...and how are they going to do it, seeing how every crybaby and whiner and Ron Paul Poop Shooter is going to fly into hysterics when they get patted down, x-rayed, looked at or inconvenienced for anything.
Inconveniencing me is an attack on my liberty!
LIBERTY!
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Just let any wacko walk onto a plane with a gun or a knife or a bomb... hey... what are the odds? I mean.. nobody has ever highjacked a plane in America and used it to commit and act of terrorism, have they?
Well.. there was that once... but you know... that was like 12 years ago. Stop blaming Bush. :fp:
Believe me, I wouldn't expect a bunch of general government worshippers to understand. But hey, maybe some people enjoy the extra pat-downs???
Just let any wacko walk onto a plane with a gun or a knife or a bomb... hey... what are the odds? I mean.. nobody has ever highjacked a plane in America and used it to commit and act of terrorism, have they?
Well.. there was that once... but you know... that was like 12 years ago. Stop blaming Bush. :fp:
Believe me, I wouldn't expect a bunch of general government worshippers to understand. But hey, maybe some people enjoy the extra pat-downs???
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
The biggest gripe about airline security amongst Libertarians is that the govt is doing it. If the airlines had a set of standards to follow and if they were in charge of security they could, in theory, do exactly what the govt is doing. To just say that they would cut corners is an excuse by big govt supporters, there would by oversight to be sure security was maintained.
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
The biggest gripe about airline security amongst Libertarians is that the govt is doing it. If the airlines had a set of standards to follow and if they were in charge of security they could, in theory, do exactly what the govt is doing. To just say that they would cut corners is an excuse by big govt supporters, there would by oversight to be sure security was maintained.
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
And their bottom line. Again, how well did Pan Am protect its customers who boarded flight 103?
To think these companies would not cut corners is incredibly naive.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Moot point. That flight did not originate in the US.
And don't bother bringing up 9/11. Those changes aren't going away.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
As far as the bottom line, if you don't like how security is run then don't fly on that airline. I guess the part that I said standards would be enforced slipped by you though.
Moot point. That flight did not originate in the US.
And don't bother bringing up 9/11. Those changes aren't going away.
Pan Am was the oldest and largest American airline and it skimped on security to save money. The point is not moot. The logic that says such skimping would not happen again is faulty.
But when Ron Paul speaks independent thought stops.
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
The biggest gripe about airline security amongst Libertarians is that the govt is doing it. If the airlines had a set of standards to follow and if they were in charge of security they could, in theory, do exactly what the govt is doing. To just say that they would cut corners is an excuse by big govt supporters, there would by oversight to be sure security was maintained.
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
thanks unsung, To be honest I don't know if that is really an excuse by big govt supporters. We do realize that companies are there to make a profit and many times we do see companies cut make in order to make that profit or to make a bigger profit.
now if private companies are hired to provide security do you not believe that the price of plane tickets would increase? also if prices do increase don't you think less people will fly? and if less people fly airline profit goes down. which as history has shown us when profit goes down companies make cut. would you not worry that those cuts would involve security?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
There's already a surcharge on airline tickets pertaining to 9/11, people didn't stop flying. There is, or was, a fuel surcharge, people did not stop flying. There are increased baggage fees, people did not stop flying. Don't presume the industry would cease to exist.
I went through one of these scanners in Missoula, and I really didn't give a crap.If they work better than other things, then they're fine with me. I am concerned about invasion of privacy, but not on this level. This doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect me. So some person who sees these naked scans all day long sees me in the screen at some point during the endless march of naked screens. Who cares? When someone ACTUALLY wants to invade my privacy, I'll be interested.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I went through one of these scanners in Missoula, and I really didn't give a crap.If they work better than other things, then they're fine with me. I am concerned about invasion of privacy, but not on this level. This doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect me. So some person who sees these naked scans all day long sees me in the screen at some point during the endless march of naked screens. Who cares? When someone ACTUALLY wants to invade my privacy, I'll be interested.
I largely agree. The TSA is far from perfect but the job they do is important. I have a hard time viewing anyone who rants against them and pretends it is a matter of liberty as one of the "good guys".
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
Airlines (as with all companies/entities) aren’t at all concerned with their passengers, just shareholder value (only interest). They have a pre-determined cost for losses and set corresponding procedures and insurance to cover this risk. Private enterprise can be more efficient than the gobment and this may be one of them.
Now we’ve had many crappy airlines that have been in financial straits that may roll the dice a few too many times. At worst, we could lose a few hundred humans now and then but we’re not at risk of going extinct any time soon.
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
Airlines (as with all companies/entities) aren’t at all concerned with their passengers, just shareholder value (only interest). They have a pre-determined cost for losses and set corresponding procedures and insurance to cover this risk. Private enterprise can be more efficient than the gobment and this may be one of them.
Now we’ve had many crappy airlines that have been in financial straits that may roll the dice a few too many times. At worst, we could lose a few hundred humans now and then but we’re not at risk of going extinct any time soon.
What are a few hundred human drops in the big ol' bucket of liberty?
If the TSA is abolished and an attack comes, blame the government regulation that allowed airlines to skimp on security.
Remember, no matter what happens, just blame the government. Because that somehow equals liberty...and the Paul's keep cashing their donors checks. Quite a business they have built.
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
The biggest gripe about airline security amongst Libertarians is that the govt is doing it. If the airlines had a set of standards to follow and if they were in charge of security they could, in theory, do exactly what the govt is doing. To just say that they would cut corners is an excuse by big govt supporters, there would by oversight to be sure security was maintained.
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
Exactly. Our provincial government privatized highway clearing for snow removal on one of our busiest highways through the mountains. Yikes: very questionable response times and quality for the removal of snow and the treatment of icy highways. As BC's most prominent inter-community artery, the highway features daily accidents due to conditions as well as several road closures. A source of frustration as well... with the bottom line in mind, privatization has led to the use of gravel instead of sand (everybody's windshield is cracked in BC... I mean everybody).
I trust the government infinitely more than I would some greedy, rich prick skimping to make as much money as they can after procuring an airport security contract- paying his employees very little, while hoarding most of the cash for himself in the process.
Skimp on airline security. Oh man. Your idea is not bright at all. It seems your hatred of the government has twisted your thought patterns so much that objective thinking is no longer possible. Seriously.
About tsaoutofourpants
"I'm a 28 year old entrepreneur and frequent flyer who opposes visual and manual inspection of the private parts of our bodies! I hope you'll join me in my fight to have our rights restored!"
What would we do without this freedom fighter? He is an American hero on par with the martyred Nathan Hale.
About tsaoutofourpants
"I'm a 28 year old entrepreneur and frequent flyer who opposes visual and manual inspection of the private parts of our bodies! I hope you'll join me in my fight to have our rights restored!"
What would we do without this freedom fighter? He is an American hero on par with the martyred Nathan Hale.
You are right of course. I just have so little respect for these liberty cultists who treat every minor inconvenience as a major affront. I take airline safety very seriously and would never claim the TSA is perfect, just that they have a job to do. Getting rid of these scanners may even be a good thing. But given their conduct I think describing these people as the good guys is laughable.
You are right of course. I just have so little respect for these liberty cultists who treat every minor inconvenience as a major affront. I take airline safety very seriously and would never claim the TSA is perfect, just that they have a job to do. Getting rid of these scanners may even be a good thing. But given their conduct I think describing these people as the good guys is laughable.
It makes me sad to live in a world where there are people such as yourself who would describe those who would stand up for our rights as not the good guys.
If you took airline safety very seriously, I would imagine you would be upset to know that the TSA actually doesn't make them safer. They apparently do a very good job of convincing people that they do, so, I suppose I have to give them that.
I would consider TSA to be more than just a minor inconvenience.
You are right of course. I just have so little respect for these liberty cultists who treat every minor inconvenience as a major affront. I take airline safety very seriously and would never claim the TSA is perfect, just that they have a job to do. Getting rid of these scanners may even be a good thing. But given their conduct I think describing these people as the good guys is laughable.
It makes me sad to live in a world where there are people such as yourself who would describe those who would stand up for our rights as not the good guys.
If you took airline safety very seriously, I would imagine you would be upset to know that the TSA actually doesn't make them safer. They apparently do a very good job of convincing people that they do, so, I suppose I have to give them that.
I would consider TSA to be more than just a minor inconvenience.
And it saddens me that there are people in this world who rather fight imagined and invented slights against their liberty than keep people safe. These people are not the good guys.
No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!
After an attack? BLAME THE TSA!!!
I don't like going through airport security either but I am glad it is there.
You are right of course. I just have so little respect for these liberty cultists who treat every minor inconvenience as a major affront. I take airline safety very seriously and would never claim the TSA is perfect, just that they have a job to do. Getting rid of these scanners may even be a good thing. But given their conduct I think describing these people as the good guys is laughable.
It makes me sad to live in a world where there are people such as yourself who would describe those who would stand up for our rights as not the good guys.
If you took airline safety very seriously, I would imagine you would be upset to know that the TSA actually doesn't make them safer. They apparently do a very good job of convincing people that they do, so, I suppose I have to give them that.
I would consider TSA to be more than just a minor inconvenience.
And it saddens me that there are people in this world who rather fight imagined and invented slights against their liberty than keep people safe. These people are not the good guys.
No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!
After an attack? BLAME THE TSA!!!
I don't like going through airport security either but I am glad it is there.
You can be sad about that all you want, but it should be recognized that what you describe is untrue. These people are not fighting imagined and invented slights against liberty. There is a 4th amendment for a reason and it is disingenuous to proclaim that it is not being trampled on at all.
You assume too much as well. What is being said is not "No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!" but more along the lines of "The TSA is useless because it won't prevent attacks and has been proven to not be secure".
And it saddens me that there are people in this world who rather fight imagined and invented slights against their liberty than keep people safe. These people are not the good guys.
No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!
After an attack? BLAME THE TSA!!!
I don't like going through airport security either but I am glad it is there.
You can be sad about that all you want, but it should be recognized that what you describe is untrue. These people are not fighting imagined and invented slights against liberty. There is a 4th amendment for a reason and it is disingenuous to proclaim that it is not being trampled on at all.
You assume too much as well. What is being said is not "No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!" but more along the lines of "The TSA is useless because it won't prevent attacks and has been proven to not be secure".
As I said in an earlier post, the TSA is not perfect and the elimination of this scanner may indeed be a good thing.
What is disingenuous is pretending that being required to pass through airline security is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. It is not. And I am not making an assumption. The TSA is being assaulted by the Liberty Cult simply because it is there to be assaulted. If it wasn't there would be something else to focus that anger on.
If there is another attack, it will be blamed on the TSA (regardless of how toothless their security protocols have been rendered because of nonsense like this.) What is more, how many of these supposed "good guys" will be gleefully proclaiming they were right regardless of how many victims we lost?
Nothing can keep us 100% safe. All we can do is try. I believe in giving those tasked with keeping us safe the tools they need to do so.
Comments
Image now ingrained. :?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's the name of my motorcycle gang.
Inconveniencing me is an attack on my liberty!
LIBERTY!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Believe me, I wouldn't expect a bunch of general government worshippers to understand. But hey, maybe some people enjoy the extra pat-downs???
Hey unsung, quick question. while I understand your distrust of your government, do you really believe that air lines would do a better job at security? and if you do can you tell me why?
Sorry about that one.
The biggest gripe about airline security amongst Libertarians is that the govt is doing it. If the airlines had a set of standards to follow and if they were in charge of security they could, in theory, do exactly what the govt is doing. To just say that they would cut corners is an excuse by big govt supporters, there would by oversight to be sure security was maintained.
That's how I see it anyway. I would no longer have an issue with it. It's then a private company protecting their own interests, their customers.
And their bottom line. Again, how well did Pan Am protect its customers who boarded flight 103?
To think these companies would not cut corners is incredibly naive.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And don't bother bringing up 9/11. Those changes aren't going away.
Pan Am was the oldest and largest American airline and it skimped on security to save money. The point is not moot. The logic that says such skimping would not happen again is faulty.
But when Ron Paul speaks independent thought stops.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
thanks unsung, To be honest I don't know if that is really an excuse by big govt supporters. We do realize that companies are there to make a profit and many times we do see companies cut make in order to make that profit or to make a bigger profit.
now if private companies are hired to provide security do you not believe that the price of plane tickets would increase? also if prices do increase don't you think less people will fly? and if less people fly airline profit goes down. which as history has shown us when profit goes down companies make cut. would you not worry that those cuts would involve security?
I went through one of these scanners in Missoula, and I really didn't give a crap.If they work better than other things, then they're fine with me. I am concerned about invasion of privacy, but not on this level. This doesn't matter to me. It doesn't affect me. So some person who sees these naked scans all day long sees me in the screen at some point during the endless march of naked screens. Who cares? When someone ACTUALLY wants to invade my privacy, I'll be interested.
I largely agree. The TSA is far from perfect but the job they do is important. I have a hard time viewing anyone who rants against them and pretends it is a matter of liberty as one of the "good guys".
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Now we’ve had many crappy airlines that have been in financial straits that may roll the dice a few too many times. At worst, we could lose a few hundred humans now and then but we’re not at risk of going extinct any time soon.
What are a few hundred human drops in the big ol' bucket of liberty?
LIBERTY!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What are a few hundred human drops in the big ol' bucket of liberty?
LIBERTY![/quote]
I think from now on you should write VIA LA LIBERTY!
I think from now on you should write VIA LA LIBERTY![/quote]
LIBERTAD! LIBERTAD!
Ah, Scarface, I learned so much from ye.
If the TSA is abolished and an attack comes, blame the government regulation that allowed airlines to skimp on security.
Remember, no matter what happens, just blame the government. Because that somehow equals liberty...and the Paul's keep cashing their donors checks. Quite a business they have built.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Exactly. Our provincial government privatized highway clearing for snow removal on one of our busiest highways through the mountains. Yikes: very questionable response times and quality for the removal of snow and the treatment of icy highways. As BC's most prominent inter-community artery, the highway features daily accidents due to conditions as well as several road closures. A source of frustration as well... with the bottom line in mind, privatization has led to the use of gravel instead of sand (everybody's windshield is cracked in BC... I mean everybody).
I trust the government infinitely more than I would some greedy, rich prick skimping to make as much money as they can after procuring an airport security contract- paying his employees very little, while hoarding most of the cash for himself in the process.
Skimp on airline security. Oh man. Your idea is not bright at all. It seems your hatred of the government has twisted your thought patterns so much that objective thinking is no longer possible. Seriously.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-highways-mi ... l-1.759800
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2 ... -scanners/
It actually has done nothing to keep us safer other than convince many people that they are now safe.
"I'm a 28 year old entrepreneur and frequent flyer who opposes visual and manual inspection of the private parts of our bodies! I hope you'll join me in my fight to have our rights restored!"
What would we do without this freedom fighter? He is an American hero on par with the martyred Nathan Hale.
LIBERTY!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yes, attack the person. That's the ticket :roll:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It makes me sad to live in a world where there are people such as yourself who would describe those who would stand up for our rights as not the good guys.
If you took airline safety very seriously, I would imagine you would be upset to know that the TSA actually doesn't make them safer. They apparently do a very good job of convincing people that they do, so, I suppose I have to give them that.
I would consider TSA to be more than just a minor inconvenience.
And it saddens me that there are people in this world who rather fight imagined and invented slights against their liberty than keep people safe. These people are not the good guys.
No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!
After an attack? BLAME THE TSA!!!
I don't like going through airport security either but I am glad it is there.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
You can be sad about that all you want, but it should be recognized that what you describe is untrue. These people are not fighting imagined and invented slights against liberty. There is a 4th amendment for a reason and it is disingenuous to proclaim that it is not being trampled on at all.
You assume too much as well. What is being said is not "No attacks? THE TSA IS USELESS!!!" but more along the lines of "The TSA is useless because it won't prevent attacks and has been proven to not be secure".
As I said in an earlier post, the TSA is not perfect and the elimination of this scanner may indeed be a good thing.
What is disingenuous is pretending that being required to pass through airline security is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. It is not. And I am not making an assumption. The TSA is being assaulted by the Liberty Cult simply because it is there to be assaulted. If it wasn't there would be something else to focus that anger on.
If there is another attack, it will be blamed on the TSA (regardless of how toothless their security protocols have been rendered because of nonsense like this.) What is more, how many of these supposed "good guys" will be gleefully proclaiming they were right regardless of how many victims we lost?
Nothing can keep us 100% safe. All we can do is try. I believe in giving those tasked with keeping us safe the tools they need to do so.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."