Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Airport Pat-Downs: TSA Says it Can Fine You for Backing Out
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1374694" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>The Adam Savage thing is a joke, but glad you believe everything you hear or read. As for the other stuff, I was actually being complimentary to our foreign partners. However, TSA doesn't perform the screening in foreign countries, where most of these people have gotten on aircraft before being caught. Also, you're expecting proof of a negative. How could the TSA tout the prevention of a terrorist attack they don't know they prevented, but was prevented nonetheless? Have any proof it<em> hasn't </em>happened? I didn't think so. If they decide to not try something because they believe it will fail or be detected, that's prevention. Do you have any proof of how many fires you've prevented because you're not careless with matches?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Outside the scope of authority would be if they were screening in a public, non-sterile area, screening for something other than prohibited items, or screening beyond the proscribed procedures.</p><p></p><p>These instances, while humiliating and condemnable if true, do not rise to the level of civil rights violations. If someone you know humiliates you, are they violating your civil rights? You don't just get to make up what you feel are civil rights violations based on emotion. We still use reason in this country, at least some of the time. Seems like a lot more these days, people want to automatically go to the nuclear option first. Someone does something you don't like and they're a racist or bigot or violating peoples civil rights. While you'd probably agree with the ACLU in these instances, how many times would you normally agree with them? </p><p></p><p>Oh, and I mentioned that two of those 5 instances have already been proven false, yet you managed to lump them back in as "civil rights violations" anyway. It's difficult to have a reasonable discourse on a subject if the other side is unwilling to acknowledge false arguments as false.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>BS you're spreading there my friend. I've personally screened Coburn and Inhoffe back in the day. They're not exempt. You're like the sheep fearing the sheepdog here, not the wolves. I see you bagging on the current solution, yet not offering any viable ones yourself nor stepping up to the plate to actually do anything but complain. Nattering naybobs of negativity anyone?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So your solution is to turn out the jails because contraband gets in? Open the gates with no restrictions prior to boarding because the TSA or airline employee will probably smuggle a bomb on board? That's sure what it sounds like you're proposing here. Enlighten us!</p><p></p><p>P.S. You're closer to correct than you think. A lot of the airline security regulations are due to an airline employee murdering 42 people in 1987. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771</a> Funny, we didn't roll over and give up on aircraft security back then.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Funny you should mention that. People didn't seem to have a problem with it when it was done before 9/11 and TSA. Perhaps it's because it was very cursory and not at all effective back then? Yet the very same people decry the "security theater" of today. I remember working with legacy equipment back in 2002 that was faulty, well beyond reasonable service life and almost impossible to use effectively. Getting the new equipment was like taking a blindfold off. To think that we don't catch stuff because it doesn't make the 6 O'clock news is foolish. Yet if it doesn't make the news it, apparently didn't happen and vice-versa. I love the incredible double standard here. Everyone here bags on how terrible the media is at doing their jobs these days, myself included. Yet the minute a topic everyone dislikes such as the TSA comes on and suddenly everything the media says is 100% correct. Walk a mile in our shoes and they might not be so quick to judge. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>I think I'm going to have to ignore these threads from now on. So everyone can now continue to spread rumors and falsehoods as gospel, think with their feelings rather than reason, and generally have a good old time roasting marshmallows at the witch hunt. Sorry to spoil everyone's fun. <img src="/images/smilies/disappoint.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":disappoin" title="Disappoint :disappoin" data-shortname=":disappoin" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1374694, member: 1132"] The Adam Savage thing is a joke, but glad you believe everything you hear or read. As for the other stuff, I was actually being complimentary to our foreign partners. However, TSA doesn't perform the screening in foreign countries, where most of these people have gotten on aircraft before being caught. Also, you're expecting proof of a negative. How could the TSA tout the prevention of a terrorist attack they don't know they prevented, but was prevented nonetheless? Have any proof it[I] hasn't [/I]happened? I didn't think so. If they decide to not try something because they believe it will fail or be detected, that's prevention. Do you have any proof of how many fires you've prevented because you're not careless with matches? Outside the scope of authority would be if they were screening in a public, non-sterile area, screening for something other than prohibited items, or screening beyond the proscribed procedures. These instances, while humiliating and condemnable if true, do not rise to the level of civil rights violations. If someone you know humiliates you, are they violating your civil rights? You don't just get to make up what you feel are civil rights violations based on emotion. We still use reason in this country, at least some of the time. Seems like a lot more these days, people want to automatically go to the nuclear option first. Someone does something you don't like and they're a racist or bigot or violating peoples civil rights. While you'd probably agree with the ACLU in these instances, how many times would you normally agree with them? Oh, and I mentioned that two of those 5 instances have already been proven false, yet you managed to lump them back in as "civil rights violations" anyway. It's difficult to have a reasonable discourse on a subject if the other side is unwilling to acknowledge false arguments as false. BS you're spreading there my friend. I've personally screened Coburn and Inhoffe back in the day. They're not exempt. You're like the sheep fearing the sheepdog here, not the wolves. I see you bagging on the current solution, yet not offering any viable ones yourself nor stepping up to the plate to actually do anything but complain. Nattering naybobs of negativity anyone? So your solution is to turn out the jails because contraband gets in? Open the gates with no restrictions prior to boarding because the TSA or airline employee will probably smuggle a bomb on board? That's sure what it sounds like you're proposing here. Enlighten us! P.S. You're closer to correct than you think. A lot of the airline security regulations are due to an airline employee murdering 42 people in 1987. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_1771[/url] Funny, we didn't roll over and give up on aircraft security back then. Funny you should mention that. People didn't seem to have a problem with it when it was done before 9/11 and TSA. Perhaps it's because it was very cursory and not at all effective back then? Yet the very same people decry the "security theater" of today. I remember working with legacy equipment back in 2002 that was faulty, well beyond reasonable service life and almost impossible to use effectively. Getting the new equipment was like taking a blindfold off. To think that we don't catch stuff because it doesn't make the 6 O'clock news is foolish. Yet if it doesn't make the news it, apparently didn't happen and vice-versa. I love the incredible double standard here. Everyone here bags on how terrible the media is at doing their jobs these days, myself included. Yet the minute a topic everyone dislikes such as the TSA comes on and suddenly everything the media says is 100% correct. Walk a mile in our shoes and they might not be so quick to judge. :( I think I'm going to have to ignore these threads from now on. So everyone can now continue to spread rumors and falsehoods as gospel, think with their feelings rather than reason, and generally have a good old time roasting marshmallows at the witch hunt. Sorry to spoil everyone's fun. :disappoin [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Airport Pat-Downs: TSA Says it Can Fine You for Backing Out
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
