Willy Wonka Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 "Terrorists" are not what worries me, it's that people are ok with organizations like the TSA even existing. It's assumed that people, when given the freedom to, will not find ways to defend themselves and protect themselves from threats; thus the TSA is born. Of course, this is completely illogical and doesn't make sense, since the TSA is obviously made up of PEOPLE. The issue is the fact that the TSA is an organization that is forced upon free people and has no incentive to figure out that their operation is even A) What people actually want, Efficient, and C) Profitable. To each his or her own but I would just like the damn option to deal with these types of people or not just like I have the option to decide whether I want to buy a certain car or not because I feel one is safer then the other, or visit a certain doctor because I feel he or she is more competent and trustworthy then another doctor, or dentist for the same reason.... you all HOPEFULLY get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So...your point is that you want to provide your own security for potential threats when flying? Be able to go on an airline that provides it's own private security or provides none? Be able to choose between private security companies at the airport? Show righteous indignation without really explaining what it is you WANT or think should be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So...your point is that you want to provide your own security for potential threats when flying? Me personally? Nope, never said that. Be able to go on an airline that provides it's own private security Yes or provides none? Nope, definitely wouldn't use an airline like that. I doubt many others would. With that being said, I can't imagine a very profitable airline with zero security when security is a big concern for most people. Be able to choose between private security companies at the airport? Yes Show righteous indignation without really explaining what it is you WANT or think should be done? I did explain what I want. I want choices. In a functioning market economy, you get choices. ---------- Post added March-20th-2012 at 07:03 PM ---------- If anyone disagrees with what I'm saying, I really think that is fine. If you want to throw yourself to an organization that forces you to do things, that is your CHOICE. Just don't force your values on others. Force = violence, which is something I believe that everyone here can agree is what we do not want or condone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So...your point is that you want to provide your own security for potential threats when flying? Be able to go on an airline that provides it's own private security or provides none? Libertarian Air. Just keep the **** out of my airspace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 People can already choose to bypass security, by flying private commercial companies. Of course there is a premium for that kind of air travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not concerned about the three year old's rights being violated. Or that his parents are upset. I'm concerned because it's ****ty approach to security which doesn't make it safer. TSA behavior is much like the drunk who searches under the street light for the keys he's lost because he can see better there, even if though he thinks he dropped them somewhere else. Subjecting everyone to a thorough screening process because they agree to go through a thorough screening process is not effective security. We have limited security dollars, even if it is in the hundreds of billions. Spending it in this way means we don't spend it on actual leads, such as information that the underpants bomber and others were a threat. We implement intrusive security at major airports where it can be seen, but leave other entry points to the system completely open. And the official blog by the TSA on the latest failure of the body scanners shows how laser focused they are on PR, rather than security. And the coverup: Basically this, relatively speaking, it's a waste of everyone's time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doozinbrah Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I saw a girl with a live grenade try to go through security with it in Norfolk. She was a caucasian blonde. Sorry TSA may seem rediculous but ill take this , instead of no security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Shouldn't even pre TSA security catch that? None of us are suggesting no security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think a lot of what TSA does is a waste, but this doesn't offend me at all. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 My opinion? The terrorists have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 If anyone disagrees with what I'm saying, I really think that is fine. If you want to throw yourself to an organization that forces you to do things, that is your CHOICE. Just don't force your values on others. Force = violence, which is something I believe that everyone here can agree is what we do not want or condone. Ok so lets say hypothetically you did have your choice of airline and they all had their own private security and you could decide which airline you wished to used based at least partially on that. What security criteria would you deem acceptable but still make you feel safe at the same time? You seem have a problem with the TSA security checks so I assume you don't like the idea of their checkpoints or pat downs, etc. You don't want to be "forced" to do anything but at the same time you admit that security is certainly a concern. So what is the alternative that would be acceptable to Willy Wonka? (Sorry, I couldn't resist typing that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 First, I highly doubt the child was "traumatized" by this. I guarantee he'll be more traumatized when he sees and hears the saw his doctor is going to use to take that cast off. I have a lot of issues with the effectiveness of TSA, but this isn't one of them. Unfortunately casts and wheel chairs need to be searched, not matter who is using them. Terrorists have proven they will go to any length necessary to attack us. People need to quit whining about every tiny thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 People need to quit whining about every tiny thing. C'mon now. Whining about every little thing is one of the signature moves of the collective male message board poster demographic. Look under (not) Real Men in your Interwebz Guidebook. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Ok so lets say hypothetically you did have your choice of airline and they all had their own private security and you could decide which airline you wished to used based at least partially on that. What security criteria would you deem acceptable but still make you feel safe at the same time? You seem have a problem with the TSA security checks so I assume you don't like the idea of their checkpoints or pat downs, etc. You don't want to be "forced" to do anything but at the same time you admit that security is certainly a concern. So what is the alternative that would be acceptable to Willy Wonka? (Sorry, I couldn't resist typing that) Haha, that's ok. I have fun typing it every time I need to log in. I think common sense should be considered, which the TSA clearly doesn't have (as an organization). The video posted in the beginning of this thread was rather odd. I'm sure that if customers were able to choose between different airlines with different types of securities, a lot of people would shy away from a company who hired people like that or security that felt the need to grab you in ways that otherwise would be considered sexual abuse. I frequent a lot of night clubs, for example, and have gone to many in my day and some have better security then others. Most, if not all, though, will at least pat you down and ask you to empty your pockets. Others will go the extra mile and have metal detectors. These are nightclubs that sometimes hold to 1000 or more people, mind you. I can only think of 2 times where an incident occurred with a weapon. The one place never opened its doors again. I could be reaching but I'd be willing to bet it had something to do with that incident and the fact that free people made it clear that they were no longer going there. Hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make here. If not, it's simply that forcing an organization like the TSA is not necessary and is more of a wasteful existence then anything else. Private airlines are worried about security, passengers are worried about security, and with both of those two things, I think it's pretty clear that there would be some type of security in place without the TSA ever having to be involved. Did we all forget about how many years had gone by before the TSA existed? How many kamikaze type of attacks did we have in the span of those years? How many extremely violent incidents really ever occurred in the span of those years, with the millions of passengers who flew and the thousands upon thousands of flights that also occurred through those years? Is the TSA really necessary? You know my answer to that question. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Do you not take steps to avoid getting hit by lightening?Or do you stand in the most openm spece you can find with a big metal pole? Odds may be slim but so are they when you gamble and many people still do it. Sure, I take common sense precautions. But I don't overreact because other people have been hit by lightning. I don't spend every thunderstorm hiding in a windowless basement, making sure to cut off all the power in my house, and throwing everything metal on me across to the opposite side of the room. I'm with Coraigh. It's not that I think the TSA and all security measures are useless, I just think that they're using the wrong methods and being inefficient. If there's lightning, then yes it's stupid to stand out in the middle of an open field holding a giant metal pole. But that's no reason to hide 100 feet underground in a fallout shelter for 2 days every time you hear thunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Wonka Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Sure, I take common sense precautions. But I don't overreact because other people have been hit by lightning. I don't spend every thunderstorm hiding in a windowless basement, making sure to cut off all the power in my house, and throwing everything metal on me across to the opposite side of the room.I'm with Coraigh. It's not that I think the TSA and all security measures are useless, I just think that they're using the wrong methods and being inefficient. If there's lightning, then yes it's stupid to stand out in the middle of an open field holding a giant metal pole. But that's no reason to hide 100 feet underground in a fallout shelter for 2 days every time you hear thunder. Almost spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus71 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The kid should be happy the TSA agent wasn't also a Catholic priest.. I kid I kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 the whole thing took about 3 minutes.. the agent was gentle and respecful. The kid's fine.[~Bang I have to agree that the agent was gentle and respectful. I was thinking maybe another agent that was female could have helped with the kid and any fears he may have had. The bad part was when the agent would leave, he told the family not to get near him. I think that was the part I had a problem with even though I know why he said it. Having a second female agent there (as a mother figure) just to talk to the kid and assure him things were alright, might have been a better approach and the kid might have not felt as scared as he was even though it looked like he was doing alright for a 3 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Enjoy the Security Theater. And the multiple doses of radiation. I don't fly that frequently but when I do I always opt out for a pat down. I keep hoping for a hot chick in a TSA outfit and a push up bra. So far, no luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Enjoy the Security Theater. And the multiple doses of radiation. I don't fly that frequently but when I do I always opt out for a pat down. I keep hoping for a hot chick in a TSA outfit and a push up bra. So far, no luck. I have a better chance of that happening to me, Rocky21! One bright spot of having same sex TSA agents. But it still doesn't induce me to fly unless it's an emergency, and in that instance I'm unlikely to enjoy a pat down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Enjoy the Security Theater. And the multiple doses of radiation. I don't fly that frequently but when I do I always opt out for a pat down. I keep hoping for a hot chick in a TSA outfit and a push up bra. So far, no luck. You forgot to say, "Stay thirsty my friends." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I have a better chance of that happening to me, Rocky21! One bright spot of having same sex TSA agents. But it still doesn't induce me to fly unless it's an emergency, and in that instance I'm unlikely to enjoy a pat down.I never thought of that. One more win for the same sex team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 2 things regarding this.. 1. I think that the Israeli secuity methods of highly trained security in profiling are much more effective 2. I see little wrong with the search and manner of search if the little boy was a fit for a profile (like, keep on the lookout for childran in casts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 A pissed-off nervous looking Arab guy travelling with three other pissed-off nervous looking Arab guys probably won't get any special attention while a three year old kid traveling with his parents gets the full "treatment". Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.