If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   CNN takes on the tough question: Does liquids ban make us safer in skies? And apparently have found the only idiot who thinks it does   (securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 222
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9461 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:34 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-09-10 12:23:22 PM
tweekster: There really is no way to protect against it so the bans are stupid, but it is a very feasible plot.

THIS

A friend of mine's brother is an ex-Ranger. He told me a story the other day about how he managed to beat down five guys and put three of them in the hospital after they jumped him. I've known a few people who could do the same. If a few guys with box cutters could pull off 9/11, he could get on the plane naked and take it down, especially if he brought a friend or two. How do we protect against someone like this?
 
2008-09-10 12:32:43 PM
Thread summary: you know better than the "experts" who state that liquids are indeed potentially quite dangerous. Because you are personally inconvenienced by the liquids rule, the "experts", who in this case appear to be rational people with no particular political motivations whatsoever, are actually bureaucratic lunatics. To evidence your point, you will state some example of somebody innocent from whom something innocent was confiscated, make fun of the intelligence of TSA personnel, go on tangents about how our ports are not being adequately protected (what is this magic thing that the terrists are smuggling from china, again?), and conveniently ignore any talk of the Fourteenth Amendment and related maters.

hooray for idiots!
 
2008-09-10 12:33:21 PM
Prank Call of Cthulhu: That would like 911 times 911 times 2!!!

2 911s, 1 cup.
 
2008-09-10 12:34:52 PM
Hosebeatings: How do we protect against someone like this?

Put one or more armed, visible law enforcement officers on every flight.

They should have more training than the guy guarding the Taco Bell.
 
2008-09-10 12:35:15 PM
brifar: the amount of explosives it takes to take down a plane could easily fit in ones ass...im just saying....but keep up the good work TSA...funny how its a buck for a bottle of water before security but its 2 to 3 bucks after...hmmmmmm

Shh...you'll have them anal probing people.

All this TSA stuff has made me safer from airplane related disasters though...I won't go near a freaking airport now that the goon squad is in full control.
 
2008-09-10 12:36:50 PM
Ishkur: But I'm just being speculative. It was a pretty small airport, after all. The kind terrorists aren't likely to use or hit.

I was flying out of White Plains, NY once, their airport was the size of a Walmart, maybe. But when the metal detector went off (my belt, which I had forgotten I had on), I got the feeling I was about a minute away from incarceration or possibly death.

But the current ban on liquids is retarded. They responded to a plot, which didn't even happen (Aha! Because we responded it didn't happen! Circular logic at its best).

If I were a terrorist*, I wouldn't have to kill anyone to make America shut down: I'd "accidentally" release various plans including shirt bombs, pants bombs, cellphone bombs, headphone bombs, wallet bombs, purse bombs, pillow bombs, book bombs, etc.

Nobody would want to fly if they had to nude up to go through the metal detector, or check EVERYTHING before boarding. Well except for pervs with good imaginations.

The airlines would lose (more) money, and the government would give them aid to bail them out, thus weakening the economy even more.

*I'd like to stress that I am NOT a terrorist. But the above plan IS copyright, care of the "Glorious Thousand Tiger" youth training organization.
 
2008-09-10 12:37:04 PM
dothemath: Hosebeatings: How do we protect against someone like this?

Put one or more armed, visible law enforcement officers on every flight.

They should have more training than the guy guarding the Taco Bell.


Personally I don't like the idea of having armed officers on a flight. You have now provided access to a gun.

Remember, most officers that are killed in the line of duty are shot with their own gun.
 
2008-09-10 12:39:24 PM
When Dr. Alford says anything about bang stuff, smart people listen.

No, you are not safe. But generally, you are safer than before. That safety only comes from the idiot filtering that being forced to have smaller containers of unidentifiable liquids and pastes provides you.


Sydney Alford could probably make two air molecules explode. Not seriously, but he is an absolute genius where explosives are concerned.

It is fairly simple to bring explosives on an aircraft. Fortunately, the knowledge is not commonplace nor easily implemented.

It's still better than it was, though, so don't get too panicky.
 
2008-09-10 12:42:38 PM
Wander00: The article's largely correct - it is possible, I believe, to concoct something highly combustible from three small bottles of liquid (or semi-liquid - napalm, anyone) and combustible's all you need to bring down a plane - not explosive.


Yes, but four is better ;-)
 
2008-09-10 12:43:28 PM
lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id

It's only a matter of time before there's another serious "security incident" and ALL carry-ons will be banned.

Passengers may even be limited to airport issued sweatpants, t-shirt and flip flops, with your passport or DL in a clear plastic pouch around your neck. X-rays will be mandatory to make sure you don't have a brick of C-4 surgically planted in your beer gut or up your ass. The end result will be each plane looking a lot like a county lockup.

Is it ridiculous? of course! It will still happen, though.

============================================

In a SANE world with some courageous leadership, Air travel security would be at or maybe even a bit less than before 9/11 with two important changes:


1. A sturdy locked door between the pilots and the passengers. No giving in to terrorist demands.

2. Every passenger is made aware that they must resist any hijacking attempt. If a hijacker gains control of an aircraft it will be subject to being shot down.

True, the such a policy would make it a bit easier for the occasional suicidal terrorist to blow up a plane in midair, but that's the risk of living in a free country. If you're so scared of the big, bad terrorists, take the farking bus.
 
2008-09-10 12:44:05 PM
robisfunky: Yep, that one may just earn ol' trucky a bannination.
/a richly deserved one at that.


Yep, gone ithe. Good riddance.
 
2008-09-10 12:46:22 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: They should make everyone take a highly sophisticated lie detector/functional MRI/ life history test. Any person who has even heard the word "terrorist" and has any sort of reaction to it should be banned from the plane.

No one should carry anything on the plane, all clothes and sundries should be issued by the airline to the passenger upon arrival, and the passenger should pay a fee for that.

How's that? Will that work?


Add remote control taser collars for each passenger, and you have a winner!
 
2008-09-10 12:47:13 PM
ReverendJasen: Even the 3-ounce rule is ineffective.
Couldn't someone bring a 3 ounce bottle of shampoo containing liquid nitroglycerin? Highly unstable, ready to explode at any moment?


Actually, if you use a zinc rod stabilizer in bottle, you're good to go.
 
2008-09-10 12:47:35 PM
dothemath: Hosebeatings: How do we protect against someone like this?

Put one or more armed, visible law enforcement officers on every flight.

They should have more training than the guy guarding the Taco Bell.


Armed, yes. Visible, not so much. Visible means they just get jumped first, and, as tweekster says, you've just given them two guns.
 
2008-09-10 12:50:40 PM
Well, good luck with that. I hope the SA authorities don't take a "special interest" in you.

My experience with the SA authorities (2 trips) is that they are professional, courteous, and greet you with a smile. Lucky you - SA is an amazing country!
 
Ant
2008-09-10 12:56:32 PM
MadeuLaTerestrian: FTA:one single plastic bag filled with 100ml bottles can still contain enough explosives to take out an airplane

This is what I don't get. What the fark is the point of the plastic bag? Makes absolutely no sense.


It's so the highly-trained explosives experts who work for the TSA can identify liquid explosives merely by sight. That's how highly trained they are!
 
2008-09-10 12:57:05 PM
Hosebeatings: A friend of mine's brother is an ex-Ranger. He told me a story the other day about how he managed to beat down five guys and put three of them in the hospital after they jumped him. I've known a few people who could do the same. If a few guys with box cutters could pull off 9/11, he could get on the plane naked and take it down, especially if he brought a friend or two. How do we protect against someone like this?

Simple...no penises allowed on airplanes.

/Imagine the discard bin!
 
2008-09-10 12:59:39 PM
Good god, all this whining! Please do stay home and do not fly. It makes things so much easier for us regular travelers who seem to have very little problem understanding and working with the rules without experiencing a single bit of hassle or delay.

You what the real problem here is? Our society has become so lazy and entitled that we feel put upon when we have to do any planning or put any effort into preparation, and we get indignant when someone doesn't buffer us from the consequences of our willful ignorance.

Are you seriously going to whine about 3 oz of water in a sippy cup when you can see a drinking fountain on the other side of security at which you can replenish your kid's drink? Are you really going to slow everyone else down because you can't concieve of a world where your child doesn't have something to ingest at all times?

Pack whatever you want and CHECK YOUR DAMN BAG. Don't carry anything through security. You can put anything you want in a checked bag. You can put a gun in checked bag, for christ sake. In decades of flying, I have only had my luggage mishandled once, and that was because I got to the airport so early it got put on the flight before mine. If you're really worried about losing your luggage, check the bag with all the liquids and carry on a bag with a change of clothes. Don't wear a belt, wear slip on shoes, put everything metal in your carryon and put it through the xray machine, and voila you can walk right through the metal detector.

All it takes is a little planning.
 
2008-09-10 01:00:30 PM
tweekster: dothemath: Hosebeatings: How do we protect against someone like this?

Put one or more armed, visible law enforcement officers on every flight.

They should have more training than the guy guarding the Taco Bell.

Personally I don't like the idea of having armed officers on a flight. You have now provided access to a gun.

Remember, most officers that are killed in the line of duty are shot with their own gun.


Did not know that, but that is why they need to be well trained, like FBI level. Yes, it will be very expensive to keep guys like that on every flight but think about all the shiat the gubmint wastes money on and tell me we couldnt find it if we really wanted to.

Hosebeatings: dothemath: Hosebeatings: How do we protect against someone like this?

Put one or more armed, visible law enforcement officers on every flight.

They should have more training than the guy guarding the Taco Bell.

Armed, yes. Visible, not so much. Visible means they just get jumped first, and, as tweekster says, you've just given them two guns.


Not sure how much difference it would make, the terrorist could always take hostages to disarm the officer.

Maybe have two on each flight, one concealed and one visible.
 
2008-09-10 01:00:35 PM
Riche: True, the such a policy would make it a bit easier for the occasional suicidal terrorist to blow up a plane in midair, but that's the risk of living in a free country. If you're so scared of the big, bad terrorists, take the farking bus.

i141.photobucket.com

I suspect you have not considered the alternatives before promoting your plan as gospel.
 
2008-09-10 01:06:02 PM
grizzlyjohnson: Good god, all this whining! Please do stay home and do not fly. It makes things so much easier for us regular travelers who seem to have very little problem understanding and working with the rules without experiencing a single bit of hassle or delay.

Regular travelers = cattle, by your definition. The rules are easy to comply with, sure, but they are also meaningless and arbitrary. I assume you'll be complying with the "Have your pants down and butthole lubed before you reach the security checkpoint." rule when the terrifying "Butt Bomber" plot is thwarted.
 
Ant
2008-09-10 01:06:44 PM
Ishkur: I found a loophole in the liquids ban while at Bellingham airport, and got to keep my stuff. The trick is to ask them what they plan to do with it.

It went like this. TSA clerk searches my suitcase, finds my little bag of shaving cream/toothpaste/shampoo/bathroomities, apparently too much volume to take on the flight.

TSA clerk: This can't go on the plane, you have to throw it out.
Me: Okay, where?
TSA clerk: You can just toss it in the trash recepticle over there.
Me: Wait a second here. I understand and fully support and respect this policy and the reasoning behind it -- it's so no strange liquids or harmful chemical agents can be smuggled onto the flight. So if this stuff is so dangerous, shouldn't you be disposing of it properly? Where's your toxic engineer to neutralize the acid or whatever crap agent you think is in my bag?
TSA clerk: Sir, I'm sure it's perfectly fine. Just toss it over there.
Me: If you're so sure it's perfectly fine, then let me take it on the plane. This is your policy, not mine. Either my bag being opened up is harmful to everyone in this vicinity, or it's not. If it is, then it must be properly disposed of in a procedure accordant to the danger it poses. Please direct me to your nearest chemical disposal specialist where this material can be neutralized properly.
TSA clerk: We don't have anything like that. The trash recepticle will do.
Me: No it won't. By just tossing it in the garbage, you risk the agent seeping out and endangering everyone in the airport.
TSA clerk: I don't find that very funny.
Me: Neither do I. This is a very serious matter and these things must be addressed properly. Since your policy banks on the assumption that everyone is potentially carrying something lethal, appropriate precautions must be taken to properly dispose of them.
TSA clerk: Are you saying there's a deadly toxin in your bag?
Me: No, YOU'RE saying there's a deadly toxin in my bag, which is why it shouldn't just be casually tossed away like that. We need a proper waste disposal unit on site.
TSA clerk: Look, this joke has gone on long enough--
Me: I'm not joking, but I'm asking you a simple question: Is there a deadly toxin in my bag or not?
TSA clerk: It is not our job to know wha--
Me: If I can't take it on the plane, then there's something dangerous in it. Please alert a waste specialist to dispose of my stuff properly.
TSA clerk: *sigh* there's nothing wrong with your bag, sir. Please just put it--
Me: THEN PUT IT BACK IN MY SUITCASE AND LET ME BOARD THE DAMN PLANE.


For some reason, the TSA clerk did not call security or anything, and just stuffed it back in my suitcase and let me go. Mind you, this was on a smallish airport, so it may have worked where it might not on a big international airport with more resources and manpower to throw at you. Still, the argument stands: If all liquids are considered dangerous, why is there not a proper waste facility on site for storing/destroying them? Just tossing it into the trash can sounds haphazardly hazardous.

You can try this argument in your own travels, but try not to be cheeky about it, and I'm not at fault if you get locked up for insubordination or whatever.


I call shenanigans. You'd be dragged off in handcuffs if you tried anything like that, regardless of how sound your logic was (and that was pretty sound)
 
2008-09-10 01:10:52 PM
I'd feel they were sincere about the liquids thing if they didn't just chuck them all into a common trashcan. If they were truly fearful of explosives being smuggled in this way, wouldn't they treat all these liquids as potentially hazardous material? If it is considered safe enough to treat casually, then why are they confiscating it in the first place? It makes no sense, and is just security theater, like Disneyland forcing you to stand in a queue so that some board employee can glance into your backpack. I feel so much safer! I'm sure all the terrorists are confounded by your cursory search!
 
2008-09-10 01:12:11 PM
Ishkur: I found a loophole in the liquids ban while at Bellingham airport, and got to keep my stuff. The trick is to ask them what they plan to do with it.

It went like this. TSA clerk searches my suitcase, finds my little bag of shaving cream/toothpaste/shampoo/bathroomities, apparently too much volume to take on the flight.

TSA clerk: This can't go on the plane, you have to throw it out.
Me: Okay, where?
TSA clerk: You can just toss it in the trash recepticle over there.
Me: Wait a second here. I understand and fully support and respect this policy and the reasoning behind it -- it's so no strange liquids or harmful chemical agents can be smuggled onto the flight. So if this stuff is so dangerous, shouldn't you be disposing of it properly? Where's your toxic engineer to neutralize the acid or whatever crap agent you think is in my bag?
TSA clerk: Sir, I'm sure it's perfectly fine. Just toss it over there.
Me: If you're so sure it's perfectly fine, then let me take it on the plane. This is your policy, not mine. Either my bag being opened up is harmful to everyone in this vicinity, or it's not. If it is, then it must be properly disposed of in a procedure accordant to the danger it poses. Please direct me to your nearest chemical disposal specialist where this material can be neutralized properly.
TSA clerk: We don't have anything like that. The trash recepticle will do.
Me: No it won't. By just tossing it in the garbage, you risk the agent seeping out and endangering everyone in the airport.
TSA clerk: I don't find that very funny.
Me: Neither do I. This is a very serious matter and these things must be addressed properly. Since your policy banks on the assumption that everyone is potentially carrying something lethal, appropriate precautions must be taken to properly dispose of them.
TSA clerk: Are you saying there's a deadly toxin in your bag?
Me: No, YOU'RE saying there's a deadly toxin in my bag, which is why it shouldn't just be casually tossed away like that. We need a proper waste disposal unit on site.
TSA clerk: Look, this joke has gone on long enough--
Me: I'm not joking, but I'm asking you a simple question: Is there a deadly toxin in my bag or not?
TSA clerk: It is not our job to know wha--
Me: If I can't take it on the plane, then there's something dangerous in it. Please alert a waste specialist to dispose of my stuff properly.
TSA clerk: *sigh* there's nothing wrong with your bag, sir. Please just put it--
Me: THEN PUT IT BACK IN MY SUITCASE AND LET ME BOARD THE DAMN PLANE.


For some reason, the TSA clerk did not call security or anything, and just stuffed it back in my suitcase and let me go. Mind you, this was on a smallish airport, so it may have worked where it might not on a big international airport with more resources and manpower to throw at you. Still, the argument stands: If all liquids are considered dangerous, why is there not a proper waste facility on site for storing/destroying them? Just tossing it into the trash can sounds haphazardly hazardous.

You can try this argument in your own travels, but try not to be cheeky about it, and I'm not at fault if you get locked up for insubordination or whatever.


Im surprised you werent shot on-site for using terroristic logic.

They arent super-strict everywhere, they let me walk on an Air France flight with a lighter at CDG.
 
2008-09-10 01:12:48 PM
dothemath: Not sure how much difference it would make, the terrorist could always take hostages to disarm the officer.

Maybe have two on each flight, one concealed and one visible.


Why?

Airplanes are now 100% secure from a hijacker with or without air marshals.

Security is not provided by TSA or the government but by the passengers. Remember the shoe bomber, it wasn't a security check that stopped him but rather the passengers smacking him in the face with a fire extinguisher.
 
2008-09-10 01:12:54 PM
AmazingRuss: The rules are easy to comply with, sure, but they are also meaningless and arbitrary.

Wow, welcome to life in general. You can biatch or you can deal, but biatching doesn't get you where you want to go.
 
2008-09-10 01:19:17 PM
grizzlyjohnson: Good god, all this whining!

Some people are so eager to give up their freedoms, it must frustrate those who are fighting to preserve them. Ironically, these are usually the same people who complain when the "evil federal government" tries to regulate things like gun ownership and so on. "What's the problem? Just bend over and let the airport security probe you! Hey! Not my guns! Get out of my private business you pesky government!" Make up your minds, people. Are you for more freedom and less government interference, or are you just a closet Democrat?

Don't get me wrong...I'm all for real security measures. But security theater just to make the sheep feel safe? Waste of my farking time and money!
 
2008-09-10 01:25:07 PM
ThatGuyGreg: Meanwhile, they continue to miss guns and knives "accidentally" left in carry-on bags*.

/*unless the guns/knives are floating in a vat of shampoo


They also continue to let people like me, with enough metal in them to build a small caliber handgun, waltz right on through the metal detectors. During busy times they don't buzz! That's right, no alarm when it's busy. Magically the same metal detector, when it's not busy, goes off when I walk through it.

What a farking joke. The illusion of safety, that's all it is.
 
2008-09-10 01:25:52 PM
grizzlyjohnson: You can biatch or you can deal, but biatching doesn't get you where you want to go.

Biatching is what made our country in the first place! Just imagine if the founding fathers had said, "Quit your whining! Just pay the taxes, and let the redcoats search your homes without provocation. Objecting to injustice never accomplishes anything!" Changing things that are wrong starts with recognizing that they are wrong. Or you can just stop whining and toe the line. Depends on how much you care about your freedoms.
 
2008-09-10 01:26:32 PM
tweekster: dothemath: Not sure how much difference it would make, the terrorist could always take hostages to disarm the officer.

Maybe have two on each flight, one concealed and one visible.

Why?

Airplanes are now 100% secure from a hijacker with or without air marshals.

Security is not provided by TSA or the government but by the passengers. Remember the shoe bomber, it wasn't a security check that stopped him but rather the passengers smacking him in the face with a fire extinguisher.


That is one layer of defense but, come on, do you really want to put your childrens lives in the hands of a banker from Omaha?

Put a couple of guys on board with guns and make sure they know how to use them and give them permission to waste people who let their kids kick the back of my seat.
 
2008-09-10 01:27:22 PM
wylkyn: Some people are so eager to give up their freedoms

Oh come on, air travel is a commercial industry. How exactly does "freedom" play into this concept? What "freedom" am I losing if I'm still just as able to get from point A to point B on an aircraft with all the same stuff I used to take? What exactly has been lost here? Are you really whining about the "freedom" to take more than three ounces of liquid through a security checkpoint? Is it really that much of a hardship to have to use the hotel shampoo?

You got a lot more time for minutiae in your life than I do, I guess. The new measures implemented since 9/11 don't make me feel any more or less safe, they just are. It really hasn't affected my ability to pass quickly through security except for all the dumbasses who don't know the rules and want to mount a pyrrhic argument to make some sort of idealistic point that has no value in the real world.
 
2008-09-10 01:29:17 PM
Wow, so even when an explosives expert says that the liquids ban makes people safer, the "intelligent" community of fark decides to disagree.

Now THAT is funny. Here's a guy that has experience researching shiat like this, but all I hear about is complaints in regards to convenience.

/Oh, and they should lift the ban on small pocket knives
//Just my opinion, though.
///Liquids ban is stupid, though.
////Should've just said none period, with certain exemptions.
 
2008-09-10 01:30:19 PM
dothemath:

That is one layer of defense but, come on, do you really want to put your childrens lives in the hands of a banker from Omaha?

Put a couple of guys on board with guns and make sure they know how to use them and give them permission to waste people who let their kids kick the back of my seat.


In reality that is the only layer of defense you can even rely on though.

TSA is totally inept and does not provide any real security. It all comes down to the passengers. The air marshal idea is nice and all but will be error prone and equally ineffective yet extremely expensive.
 
2008-09-10 01:33:40 PM
wylkyn: grizzlyjohnson: You can biatch or you can deal, but biatching doesn't get you where you want to go.

Biatching is what made our country in the first place! Just imagine if the founding fathers had said, "Quit your whining! Just pay the taxes, and let the redcoats search your homes without provocation. Objecting to injustice never accomplishes anything!" Changing things that are wrong starts with recognizing that they are wrong. Or you can just stop whining and toe the line. Depends on how much you care about your freedoms.


Thank god for the internets! Now we no longer have to actually put ourselves in harm's way like the founding fathers and mount secret raids or armed revolt. Now we can affect social change through anonymous carping about how inconvenient it is to pack our liquids in a checked bag from the comfort of our moms' basements! America is truly great!

Jesus.
 
2008-09-10 01:33:53 PM
grizzlyjohnson: The new measures implemented since 9/11 don't make me feel any more or less safe, they just are.

That is exactly the problem. And the fact that you are okay with it. Everything should be justified as viable and working or should be tossed out. Our country is where it is because of the lack of accountability and people that are happy that way.
 
2008-09-10 01:37:01 PM
grizzlyjohnson: The new measures implemented since 9/11 don't make me feel any more or less safe, they just are.

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of some people to just accept any restrictions the government throws out there without questioning the validity. This isn't just about inconvenience. It's about wasting money as well. Some of us believe in being a little more fiscally conservative, and we also don't like pointless regulations mucking up our lives. But if you are content accepting whatever the government comes up with, go for it. I'm always going to question the validity of things like this. But then, I'm conservative.
 
2008-09-10 01:38:14 PM
Makes your laptop keyboard safer. We had an employee with a new laptop that had a passenger spill their coke on it. Toasted the keyboard.
 
2008-09-10 01:38:43 PM
wylkyn: grizzlyjohnson: The new measures implemented since 9/11 don't make me feel any more or less safe, they just are.

I'm constantly amazed at the ability of some people to just accept any restrictions the government throws out there without questioning the validity. This isn't just about inconvenience. It's about wasting money as well. Some of us believe in being a little more fiscally conservative, and we also don't like pointless regulations mucking up our lives. But if you are content accepting whatever the government comes up with, go for it. I'm always going to question the validity of things like this. But then, I'm conservative.


It cost 14 million dollars to dispose of all the lighters that were confiscated by TSA if I recall correctly. Regardless of how liberal someone is with government spending policy there is something wrong with that. Spending more money on lighters than the average person will make in their lifetime.

What was the result of that 14million for disposal...absolutely no added security in any way.
 
2008-09-10 01:41:47 PM
tweekster: Everything should be justified as viable and working or should be tossed out.

People who spout this sort of drivel as an argument on internet forums rarely practice it and are usually very young and idealistic (aka naive). Real life is compromise every step of the way, grasshopper. I got enough real life on my plate that I'm going to pick and choose my crusades by how much they benefit my life. You got time to take on the trivial stuff, have at it. I guess someone has to. But I'd say chances are real good you don't put your money where your mouth is.
 
2008-09-10 01:43:32 PM
tweekster: It cost 14 million dollars to dispose of all the lighters that were confiscated by TSA if I recall correctly.

Reference?
 
2008-09-10 01:45:23 PM
grizzlyjohnson: tweekster: Everything should be justified as viable and working or should be tossed out.

People who spout this sort of drivel as an argument on internet forums rarely practice it and are usually very young and idealistic (aka naive). Real life is compromise every step of the way, grasshopper. I got enough real life on my plate that I'm going to pick and choose my crusades by how much they benefit my life. You got time to take on the trivial stuff, have at it. I guess someone has to. But I'd say chances are real good you don't put your money where your mouth is.


There is a word for that, it is called "pushover" and that is all you are.

You shouldn't be proud that stupid rules are kept around just because no one wants to fight them. Like I said, our country would be a lot better with less people like you.

Your plate must be real full...as you sit on fark.
 
2008-09-10 01:46:02 PM
grizzlyjohnson: tweekster: It cost 14 million dollars to dispose of all the lighters that were confiscated by TSA if I recall correctly.

Reference?


Sorry my I remembered it wrong, it was only 4 million...
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/07/16/daily48.html

But that is referencing only one airport.
 
2008-09-10 01:48:10 PM
z_gringo 2008-09-10 08:27:53 AM

The Liquids ban is stupid. [Blah Blah Blah...].

So here's my question, as a flier who feels inconvenienced by said ban: How do you know? I'm not a chemist, I have no expertise in liquid-based explosives. In this article is someone who, apparently, does have such expertise. So how do YOU know the ban is stupid? What are your credentials and expertise on the subject? And by god if you mention Wikipedia, I will personally traverse the Tubes and pound you with so many rights that you'll pray to Allah The Great Goat Farker for a left.
 
2008-09-10 01:48:47 PM
It isn't even about crusading against something either, it is atleast having the balls to call something wrong when it is wrong.

But being passive is much easier.
 
2008-09-10 01:48:59 PM
tweekster: There is a word for that, it is called "pushover" and that is all you are.

When you resort to name calling to try to get someone to feel ashamed of their position in order to win an argument, you have ceased to have any to add to the discussion.

You shouldn't be proud that stupid rules are kept around just because no one wants to fight them. Like I said, our country would be a lot better with less people like you.

Your plate must be real full...as you sit on fark.


There's a word for you too: hypocrite. Maybe poser might be a better one. Naive certainly applies.
 
2008-09-10 01:50:09 PM
grizzlyjohnson: Thank god for the internets! Now we no longer have to actually put ourselves in harm's way like the founding fathers and mount secret raids or armed revolt. Now we can affect social change through anonymous carping about how inconvenient it is to pack our liquids in a checked bag from the comfort of our moms' basements! America is truly great!

I happen to think public discourse and voting is the more civilized way to affect change in this country now-a-days. If you think this public forum is really anonymous...you are kidding yourself. But if you want to take up arms to enforce your apathy toward pointless regulations, be my guest. That is, until the government takes those arms away from you for your own safety. I'm sure you'll gladly roll over then as well, like a good obedient citizen. I'll be the one writing to my government, demanding them to return your freedoms for you.
 
2008-09-10 01:53:29 PM
wylkyn: But if you want to take up arms to enforce your apathy toward pointless regulations, be my guest.

How do you come up with this bullshiat, really?

STOP CARING NOW OR I'LL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT.

Do you even pay any attention to the nonsense you're writing?
 
2008-09-10 01:54:32 PM
DaCaptain19: So here's my question, as a flier who feels inconvenienced by said ban: How do you know? I'm not a chemist, I have no expertise in liquid-based explosives. In this article is someone who, apparently, does have such expertise. So how do YOU know the ban is stupid? What are your credentials and expertise on the subject? And by god if you mention Wikipedia, I will personally traverse the Tubes and pound you with so many rights that you'll pray to Allah The Great Goat Farker for a left.

Well I will reference wikipedia anyways because it sums up a previous terrorist plot very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka

The ban is stupid because it doesn't protect us from that plot. The scary thing is that plot is not very difficult to pull off regardless of a ban on liquids. There is very little that can be done to stop it but we have decided "let's inconvenience EVERYONE while having absolutely no effect"

The last part of that being the most important. The plot requires a relatively small amount of liquid and a watch for a timer. That's it. What do we do? We ban liquid pretending that it isn't trivial to bring them on board anyways.

Basically a threat was made and we felt compelled to do something knowing full well it won't have any effect. That is by definition stupid.
 
2008-09-10 01:55:22 PM
Mongo cut wood: Makes your laptop keyboard safer. We had an employee with a new laptop that had a passenger spill their coke on it. Toasted the keyboard.

Yah right. If I spilled coke on my company laptop while travelling I'd say the guy in the seat beside me did it.
 
2008-09-10 01:55:36 PM
wylkyn: I'll be the one writing to my government, demanding them to return your freedoms for you.

Heheheheh, change these regulations now or I'll write you another sternly worded letter because there's no issue more important right now than how much liquid I can take through security at an airport!
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report