Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Nov 15, 2010.
I smell some anti-government Libertarians. Always good for a laugh.
He who smelt it...
Nun costume: $21.98
Better safe than sorry: Priceless
Some of these post have made my Friday....great stuff. :lol:
I wonder why terrorists have not moved on to softer targets. There seems to be a high focus on blowing a plane out of the sky. Why isn't there more focus on doing damage where they can? It seems that our best protection is the stupidity of the terrorists and their lack of resolve.
(Not that I want terrorist attacks, but they're doing a lousy job. Travelers are more afraid of being groped at the airport than being killed by a terrorist.)
That is just as silly as not buying gas on a Tuesday to hurt the Oil companies. The idea makes sense on paper, but you are not going to get national participation in stopping the machine that is business and travel.
As mentioned before, it only takes one shoe, underwear, bra strap, condom, or chewing gum bomber to change the way we are all groped and flathanded the day after a boycott.
. . :thats: :lol:
Don't overlook the dreaded 'bubblegum' bomber.
I don't think we'll hear from him anymore...he bit off more than he could chew...
Imagine a McVeigh style rental truck in the Lincoln Tunnel or the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel or the I-70 tunnel w/o Denver.
For reference, consider the tunnel fire in the Alps a few years ago.
Oh you laugh now. But just wait where that gloved hand goes next after he threatens a airline waitress with a chunk of Hubba Bubba. :lol:
That's because you are on the DBSTalk Fly List. All DBSTalk members should not have any issues getting through security. Except for Nick. Curmudgeons are not allowed.
!rolling !rolling !rolling
Yes, voluntarily. When you agree to fly and enter security in an airport you agree to the rules and stipulations that come with that. Part of those stipulations are that you can be searched and refusal to let the search take place will have consequences. If you don't want to submit to those rules, take the bus, train, car, etc...
<cough> <cough> <awful> <cough> <cough>
Wow! Even #1 is getting into the ring and holding back no punches! :lol:
Lady claims TSA sexually assaulted her: http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html
I believe the point a lot of us are trying to make on here is that while it is a rule, it's a dumb rule.
I'm not trying to start a "bad analogy" sub-thread, but what if a local government said home ownership required a monthly safety-check inspections because a house across town had a fire caused by a space heater even if your house didn't contain a space heater? You'd probably think that it's a waste of time, resources and an invasion of your private property. The same applies to these screenings, most of which are completely unnecessary.
The problem is that the TSA isn't looking for terrorists...they're looking for explosives and weapons, and wasting time and resources. Rather than asking people questions and studying their behavior, they assume that every nun or 3-year old girl is trying to blow up a plane because they don't care to know the enemy and how they work. Their default action is to put their hands on the genitalia of everyone who doesn't want a full-body scan, not to determine WHO is most likely to need closer scrutiny.
Screening is most definitely warranted, but this isn't good screening. If doctors followed TSA-style guidelines, they'd test every white person for Sickle Cell Anemia; all 18-yr old girls would undergo mammograms; every 16-yr old boy would get prostate exams; kindergarteners would have cholesterol screenings as a condition of enrolling. Good screening means following the CLUES and paying attention to symptoms. More intrusive tests come after something indicates their necessity.
Common sense! Study everyone, but know the enemy and LOOK for them. Quit wasting time on useless pat-downs.
Agree completely (great examples :lol. Unfortunately in our society, political correctness trumps common sense.
Okay, that was a bad analogy!
The problem though is that if you start to look for the terrorists you get into the issue of profiling and everyone knows how ugly a word that is. By taking a generalistic approach you invade on everyone's 4th Amendment rights and not just a few, which would appear to be discriminatory. Trust me, you won't catch me saying that TSA is doing a perfect job. Far from that. My point is that with flying, you agree to the rules when you bought the ticket. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.
As for profiling, I don't see a problem with it; that is as long as the profiling is for criminals and terrorists. And that can be done without racial/gender/religious profiling.
just someone else looking for her 15 minutes of fame. This became quite apparent once you get to the bottom of her post and update #3.
Wonder how soon it will before she gets an attorney and tries to sue the TSA.
And this part: