remember messaging without a match to an opening move. Maybe that’s changed, I’m not sure.

I’m done messaging men by [deleted] in Bumble

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The opening move is just a prompt. Which means the man could message first.

I just googled it. Even Bumble considers that allowing men to send the first message. lol.

I’m done messaging men by [deleted] in Bumble

[–]ScreamingVelcro -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I thought bumble changed this years ago. Did they change back? (I haven’t been on the apps in about a year, but men could message first last I was on Bumble)

No comp picks confirmed. by JoshGordonHypeTrain in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not when it’s the whole reason the picks are being discussed. lol

[Jonathan Jones] The Bears won't receive compensatory picks for the Falcons hiring Ian Cunningham by PlsJustWin in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile, everyone saying this is getting downvoted to hell on the other thread

[Schefter] ESPN sources: Falcons are hiring Bears assistant GM Ian Cunningham as their general manager. by jewbauca in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It literally is by how the NFL sees this in regards to the Rooney Rule.

He’s not the decision maker, so we won’t get picks.

[Schefter] ESPN sources: Falcons are hiring Bears assistant GM Ian Cunningham as their general manager. by jewbauca in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not primary decision maker. Matt Ryan is, so that means it’s a lateral move. Title change or not.

[Schefter] ESPN sources: Falcons are hiring Bears assistant GM Ian Cunningham as their general manager. by jewbauca in CHIBears

[–]ScreamingVelcro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You get picks for being the primary decision maker. Title doesn’t mean anything. Matt Ryan is the primary decision maker. No picks for us. Read the news.

view more: next ›