TSA stupidity.... (planes, price, flight, route)

[JoulesMSU]

Originally Posted by phxgreenfire

So... just to make sure I follow your logic, the government should turn a blind eye to drinking and driving? Those DUI checkpoints slow down traffic and "waste" your time if you haven't been drinking. That would effectively violate the civil liberties of all sober drivers, just to protect a very small number of people involved in a potential accident. More than 50% of the property where I work is outdoors, yet they have implemented a smoking ban so that others aren't bothered by secondhand smoke. Smokers now have to cross the street (and sometimes walk two or three blocks) to get a fix. Do you have as much fervor on that issue? That's a violation of civil liberties too.

Honestly, when people invest this much time in criticizing TSA it just comes off as being dramatic. Also, it's pretty self-entitled and selfish. Who cares if hijackers crash another plane into a building and kill thousands more? Just as long as you aren't inconvenienced, then it's totally justifiable. Most of those comparisons you made are stretches. Food poisoning? Really? Going by your logic again, then the government should keep out of food safety regulations, as that would infringe on your rights as a diner and on their rights as a business. But back to your... for lack of a better word, point, then you obviously would have a choice to make: continue eating at an establishment that has given you food poisoning, or choose somewhere else to eat. I don't even think the Hitler analogy deserves discussion.

You need to leave the mong cycle as well.

1) DUI Checkpoints are an infringement because, just like TSA, the vast majority of the people they stop and harass have not done anything wrong and/or aren't going to do anything wrong. If 100 drivers are on the road and none of them have had anything to drink, then yes, you are wasting everyone's time by stopping them all to "make sure".

2) Smoking is not the same because there is a DIRECT interference with others when you blow smoke into their face. You have to walk 3 blocks away because you are the one choosing to smoke, you have to leave. It's not up to someone else to have to leave so that you can do something. If you could smoke without blowing it into everyone else's faces, then there wouldn't be an issue and you wouldn't have to walk away. It's no different than if you carried around a sprinkler and wanted to plug it in to cool yourself down... it would get everyone else wet. And why should people have to endue being wet (or have to leave) just because you want to get wet? They shouldn't. So if you want to turn on a sprinkler, you have to find somewhere private to do it so that you aren't affecting other people. Smoking is the same - if you want to do it, fine, but go away from everyone else so you don't affect them. I fail to see ANY "violation of civil liberties" by saying you can do something as long as it's not affecting other people. In fact, allowing people to smoke in public is actually the "civil liberty violation", because then non-smokers cannot gather in a public setting without having to breath in the smoke.

Also, unlike TSA and DUI checkpoints, forcing smokers to leave ONLY affects the people who are smoking. Never once has anyone been inconvenienced by being forced to leave under the assumption that they "might smoke" - they only have to leave if they ARE going to smoke. That would be like if the DUI checkpoints let every sober driver through without even slowing down and then immediately pulled over the one drunk guy who happens to pass by - if that were the case, then you are right, DUI checkpoints would be just fine. But that's not how they work.


3) Planes are not likely to be hijacked and they are even less likely to be "flown into a building". For every one plane that may get hijacked without strict TSA security, there will be literally BILLIONS of other planes that take off and land without any incident whatsoever, even with no security at all prior to boarding. This is because there are a vast, vast amount of people who care for (if nothing else) their own lives. So doing something to harm an airplane that YOU ARE ON is literally one of the LEAST LIKELY THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN because if you cause it to crash, it means you die too. Like, out of the entire history of earth, how many planes have been flown into buildings on purpose? 3? 4? Can't be much more. So if you are legitimately afraid that someone might fly your plane into a building then congrats, you are a mong. And you might as well live in fear of being struck by lightening or the earth being destroyed by an asteroid, because those are both MORE LIKELY to happen than some guy flying a plane into a building on purpose.

The problem with this country is that there are too many mongs who want to feel safe from unlikely or even nonexistent threats. You are not at all likely to be killed in an airplane related "terrorist attack". Not at all. 99.99999% of all airplane passengers are NOT A THREAT, they are just ordinary people trying to get from one location to the other as quickly as possible. So how does it make sense to harass 99.99999% of all people just to try to find the 0.000001% who might be up to no good? It doesn't. That's idiocy. Actually, that's fascism. The TSA only exists because mongs (like you apparently) THINK that it's needed in order to feel safe, because you probably watch Fox News/MSNBC/CNN and think that all brown people are terrorists who "hate your freedom" - so apparently your answer is to get rid of that freedom so they'll no longer hate you? Great plan. (sarcasm)

[old_cold]

Security at all costs people (even if it's only a false sense of security) brings to mind an old saying
"He wouldn't kick if he was in swimming"

He might drown but won't even question why he maybe should 'kick'.
And that water is getting higher and higher.

If you don't like that one, the 'frog in the pot' is even better.

[phxgreenfire]

Originally Posted by JoulesMSU

You need to leave the mong cycle as well.

1) DUI Checkpoints are an infringement because, just like TSA, the vast majority of the people they stop and harass have not done anything wrong and/or aren't going to do anything wrong. If 100 drivers are on the road and none of them have had anything to drink, then yes, you are wasting everyone's time by stopping them all to "make sure".

2) Smoking is not the same because there is a DIRECT interference with others when you blow smoke into their face. You have to walk 3 blocks away because you are the one choosing to smoke, you have to leave. It's not up to someone else to have to leave so that you can do something. If you could smoke without blowing it into everyone else's faces, then there wouldn't be an issue and you wouldn't have to walk away. It's no different than if you carried around a sprinkler and wanted to plug it in to cool yourself down... it would get everyone else wet. And why should people have to endue being wet (or have to leave) just because you want to get wet? They shouldn't. So if you want to turn on a sprinkler, you have to find somewhere private to do it so that you aren't affecting other people. Smoking is the same - if you want to do it, fine, but go away from everyone else so you don't affect them. I fail to see ANY "violation of civil liberties" by saying you can do something as long as it's not affecting other people. In fact, allowing people to smoke in public is actually the "civil liberty violation", because then non-smokers cannot gather in a public setting without having to breath in the smoke.

Also, unlike TSA and DUI checkpoints, forcing smokers to leave ONLY affects the people who are smoking. Never once has anyone been inconvenienced by being forced to leave under the assumption that they "might smoke" - they only have to leave if they ARE going to smoke. That would be like if the DUI checkpoints let every sober driver through without even slowing down and then immediately pulled over the one drunk guy who happens to pass by - if that were the case, then you are right, DUI checkpoints would be just fine. But that's not how they work.

And your solution is... what? Wait until after the accident to charge someone with a DUI? I guess you just missed the point of the whole thing with that smoking remark. He was so adamantly against violating civil liberties (and you seem to feel TSA is an infringement as well) but when it's something you disagree with, then it's okay to impose restrictions on people. Drunk driving does have an effect on other people, and it can be far more damaging and gruesome than the few seconds of secondhand smoke you may breathe in walking by a smoker.

Originally Posted by JoulesMSU

3) Planes are not likely to be hijacked and they are even less likely to be "flown into a building". For every one plane that may get hijacked without strict TSA security, there will be literally BILLIONS of other planes that take off and land without any incident whatsoever, even with no security at all prior to boarding. This is because there are a vast, vast amount of people who care for (if nothing else) their own lives. So doing something to harm an airplane that YOU ARE ON is literally one of the LEAST LIKELY THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN because if you cause it to crash, it means you die too. Like, out of the entire history of earth, how many planes have been flown into buildings on purpose? 3? 4? Can't be much more. So if you are legitimately afraid that someone might fly your plane into a building then congrats, you are a mong. And you might as well live in fear of being struck by lightening or the earth being destroyed by an asteroid, because those are both MORE LIKELY to happen than some guy flying a plane into a building on purpose.

"Literally billions"? Ha ha ha. Millions per year, sure. Billions is a bit of a stretch though. 9/11 wasn't the only incident involving aircraft, and the 1970s and '80s saw a massive spike in the number of hijackings. Look it up if you want, but hijackings still occur in other parts of the world. The bold part was amusing too. You're talking about fundamentalists, martyrs and/or people who just aren't that mentally stable concerned that they might die. That would make them suicide bombers... and surely, no self-respecting terrorist would do that, right?

Originally Posted by JoulesMSU

The problem with this country is that there are too many mongs who want to feel safe from unlikely or even nonexistent threats. You are not at all likely to be killed in an airplane related "terrorist attack". Not at all. 99.99999% of all airplane passengers are NOT A THREAT, they are just ordinary people trying to get from one location to the other as quickly as possible. So how does it make sense to harass 99.99999% of all people just to try to find the 0.000001% who might be up to no good? It doesn't. That's idiocy. Actually, that's fascism. The TSA only exists because mongs (like you apparently) THINK that it's needed in order to feel safe, because you probably watch Fox News/MSNBC/CNN and think that all brown people are terrorists who "hate your freedom" - so apparently your answer is to get rid of that freedom so they'll no longer hate you? Great plan. (sarcasm)

I don't think TSA is perfect at all. However, there hasn't been a hijacking on an aircraft originating in the United States since TSA was implemented, aside from rogues in small aircraft. There have been inbound flights with attempts (i.e. the "Shoe Bomber" from Paris to Miami, the "Underwear Bomber" from Amsterdam to Detroit) and luckily those plots were thwarted. That last sentence doesn't even make sense, so I don't know how to respond to it. The fascism part is the funniest comment though. If TSA or a similar entity went from door-to-door to search your home, sure that's fascism. Arguably, anti-immigration laws in states like Arizona, Alabama and Georgia amongst others are a greater violation of civil liberties than TSA, because of the green light of authorities to stop citizens and request proof of citizenship. My grandmother has told me plenty of stories of her life and times in the Anschluss of Austria, and journal entries/letters my great grandfather wrote regarding his experiences then shed more of a light on the situation. That's fascism. Complaining about TSA is just whining.

[shyguylh]

Originally Posted by JoulesMSU

[snip] The problem with this country is that there are too many mongs who want to feel safe from unlikely or even nonexistent threats. You are not at all likely to be killed in an airplane related "terrorist attack". Not at all. 99.99999% of all airplane passengers are NOT A THREAT, they are just ordinary people trying to get from one location to the other as quickly as possible. So how does it make sense to harass 99.99999% of all people just to try to find the 0.000001% who might be up to no good? It doesn't. That's idiocy. Actually, that's fascism. The TSA only exists because mongs (like you apparently) THINK that it's needed in order to feel safe, because you probably watch Fox News/MSNBC/CNN and think that all brown people are terrorists who "hate your freedom" - so apparently your answer is to get rid of that freedom so they'll no longer hate you? Great plan. (sarcasm)

Hear, hear. Bingo, you nailed it.

This country has very much become this way. Look at how nuts schools are acting after Newtown, thinking all of the schools now need 80 policemen there at all times and people talking about how we should be okay with being inconvienced when we need to go to our child's school and go where we need to go to do what we need to do. Phooey on that. I like being able to go to our local small-school and just go to my daughter's class without having to go through metal detectors or have a background check. Other people's kids see me and know who I am and I can just go anywhere anytime without a hassle. It's great. (The school is so small that the campus is probably about the size of your average Wal Mart and ALL of the grades K-12 are there at that one campus. The drop-off line--you're lucky if there are 2 cars in front of you at all.) Forgive me for liking some CONVENIENCE in life and not being looked at as a presumed shooter just because I'm a man walking around alone on campus once in a while.

I got to reading--the worst-ever school mass murder was in 1927, it was called the Bath School Disaster, and it was perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe. He was a school board member who was angry at the increased property taxes that came from funding the new school & how those taxes added a burden to his life. To retaliate, he planted bombs at the school over the course of many months. He was known as a maintenance man there as well as a school board member so he had unfettered access to the entire school. He even bombed his own house so that when he died (he committed suicide along the way) creditors wouldn't be able to seize his property to pay off any of his debts. More people died in that attack that in Newtown & Virginia Tech COMBINED if I have my math right.

Besides the fact that it involved bombing, not shooting (a relevant observation regarding gun control etc), is this observation: in the aftermath, very little was done legislative-wise or making schools like prisons-wise. They didn't start making school board members go through 38 layers of security in every school in the country. They didn't advocate for any sort of ridiculous TSA-like security everywhere. They didn't go "the school was at fault, didn't they know better than to give someone that sort of access? I DON'T CARE if he was a school board member with no history of any problems." They didn't, as you would say, harass the 99.9999% for what the 0.00001% did. Instead people wisely saw it for the unfortunate fluke it was, mourned the dead, rebuilt the school AT THE SAME SITE no less, and moved on.

People could learn from that resiliency and perspective of now, very much so.

[Subconscious]

Originally Posted by annerk

Nope. Those who are acting suspiciously need additional screening. Those who have traveled to certain countries also belong on the extra screening list.

So you have a superiority complex? You believe in bigotry? Look no one is above reproach. No one. Everyone should get the same treatment regardless. If we are treating people differently that's not just unfair, that is a huge security hole and we are wasting our time and money and should scrap our whole program and start again .

Sent from my Galaxy far, far away.

[D. Scott]

I traveled just this past Saturday. On presenting my boarding pass at McCarren Airport, The guard looked at my I.D., Sneered, And sure enough I got flagged. Searched my stuff, Confiscated a bottle of liquid soap. Overall it was fast and not humiliating but because of my beard and dark skin due to the desert sun I was not surprised it happened. She made it quite obvious I was in for something though. Could have done without the attitude. Whatever.

[Cape Cod Todd]

We need to drop the PC crap and profile. 90% of terrorists are muslim males so why not pull them aside for the extra search. We would still need ot do the random searches of the grannies and kids but chances are the ones who want to hurt us are extreme muslim guys. We all give up a bit of our rights when we submit to the shoeless, empty pockets, beltless, can't bring water, can't bring toothpaste etc etc.. pat downs so if a muslim looking guy wants ot travel guess what you will be given the twice over. Sorry.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Subconscious

So you have a superiority complex? You believe in bigotry? Look no one is above reproach. No one. Everyone should get the same treatment regardless. If we are treating people differently that's not just unfair, that is a huge security hole and we are wasting our time and money and should scrap our whole program and start again .

Sent from my Galaxy far, far away.

I don't think that singling people out for traveling to certain countries is bigotry, it's common sense. Face it, the majority of people convicted of terrorism in this world have come from about a dozen countries or visited them in the past five years. Don't want to be singled out? Don't visit Somalia, Mali, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the list goes on. Twenty years ago I would have included Northern Ireland, now, not so much.

People who are acting suspiciously need to be considered a threat. Don't want to be considered a threat, don't do stupid things that alarm people.

That said, I'm not saying we should be alarmed by seeing a women in a Hajib or a man on his knees praying facing east at dawn. Common sense must prevail, and we must realize that these are religious customs which must be respected just like Catholics don't eat meat on Friday during Lent and observant Jewish men wear a yarmulke.

[Rich88]

Originally Posted by Phil306

All very good, until its your wife, husband, daughter or son blown into another zip code. You say this now, however, the moment someone close to you, died in such a situation and such safeguards were NOT in place, as a lawyer, YOU would be the first one suing, trying to get as much money as you could. You can slice it, dice it, spin doctor it all you want. You KNOW its true. The SECOND a family member was killed, you would be exploiting every single opening to "make your case."

I too travel quite frequently. I too dislike the TSA and some their policies. I am a police officer and I've been strip searched, yes read that again, STRIP SEARCHED, TWICE by the TSA. I don't whine, *****, or moan about it. Its part of life as we know it now and I live with it.

What I think about is the great, glorious time I had when I got too my destinations. Not some minor issue in my life. People need to grow up, mature up, and look at the world through REAL LIFE. Not some myopic view point of their poor little life. The TSA has no idea, no way, et al to know whom a terrorist is.

And Mark, YOU have no clue how many terrorist incidents have been stopped which DO NOT and HAVE NOT reached the general public and the newspapers. Yes, I do. I've been involved in several terrorist isues in the SF Bay Area which received NO or little media attention. However, had their goals been achieved, it would have been all over the world.

Sometimes ignorance is total bliss.

How True This Is... A Lot Of Times People Use What Are Called "Dry Runs" Where Seemingly Innocuous Items Are Used In Place Of The Real Item, (I.e. Baby Powder/Corn Starch For Drugs, Modeling Clay For Explosives) Just To SEe How The Authority Reacts To It. There May Be Hundreds Of Thousands Of Foiled Attempts Weekly That People Just Never Know About.

Also As A Federal Law Enforcement Officer I Can Attest To Your Post As I Have Seen It Happen In St. Louis, Los Angeles, And Denver Where The Real Deal Was Thwarted And No One Ever knew.

[jasper12]

Phil, I am assuming, you are not a 90 year old W.W. II veteran, blind, deaf, and in a wheelchair, correct?

Please defend the strip search...must be to check out the extra padding....those are Depends. The batteries, are for the hearing aids, the wires, are actually a T Coil adaptive device for hearing impaired, and the long, aluminum tubes? Not a pipe bomb? Nope, a long cane for blind. And those huge shoes? Must be a bomb....nope, built up shoes for diabetics, with neuropathy, and missing part of foot. And the liquid? Specialized Ensure for diabetics. And the drugs? All those vials, pills, and syringes? What brittle diabetic would check their medication?

These people just need a modicum of common sense, that is all I ask. Not a complete search of an older, obviously disabled man.