Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What should airport security in America look like?
No security at all. Let's preserve our freedom. 9 15.52%
Reduced security. The guys with the box cutters and shoe bombs may have gotten through, but we should just live with that risk. 26 44.83%
Same level of security as now. I'd rather sacrifice some freedom in the security line for the odds of a safer flight. 19 32.76%
Greater security. Let's reduce the risk as much as humanly possible at the expense of personal freedom. 4 6.90%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2012, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Homeland Security was created via the Patriot Act which was bipartisan.
Both Dems and Repubs wanted DHS. And all parts of the Patriot Act have been renewed since by both Congress and the President.

So "they" didn't create DHS. It was both sides.
It was a Republican bill, but even if some Dems voted for it, why are the Republicans now raving against it when they are the ones who gave birth to it? If it is against their principles then why puch for it? Don't you see the hypocricy?

The truth is that th Reps love to talk about small givernment etc, but every time you put them in control they give you something like DHS or half a trillion dollar medicare expansion, - the exact opposite of what they talked about to get into office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2012, 11:20 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,206,797 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Should we just ban the TSA and let anyone with a ticket onto planes?
Absolutely. The rest of us will get INTO the plane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,767,183 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And liberals think only the government can deliver for their best interests; that is their magic.
Don't worry about liberals. When you're asked for YOUR opinion via a question, you should present YOUR solution on the subject. Unless, finger pointing is your only solution to any problem... which ain't too far from reality, BTW. It must suck to realize that the founders didn't privatize policy making and enforcement of laws 222 years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
You can choose whether or not to patronize a private company. Gov't mandates are a whole 'nother beast.
Check points at the airport are mandated only if you choose to travel. A private company isn't going to let you just walk in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 11:51 AM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,423,613 times
Reputation: 1257
How about we have the TSA run by trained professionals, and I don't mean like a one day class. Also anybody who misses their flight because they were held up by TSA then TSA pays for the flight they do take. Any items damaged are paid for by the TSA, including very expensive stuff (guy a know in another group, a musician, one of his friends had a violin worth thousands of dollars ruined because the TSA guy insisted on putting it back in the case himself and didn't know what the hell he was doing). And if they can't handle the passengers without throwing them against the wall they shouldn't have that job
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
It was a Republican bill, but even if some Dems voted for it, why are the Republicans now raving against it when they are the ones who gave birth to it? If it is against their principles then why puch for it? Don't you see the hypocricy?

The truth is that th Reps love to talk about small givernment etc, but every time you put them in control they give you something like DHS or half a trillion dollar medicare expansion, - the exact opposite of what they talked about to get into office.
Some Dems ? Try ALOT of Dems.
And I think it's more AMERICANS coming out against it because the government is taking more liberty at defining what constitutes "protecting our safety" especially now that they've turned to US soil to fight these terrorists. My statement is non-partisan. Obama is a Dem today but whoever takes over as President, be it Repub or Dem, will continue what is being done.

Passed by Congress

Senate Republicans Voting Yea: 100%
Senate Democrats Voting Yea: 96%
Senate Total Voting Yea: 98%

House Republicans Voting Yea: 96%
House Democrats Voting Yea: 69%
House Total Voting Yea: 83%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:08 PM
 
14,941 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
I want to break down your post .... not to single you out ... but to illustrate some important points for everyone to consider. Just reading through your post shows me that you make some very intuitive observations, and your style of communicating, and the structure of your comments, and your use of the English language shows you to be an educated person of above average intelligence. Yet, in spite of your above average intelligence, you draw conclusions that indicate the exact opposite condition. And it's really quite startling, and noteworthy.

So let's really examine your points:

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
I don't think these perceptions are correct. I think most people are just fine with having security checks. In this day and age, they are obviously necessary. I do not know how effective they are but when push comes to shove, I can live with security just being an illusion of safety. It's worked for me so far - I have survived hundreds of flights since 9/11 without incident.
That seems very reasonable ... I agree that most people are just fine with security checks, so long as the measures employed are reasonable. But it has nothing really to do with "this day and age"... security measures have always been necessary ... in fact, hijacking airplanes which has always been extremely rare, actually posed a greater threat decades ago than today. That's why metal detectors became the popular choice to screen passengers to prevent criminals from boarding planes with firearms. A very reasonable and logical thing to do. And it worked for decades.

But then we have the big "disconnect" with logical conclusion .... "I can live with security just being an illusion of safety". This is a thought incompatible with logic and rational thinking. The illusion of safety does not make you safer ... in fact, if anything, it makes you less safe. The ostrich believes that if he can't see the danger, the danger can't see him, which is why he buries his head in the sand. But we human beings should be a little bit smarter than that.

I suggest that if you can perceive the security measures as an "illusion" so can those clever "terrorists". And security professionals understand that real security cannot be achieved with illusions. So if that's the case, one needs to ask the question ... for what purpose are these illusions of security being employed if they do not actually provide security. Follow me? That's the key question, and the answer unravels the entire scheme.

And this "scheme" is made possible by you being "fine with the illusion of security".

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
What gets most people angry are dubious searches of the elderly and of small children. Fine, so our policies prevent us from profiling and it is obvious that even if we were to profile, success would certainly not be guaranteed. Obviously, nobody likes to be in the profiled group.

One of my good friends is a middle-eastern-looking US Jew - if he doesn't shave, you better believe he gets "the look." And he hates it.

Nonetheless, how many gray-haired grandmothers from rural Idaho have been involved in terror plots? How likely is it that they secretly converted to some ultra-extremist Jihadist group and are planning to take out a plane?
Again, very astute observations ... though I would describe such tactics as being more than just ineffective, or not demonstrating common sense. When you look at the massive expense and effort being expended in every single airport in the nation, there has to be a reason other than "safety" since the measures are an illusion. So if there is no real security being achieved, there has to be another purpose for these massive efforts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
Do we really think that the family from Finland returning from a vacation in Florida have stuffed bombs into the diapers of their two toddlers?

To me, such checks are only done to appease those who would be the target of profiling and they simply serve no other purpose.

I hate the idea of profiling, but perhaps there is a place for it if it is used to eliminate those groups that are highly unlikely to be involved in any stupidity.
This is another illusion. "We can't profile", so we have to treat everyone as a potential terrorist, including grandma, and the infant in diapers? This is a total fraud. Police "profile" every single day. If a call comes in informing the police that a Hispanic male just robbed a bank, do the police stop and search every man, woman and child on the street ... or do they look for a Hispanic male fitting the description of the suspect? The answer is pretty obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
Like the poster above, I don't like the naked scanners. However, technological advances are always met with skepticism. I remember reading about an outcry when passports suddenly required photos.
Aside the fact that it is rather inane to draw a comparison between photos on passports and being irradiated and sexually assaulted by security goons, let me now tell you what these "illusions of security" are all about.

This illusion of security is designed to distract you and keep you from critically examining the larger illusion ... the illusion of this great threat of terrorism, and how these terrorists are everywhere. The facts are, you are more likely to be struck and killed by lightening or large hailstones than you are to be a victim of terrorism, but I don't suggest we create a "Weather TSA". You are far more likely to lose your life in a cab on the way to the airport, than you are to lose your life by flying, whether it be terrorism or mechanical failure or pilot error. This is the hard cold reality.

This greater illusion of terrorist threat has one purpose. To convince you, through fear, to relinquish your freedom and rights. That's the purpose. Tyranny does not happen in one fell swoop ... it's slowly established in small incremental steps. And it's much easier to impose tyranny on those who "willingly" accept it, and even easier when you can convince the masses to "Demand It".

Now, lets take a trip in a time machine ... go back to any point prior to September 11, 2001 .... and deploy all of these security measures very quietly, so no one sees it coming. And then on a pre-selected date, you roll out the entire enchilada ... boom ... shoes off ... belts off ... hands down your pants ... frisking grandmas and little children ... naked body scanners ... and whole deal. There would have been a national uproar of resistance and outrage.

But slowly roll this out, and people become slowly conditioned to accept "outrageous" as necessary and acceptable. It's a trick to get you to accept outrageous violations of your rights, one slow step at a time. And this TSA security is a classic example and so very obvious that it's amazing that more people don't recognize the fraud for what it is.

So we have 911 ... and boom, they start searching grandma and taking away her knitting needles. Absurd reaction? Of course. But the response from the public in the face of this nonsense is even more absurd, and no doubt gave the tyrants sweet dreams, beyond their wildest expectations. People accepted this absurdity as necessary, due in large part to the fear and safety concerns established by 911. But that type of emotion and fear eventually subsides, and people move on. So we have the "shoe bomber" to remind us how unsafe we still are ... and now we must remove our shoes in the airport. Later, we have another reminder ... the underwear bomber ... and since we can't have everyone taking off their underwear in line and passing that through the xray machine, well, we just have to xray them while you're still wearing them. Luckily, we just happen to have a bunch of these scanners we bought several months ago just collecting dust in a warehouse. What a coincidence. So the naked body scanners can now be delivered and deployed ... almost as if the whole thing was done by design! But don't worry, if you don't want to be xrayed (for now, you have the choice) you can elect to be patted down instead. (see how you are literally agreeing to be frisked and treated like a criminal and relinquishing your rights to not be physically molested by strangers?).

Now the response is ... if you don't like it, don't fly. It's your choice. Really? Well guess what .... now, just as some of us tried to warn you years ago, there are now mobile "VIPER" teams of TSA, and the security searches are no longer isolated to the airports, but are now being implemented at random checkpoints, and sporting events and bus and train terminals. More incrementalism. Will it stop there? Or will this become standard in all public places .... allowing the TSA to grap you anywhere you might be, and man handle you, your wife, your children, your elderly parents? Well ... if you indeed are an intelligent human being with a reasonable measure of common sense, the pattern should now be visible.

And guess how this tyrrany managed to advance this far? YES ... by agreeing to accept the illusion of security in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,207,511 times
Reputation: 16939
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And how do you think airlines would handle the situation? By outlawing groping and giving you more freedom?
By doing something effective but NOT invasive. Fire the guys in the blue gloves. Invest in the truely trained experts who use behavoral clues some quicky 'training' can't give. Instead of grouping and humiliation, a trained dog or two. They don't need to touch you, but if someone has explosive hidden on them, they'll smell it. Ditto for ALL luggage. And those employees who nobody looks at.

Test those who deal directly with passangers in security screening to eliminate the cop wannabees. Require courtesy and consideration for all passangers by employees unless there is a known reason they be removed. Have a specially stated policy that the disabled will NOT be harrassed. Dogs are both effective and do not need to harrass anyone. Fire immediately in cases where above policy is NOT followed. Run people through quickly because you don't need the theater. Dump the exray machines and their cancer risk.

Dump all the theater and the COST of it. It's far better put into paying those with real skills to do their jobs.

This would also make it a lot harder to smuggle drugs and other items as well if everyone had to go past dogs trained to sniff out things humans can't see.

And for those who are 'comforted' by the theater... Remember you are far far FAR more likely to never get home from your vacation on the DRIVE to the airport than the flight. But we don't have Disneyland autotopia roads where all the cars are on pulleys so they can't speed or hit someone, nor do we hear an outcry for it. Life is about risk, and you can't live in an illusion of a bubble.

Sure we need some security. But the TSA is about the slow boil and getting us all used to being good little obedient robots. Accepting theater and humiliation as 'comfort' is letting the robot masters win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Florida
77,013 posts, read 47,481,489 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Some Dems ? Try ALOT of Dems.
It was a Republican bill. Period. I don't care how many Dems voted or didn't vote for it. I am not a Democrat, but it is lame to try to pin a Republican bill on Dems.

Quote:
And I think it's more AMERICANS coming out against it because the government is taking more liberty at defining what constitutes "protecting our safety" especially now that they've turned to US soil to fight these terrorists. My statement is non-partisan. Obama is a Dem today but whoever takes over as President, be it Repub or Dem, will continue what is being done.
Yes, Obama has already proven that he is no more left or right or right or wrong than Bush was. Same old, same old. When there was only Romney, McCain, Hillary and Obama left in the game, I knew we'd be getting the same old no matter which one of those CFR cronies got elected. Out of the current batch, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would change anything, but I can guarantee you that the "small givernment" Republicans will rush to the polls to vote for the big government Romney. They did it with Bush, they did it with McCain and they will do it with Romney, or Gingrich etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,207,511 times
Reputation: 16939
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Hatred for government as an institution is a conservative paradigm. They believe in magic... that only private enterprise can deliver for their best interests. Just don't tell them about Mussolini also saying so.
Christmas before last were MONSTER threads about the TSA. The really really interesting thing was there was NO conservative/liberal bent to it at all, with a lot firmly on opposite sides in complete agreement that the TSA was just plain wrong.

Its more about the difference between the sheep and the scared who accept theater and want to be infants vrs those who are realistic about what it represents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 01:38 PM
 
3,304 posts, read 2,167,118 times
Reputation: 2390
The TSA is just a make work project for the unemployable. I travel a fair amount and some of the goons that work for the TSA are pushing IQs of 85 or lower. There's no way that they should hold the type of power that they're given. Why should regular citizens be treated like prison inmates? We should never put up with such intrusive behavior.

I say that we should allow the private airlines to supply security, but they should be held liable for security infractions. That way, they have an incentive to provide tight security, but this would also be coupled with the consumer demand for better treatment and ease of check in. It would be a hell of a lot better than hiring some underpaid schlub to grope peoples' genitals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top