• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anyone flying soon?

#181
MJ5150 said:
I love how Brad pops into controversial threads now and then and fires off five or six straight posts. Sometimes including a quote so we know what he is replying to, other times not so we have to go back and try and match it up. I eventually get to a point where it all makes sense to me.

Great posts Brad. You are one of the good things about TB OT. Seriously. :)

-Mike
Click to expand...

I get on here in spurts and since I have a clear opinion on this and many other issues it's pretty easy to respond to this stuff. I could post and wait and maybe only respond to one person at a time but this is hardly taxing typing-wise. Plus I has FiOS!

I appreciate your posts as usual, Mike. As usual they have a realistic bent to them. Mike.

And I'm out again. Let's see what transpires while I'm gone.
:D
 
#182
Brad Johnson said:
So you're just giving your opinion and I'm on a soapbox grandstanding.

Figures.
:D
Click to expand...
You neglected to read that in context. Figures.

I'm not lobbying for LESS MEASURES. Duh. You are. Sometimes I wonder if somewhere in the back of some folks' minds it just doesn't click that we are at war.

At war.
Click to expand...
I'm not lobbying for LESS MEASURES. I'm lobbying for DIFFERENT MEASURES. Duh? That is how you punctuate the misunderstanding of a person's position? If this is the level of discourse I can expect, I will be moving along, thank you very much.
 
#183
A U.S. gov't that says it just wants to make us "more safe" lets its agents grope grannies, nuns and little children rather than using logic and common sense to identify and investigate the most likely terrorism suspects.

And threatens to fine or jail us if we refuse to subject ourselves to the un-Constitutional bodily searches.

Meanwhile, the same gov't tries foreign-born war combatants in civilian courts (and risks divulging military secrets and endangering the lives of jury members and local community members), drops the ball on border security, sues U.S. states making efforts to secure their own borders, refuses to identify Islamofascist terrorists by their radical religious background, and believes it's just fine to spit in the face of the families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark (and in D.C., too).
 
#184
Son of Sanford said:
You neglected to read that in context. Figures.

I'm not lobbying for LESS MEASURES. I'm lobbying for DIFFERENT MEASURES. Duh? That is how you punctuate the misunderstanding of a person's position? If this is the level of discourse I can expect, I will be moving along, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Which measures did the new measures DISPLACE? The new measures you are against...
:hmm:

By all means move along. Your constant pronouncements have gotten beyond old. It smacks of Green Acres.
:D
 
#185
Tampabass said:
A U.S. gov't that says it just wants to make us "more safe" lets its agents grope grannies, nuns and little children rather than using logic and common sense to identify and investigate the most likely terrorism suspects.

And threatens to fine or jail us if we refuse to subject ourselves to the un-Constitutional bodily searches.
Click to expand...

"Grope"? Of course.

As mentioned, you can't be fined if you don't go to the airport. Is flying now a right?

Meanwhile, the same gov't tries foreign-born war combatants in civilian courts (and risks divulging military secrets and endangering the lives of jury members and local community members), drops the ball on border security, sues U.S. states making efforts to secure their own borders, refuses to identify Islamofascist terrorists by their radical religious background, and believes it's just fine to spit in the face of the families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark (and in D.C., too).
Click to expand...

Well, there's no doubt this paragraph is political. Oh well.
:D
 
#186
Brad Johnson said:
"Grope"? Of course.

As mentioned, you can't be fined if you don't go to the airport. Is flying now a right?
:D
Click to expand...

"Grope"? Yes, have you seen any of the videos?

Freely traveling from place to place, without being subject to unconstitutional searches a right in the U.S.? Yes. In the past, the only type of Americans who were subjected to those types of searches IN AMERICA were those suspected of criminal activities.
 
#187
Tampabass said:
"Grope"? Yes, have you seen any of the videos?

Freely traveling from place to place, without being subject to unconstitutional searches a right in the U.S.? Yes. In the past, the only type of Americans who were subjected to those types of searches IN AMERICA were those suspected of criminal activities.
Click to expand...

Have you been subjected to a full body search? Is it possible to do it without it being "groping"? At what point might it be "fondling"? You're seriously likening these to a sexual assault?


So we've established that flying IYO is a right (that was my question, wasn't it?).

Does the fact that we're at war matter or change anything security-wise?
 
#188
We're essentially always at war with someone or another, and threats continue. There are logical, reasonable, effective responses to handling airline security. And then there are the other kind.

(By the way, no politicians or political parties were harmed, or named, in the making of this post).
 
#189
Tampabass said:
We're essentially always at war with someone or another, and threats continue. There are logical, reasonable, effective responses to handling airline security. And then there are the other kind.
Click to expand...

So that's a "yes"?

Then lay out the extent to which security should be enforced in our current climate. I know what you don't want to allow, what do you think is allowable?



(By the way, no politicians or political parties were harmed, or named, in the making of this post).
Click to expand...

Hey, you were the one who went there:D. You might want to strike your blatant political statement in the spirit of keeping this thread open. Just a suggestion.
:cool:
 
#190
Yes, in America, we are free to travel from place to place without unreasonable, unconstitutional searches. Call it a right or a privilege, whatever.

It's pretty clear that other countries - namely, Israel - effectively keep their airlines safe through more effective technology, apparently, along with the common-sense approach of doing extensive investigations of only those most likely to be terrorists. So why not use that model?

It's not that difficult to figure out. For starters, as I mentioned, it's not the 8-year-old kids, grannies, and nuns.
 
#192
Tampabass said:
Yes, in America, we are free to travel from place to place without unreasonable, unconstitutional searches. Call it a right or a privilege, whatever.
Click to expand...

Considering they're two different things, okay... whatever.
:D

Walk into the Pentagon uninvited without proper clearance and let me know how that works out for ya.
:D

It's pretty clear that other countries - namely, Israel - effectively keep their airlines safe through more effective technology, apparently, along with the common-sense approach of doing extensive investigations of only those most likely to be terrorists. So why not use that model?
Click to expand...

So employ the Israeli model here? Cool. What are the bullet points of that model?




It's not that difficult to figure out. For starters, as I mentioned, it's not the 8-year-old kids, grannies, and nuns.
Click to expand...

So the Israeli model gives those groups a free pass?
 
#194
Tampabass said:
Do you believe that the gov't, in the name of protecting us, should be allowed to do ANYTHING to us, randomly and with insufficient, reason, at airport security checks? Where does it end? Cavity searches in a back room?
Click to expand...

You think that doesn't happen in the Israeli system when they feel it's warranted?

I didn't even hint at the idea that the government should be able to do ANYTHING but hey... nice leap. I'm speaking specifically to what they are doing and as far as I can tell it does not encompass EVERYTHING.
:cool:
 
#195
We're talking about the average American flying places on business, or some college kid going home for the holidays. Not sure what a visit to the Pentagon has to do with this.

Good Thomas Sowell column on this today.

It begins, "No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport-security people don’t have to strip passengers naked electronically or feel strangers’ private parts.

Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?"

the rest is here - Invalid Link Removed
 
#196
Israel:
Ben Gurion International is the busiest airport in the country by far, with 10.9 million passengers in 2009.

U.S.:
Hartsfield: 88 million in 2009
O'Hare: 64 million
LAX: 56 million
Dallas/FW: 56 million
Denver: 50 million
JFK: 46 million
McCarran: 40 million
Bush/Houston: 40 million
Phoenix: 38 million
San Fran: 37 million
Charlotte: 35 million
Miami: 34 million
Orlando: 34 million
Newark: 33 million
Minny/St. Paul: 32 million
Detroit: 31 million
Seattle: 31 million
Philly: 30 million
Logan: 25 million

Even if one thinks the Israeli system would work as well with the US' more diverse passenger pool, the overwhelming numbers make training and implementation vastly more difficult.
 
#197
Tampabass said:
We're talking about the average American flying places on business, or some college kid going home for the holidays. Not sure what a visit to the Pentagon has to do with this.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about ANYONE who might get on a commercial flight. It is interesting that you give a couple of what you apparently consider benign examples.
:D

It's about the unfettered access you seem to think you have as an American. Access that you don't really have. The Pentagon, like airports, consists of secure areas. That's what it has to do with it. Tried to give you an even more obvious example.

Good Thomas Sowell column on this today.

It begins, "No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport-security people don’t have to strip passengers naked electronically or feel strangers’ private parts.

Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?"

the rest is here - Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

So despite the fact that many say the system wouldn't work here, including many who implement it there, you think it would? To begin with, who would pay for it?
:hmm:

Who would execute it? That's right, the same people you're complaining about now. Plus a whole lot more.
 
#198
GregC said:
Israel:
Ben Gurion International is the busiest airport in the country by far, with 10.9 million passengers in 2009.

U.S.:
Hartsfield: 88 million in 2009
O'Hare: 64 million
LAX: 56 million
Dallas/FW: 56 million
Denver: 50 million
JFK: 46 million
McCarran: 40 million
Bush/Houston: 40 million
Phoenix: 38 million
San Fran: 37 million
Charlotte: 35 million
Miami: 34 million
Orlando: 34 million
Newark: 33 million
Minny/St. Paul: 32 million
Detroit: 31 million
Seattle: 31 million
Philly: 30 million
Logan: 25 million

Even if one thinks the Israeli system would work as well with the US' more diverse passenger pool, the overwhelming numbers make training and implementation vastly more difficult.
Click to expand...

That basic fact apparently isn't all that important to some.

So train and hire enough people to conduct the hundreds of millions of interviews, grounds screenings, etc. Who pays for it?
:D
 
#199
The problem with the Israeli model is that they handle much fewer passengers than any of the major airports in the U.S. It's just not an apples to apples comparison, so it's not fair to use it either way.

The other question becomes where do you draw the line for the 4th Amendment? If no search can be conducted without reason, then what about the metal detectors that we've used for years, whose only practical difference is that they don't show an image of your nekkid body after the scan? Does it suddenly only become a breach of your rights after it makes you uncomfortable? Would the body scanner be OK in your mind if it didn't reveal anything about your body to the operator, but instead just gave a yes or no if you were carrying a dangerous object (which some companies are currently working on)? Again, is the only thing breaching your rights the fact that it makes you uncomfortable, despite that the procedure/ net outcome is the same?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back