cupcake bitch update

[ConHog]

So it turns out the TSA says that confiscating the cupcakes was the right call, because they were packed in a jar filled with icing , too much icing to fit under the allowed amount of gel like substances by the written rules. They weren't just two cupcakes in a jar and they shouldn't have made the first flight.

http://news.yahoo.com/tsa-defends-confiscation-mass-womans-cupcake-022436160.html


:pave:

[Mr. P]

When the debate to federalize airport security was going on which MORON politician said "To professionalize we must Federalize"? I don't remember but am pretty sure he had a big "D" by his name.

[ConHog]

When the debate to federalize airport security was going on which MORON politician said "To professionalize we must Federalize"? I don't remember but am pretty sure he had a big "D" by his name.

Irrelevant to this thread, which is about ONE incident. The last thread spiraled into a debate about the TSA in general. We get it some don't like the big mean TSA.

I would like this thread to stick to this ONE incident. The woman was wrong. PERIOD.

[Mr. P]

Irrelevant to this thread, which is about ONE incident. The last thread spiraled into a debate about the TSA in general. We get it some don't like the big mean TSA.

I would like this thread to stick to this ONE incident. The woman was wrong. PERIOD.

Why? She wasn't wrong before the TSA..It all goes together, no?
Cupcakes have never been a threat right? The TSA made then one though. Oh wait, I understand she could have check them as luggage. That's what I heard anyway. Some threat, huh?

So how was she wrong? I haven't followed this as close as you, I guess.

[ConHog]

Why? She wasn't wrong before the TSA..It all goes together, no?
Cupcakes have never been a threat right? The TSA made then one though. Oh wait, I understand she could have check them as luggage. That's what I heard anyway. Some threat, huh?

So how was she wrong? I haven't followed this as close as you, I guess.

we had a whole big thread about this couple weeks ago. A recipe for a cupcake bomb was posted in the thread.

Oh and the TSA didn't make anything a threat. I suspect you already knew that.

[Mr. P]

we had a whole big thread about this couple weeks ago. A recipe for a cupcake bomb was posted in the thread.

Oh and the TSA didn't make anything a threat. I suspect you already knew that.

Then what was the problem? To much icing? That's even stupid isn't it? You can carry-on a cake which likely has much more icing on it than two cupcakes do, but not two cupcakes?

Why was this woman wrong? You haven't told me yet. Is there a sign posted regarding the amount of icing allowed, or is this a subjective call by the OH so Professional minimum wage. union member, TSA agent? Like the handbag that had a gun embroidered on it was a threat buy the owner not long ago?

[fj1200]

When the debate to federalize airport security was going on which MORON politician said "To professionalize we must Federalize"? I don't remember but am pretty sure he had a big "D" by his name.

CH would agree. I didn't think he was a Dem. :confused:

[ConHog]

CH would agree. I didn't think he was a Dem. :confused:

I would agree eh? I don't think the TSA behaves the most professional way at times, and I certainly think that private companies can behave professionally. I just happen to think that airport security is best left to the government.

[pegwinn]

I would agree eh? I don't think the TSA behaves the most professional way at times, and I certainly think that private companies can behave professionally. I just happen to think that airport security is best left to the government.

With the exception of national defense (hence proving the rule) 'best left to the government' is an oxymoron. Normally heavy on the Moron too.

[fj1200]

I would agree eh?

Yes...


I don't think the TSA behaves the most professional way at times, and I certainly think that private companies can behave professionally. I just happen to think that airport security is best left to the government.

Yes, you would.

[sundaydriver]

I agree with the first TSA agent. They look delicious!

OMG the offending cupcakes themselves...RUN!

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/sundaydriver2/g12c000000000000000b1403de4bb7fa7c5ac30890f0b531e5 86a48ab79.jpg


http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/ (http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/)

[ConHog]

I agree with the first TSA agent. They look delicious!

OMG the offending cupcakes themselves...RUN!

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/sundaydriver2/g12c000000000000000b1403de4bb7fa7c5ac30890f0b531e5 86a48ab79.jpg


http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/ (http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/)

Good for that company for taking advantage of the controversy.


I agree with the first TSA agent. They look delicious!

OMG the offending cupcakes themselves...RUN!

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i331/sundaydriver2/g12c000000000000000b1403de4bb7fa7c5ac30890f0b531e5 86a48ab79.jpg


http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/ (http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/tsa-cupcake-kerfluffle-and-unintended-good-consequences/)


By the way, that jar is at a minimum questionable as far as being able to tell what the hell is in it.

[Mr. P]

By the way, that jar is at a minimum questionable as far as being able to tell what the hell is in it.

Uncap it, sniff, taste, test. Or I donno :panicsmiley: . :laugh:

[pegwinn]

By the way, that jar is at a minimum questionable as far as being able to tell what the hell is in it.

It's Red Velvet. In English. Oh wait, .gov employees. OK. Shoulda included a picture.

[ConHog]

Uncap it, sniff, taste, test. Or I donno :panicsmiley: . :laugh:

Yep, no doubt that women wouldn't have got at all upset if the TSA goon opened her cupcake and tasted it, oh and also perfectly acceptable to ask a government employee to taste something to make sure it's not a chemical explosive or poison.


It's Red Velvet. In English. Oh wait, .gov employees. OK. Shoulda included a picture.

Guess you've never heard of an IED, they can be made of essentially anything, and in fact have been for thousands of years.

[CSM]

Hmmm. It seems to me they could have swabbed the jar like they do for some baggage and carry ons and been reasonably assured that the cupcake(s) were not explosive. Perhaps that is too simple a solution.

[shattered]

Hmmm. It seems to me they could have swabbed the jar like they do for some baggage and carry ons and been reasonably assured that the cupcake(s) were not explosive. Perhaps that is too simple a solution.

Shh! Whacking the stupid with big logic sticks just makes you a big meany-head. :D

[ConHog]

Hmmm. It seems to me they could have swabbed the jar like they do for some baggage and carry ons and been reasonably assured that the cupcake(s) were not explosive. Perhaps that is too simple a solution.

I'm sure some reasonable accommodation COULD be made, but the rule is 5 oz then that's the rule and I'm sure we can agree that local TSA agents don't need to be making individual exceptions to that rule.

[CSM]

Shh! Whacking the stupid with big logic sticks just makes you a big meany-head. :D

but...but .... I AM A BIG MEANY-HEAD!

[ConHog]

but...but .... I AM A BIG MEANY-HEAD!



Drill Sergent?:salute:

[CSM]

I'm sure some reasonable accommodation COULD be made, but the rule is 5 oz then that's the rule and I'm sure we can agree that local TSA agents don't need to be making individual exceptions to that rule.

yeah, and you know and I know that sometimes, even though rules are rules and you can NEVER violate the rules ....

[shattered]

but...but .... I AM A BIG MEANY-HEAD!

Since when?

[pegwinn]

Guess you've never heard of an IED, they can be made of essentially anything, and in fact have been for thousands of years.

On a serious note. You are correct.
On with ridiculing the TSA.......... Only because they provide so many opportunities.

TSA: trying to beat out IRS for most overbearing acronym. They're ahead on points for the last several years, but the IRS has seniority.

[ConHog]

yeah, and you know and I know that sometimes, even though rules are rules and you can NEVER violate the rules ....

so let's see, nearly everyone thinks the TSA rentacops are idiots , but now you're advocating letting them on their own decide to break the rules?


On a serious note. You are correct.
On with ridiculing the TSA.......... Only because they provide so many opportunities.

TSA: trying to beat out IRS for most overbearing acronym. They're ahead on points for the last several years, but the IRS has seniority.

On the point of them having ridiculous names and some of their agents being idiots and some of their policies being stupid I actually agree.

But that doesn't mean they don't have some redeeming qualities nor does it mean EVERYTHING they do is evil.

[pegwinn]

so let's see, nearly everyone thinks the TSA rentacops are idiots , but now you're advocating letting them on their own decide to break the rules?

Everyone thinks servicemembers are knuckle draggin killers with the brain power of a teenage mutant samurai goldfish, and we require them to know when to break the rules.

Let's face it. TSA and the East German border guards have a lot in common.

"papers pleeese"

[CSM]

so let's see, nearly everyone thinks the TSA rentacops are idiots , but now you're advocating letting them on their own decide to break the rules?

You never heard me say/write or imply TSA agents were idiots. I all for letting common sense rule the day. At the risk of incurring your wrath, how do you reconcile your support of the TSA in this case and yet in another thread were quite vehement in your stance that the TSA had no right to secure a Social Security office? Just confused on your stance here.

[shattered]

FTR, if I can keep my cuticle scissors, tweezers, and nail clippers in my purse in my carry-on, then a friggen cupcake is not newsworthy.

[ConHog]

Everyone thinks servicemembers are knuckle draggin killers with the brain power of a teenage mutant samurai goldfish, and we require them to know when to break the rules.

Let's face it. TSA and the East German border guards have a lot in common.

"papers pleeese"

I think we can all agree that even the lowliest private has received more training then TSA agents.

Are you advocating that TSA agents receive better training?


You never heard me say/write or imply TSA agents were idiots. I all for letting common sense rule the day. At the risk of incurring your wrath, how do you reconcile your support of the TSA in this case and yet in another thread were quite vehement in your stance that the TSA had no right to secure a Social Security office? Just confused on your stance here.

Simple. I believe that airline security is a special case requiring special measures. Local cops can protect government buildings, but simply don't have the manpower, funding, or access to federal resources needed to do what the TSA does at airports.

[CSM]

Drill Sergent?:salute:

Never was a drill sergeant. Squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant and then command sergeant major. But none of that made me mean. Dealing with TSA agents made me a big meany-head!


I think we can all agree that even the lowliest private has received more training then TSA agents.

Are you advocating that TSA agents receive better training?

Now that would work!

[ConHog]

Now that would work!

Absolutely agreed.

[CSM]

Simple. I believe that airline security is a special case requiring special measures. Local cops can protect government buildings, but simply don't have the manpower, funding, or access to federal resources needed to do what the TSA does at airports.

I agree with that. you are dismissed.

[pegwinn]

I think we can all agree that even the lowliest private has received more training then TSA agents.

Are you advocating that TSA agents receive better training?

Uh No. Privates are taught to drill, and drill, and shoot to kill. We expect the Private to be able to distinguish lawful from unlawful orders. We expect him to use initiative. Apparently we expect the TSA to go overboard and then blame the chain of command.

Should they get better training? Hell, I'd be hard pressed to prove they get any training.

How do you spell KGB in English.

TSA


Simple. I believe that airline security is a special case requiring special measures. Local cops can protect government buildings, but simply don't have the manpower, funding, or access to federal resources needed to do what the TSA does at airports.

Let the airlines pay for airport security and hire local security pros. It's called "Job Creation".

[ConHog]

Uh No. Privates are taught to drill, and drill, and shoot to kill. We expect the Private to be able to distinguish lawful from unlawful orders. We expect him to use initiative. Apparently we expect the TSA to go overboard and then blame the chain of command.

Should they get better training? Hell, I'd be hard pressed to prove they get any training.

How do you spell KGB in English.

TSA



Let the airlines pay for airport security and hire local security pros. It's called "Job Creation".


Ridiculous

First of all, airport security certainly benefits more than just the airlines and their passengers. Just ask survivors of 9/11 about that.

Second, any job creation gain would be minimal if you replaced public TSA employees with private security employees.

Third, if you'd be okay with private security, you have to acknowledge that they would at minimum do what is being done now, meaning you don't really have a problem with the screening methods.

Fourth, it is ENTIRELY within your power to avoid the TSA (which is another reason I object to them being anywhere but airports.)

[pegwinn]

Ridiculous

Yes, the situation is. Hence the jokes. If it wasn't serious I'd be tempted to cry.


First of all, airport security certainly benefits more than just the airlines and their passengers. Just ask survivors of 9/11 about that.

Survivors of 9-11? I can't wait to see where this is going......


Second, any job creation gain would be minimal if you replaced public TSA employees with private security employees.

Minimal beats none.


Third, if you'd be okay with private security, you have to acknowledge that they would at minimum do what is being done now, meaning you don't really have a problem with the screening methods.

Nice try. Being OK with private security does not equal being OK with current methods. That would be called a logical fallacy. Which brings up a joke that I am far to gentlemanly to post here where sensitive young ladies might be lurking.


Fourth, it is ENTIRELY within your power to avoid the TSA (which is another reason I object to them being anywhere but airports.)

Yes, and I do. You can object all you wish. What have you done? I have face time with my poor unfortunate Congressman. Internal Passports anyone? Cue the beatles.... back in the ....

[Abbey Marie]

If the agent took away my cupcake, I doubt I would have made an issue out of it. What a nation of crybabies we've become.

[ConHog]

Yes, the situation is. Hence the jokes. If it wasn't serious I'd be tempted to cry.



Survivors of 9-11? I can't wait to see where this is going......



People who lost loved ones on 9/11 are survivors of 9/11. People who participated in the rescue attempts are survivors as well.



Minimal beats none.



It might very well be NONE


Nice try. Being OK with private security does not equal being OK with current methods. That would be called a logical fallacy. Which brings up a joke that I am far to gentlemanly to post here where sensitive young ladies might be lurking.


Please tell us how you think private security would provide the same level of security with different measures.




Yes, and I do. You can object all you wish. What have you done? I have face time with my poor unfortunate Congressman. Internal Passports anyone? Cue the beatles.... back in the ....

I fly and follow the rules. Never had a problem with the TSA.

[Gunny]

we had a whole big thread about this couple weeks ago. A recipe for a cupcake bomb was posted in the thread.

Oh and the TSA didn't make anything a threat. I suspect you already knew that.

They're f-ing cupcakes. The gestapo can kiss my white ass.

[pegwinn]

People who lost loved ones on 9/11 are survivors of 9/11. People who participated in the rescue attempts are survivors as well. If you say so. I define survivor differently.

It might very well be NONEUnlikely. Most likely scenario would be a body for body swap below management level.

Please tell us how you think private security would provide the same level of security with different measures.Profiling.

I fly and follow the rules. Never had a problem with the TSA.Then you are obviously not a crippled little old lady who got her cupcakes past one set of agents.

[Gunny]

I would agree eh? I don't think the TSA behaves the most professional way at times, and I certainly think that private companies can behave professionally. I just happen to think that airport security is best left to the government.

Airlines are a private company. The government has no business sticking their nose in.

[ConHog]

Airlines are a private company. The government has no business sticking their nose in.

The airways however are not private property. They belong so to speak to the government.

In essence what the TSA does is little different than the safety inspection most states perform on cars to make sure they are safe to be on the roadways.

feel free to argue that the government doesn't own the flight corridors but good luck making a valid argument on that one.


If you say so. I define survivor differently.
Unlikely. Most likely scenario would be a body for body swap below management level.
Profiling.
Then you are obviously not a crippled little old lady who got her cupcakes past one set of agents.

I agree with profiling odd that other agencies profile but the public cries over the idea of the TSA doing so

[Gunny]

The airways however are not private property. They belong so to speak to the government.

In essence what the TSA does is little different than the safety inspection most states perform on cars to make sure they are safe to be on the roadways.

feel free to argue that the government doesn't own the flight corridors but good luck making a valid argument on that one.

Bullshit. Th eTSa can kiss my ass and last I checked, the government doesn't own air.

[DragonStryk72]

Guess you've never heard of an IED, they can be made of essentially anything, and in fact have been for thousands of years.

Ah, good, so that means, logically, we should suspend all air travel, since there is absolutely no way of making it safe at all, since IEDs can be made from anything.

[ConHog]

Bullshit. Th eTSa can kiss my ass and last I checked, the government doesn't own air.

Once again Gunny is wrong.

The government DOES own the airways. And in fact most governments claim ownership of the airways above their territory.


Ah, good, so that means, logically, we should suspend all air travel, since there is absolutely no way of making it safe at all, since IEDs can be made from anything.

Are you arguing that IDEs can't be made from just about anything and made to resemble just about anything, or are you just making silly remarks?

[darin]

I would argue the Government does not own anything - not property nor the air. The PEOPLE own that stuff - Government simply acts as administrators and executors of the People's will, power, and property.

[ConHog]

I would argue the Government does not own anything - not property nor the air. The PEOPLE own that stuff - Government simply acts as administrators and executors of the People's will, power, and property.

You are of course correct. The government "owns" only what we allow them to own. For better or worse though we have allowed them to "own" certain things, including the airways. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a good thing. There are a few reasons why its a bad thing. We the people have for at least 100 years in THIS country decided that the government controlling the air above our heads has more good than bad results.

[pegwinn]

Are you arguing that IDEs can't be made from just about anything and made to resemble just about anything, or are you just making silly remarks?

Actually his comment was clear, concise, and on point.

The point is that security need not be conducted by obvious amateurs with a big budget. And these same amateurs are spreading out past the airports as well.

Papers Please.

[ConHog]

Actually his comment was clear, concise, and on point.

The point is that security need not be conducted by obvious amateurs with a big budget. And these same amateurs are spreading out past the airports as well.

Papers Please.

Another vote for better trained TSA agents. Excellent.

[pegwinn]

Another vote for better trained TSA agents. Excellent.

No points for that one. More training is always better no matter how good you are to start with.

Instead TSA needs to go and Private Security take over.

[ConHog]

No points for that one. More training is always better no matter how good you are to start with.

Instead TSA needs to go and Private Security take over.

Let's suppose private sector security takes over. Do you REALLY think the airlines are going to hire better trained agents? They can't even hire people who will get your luggage on the right plane without destroying something within them.


Not to mention the federal database issue which we discussed in the last thread. I don't think you were here then., so I'll bring it up again here. TSA agents have access to federal databases which private security folks just aren't going to have access to , and shouldn't have access to. Do you propose we just stop worrying about no fly lists, felon lists, and that sort of thing?

[fj1200]

Let's suppose private sector security takes over. Do you REALLY think the airlines are going to hire better trained agents? They can't even hire people who will get your luggage on the right plane without destroying something within them.

Yes, I do however have an extra bit of relief that the government doesn't run the baggage area. Thanks.


Not to mention the federal database issue which we discussed in the last thread. I don't think you were here then., so I'll bring it up again here. TSA agents have access to federal databases which private security folks just aren't going to have access to , and shouldn't have access to. Do you propose we just stop worrying about no fly lists, felon lists, and that sort of thing?

Where I corrected you. Private firms run checks against Federal databases all the time. There is no reason that would stop privatization.

[ConHog]

Yes, I do however have an extra bit of relief that the government doesn't run the baggage area. Thanks.



What does that have to do with anything? You're insane if you really think the airlines would hire top notch security, you would have EXACTLY the same people you have now, only they would be privately hired instead of working for the government. So if your objection is that TSA agents aren't highly skilled enough to do their jobs correctly, privatizing them would gain you nothing.




Where I corrected you. Private firms run checks against Federal databases all the time. There is no reason that would stop privatization.

Well, you certainly ATTEMPTED to correct me, but you were and are wrong. Private firms run checks against SOME federal and state databases. They certainly aren't privy to EVERYTHING that Homeland Security is.

[fj1200]

What does that have to do with anything? You're insane if you really think the airlines would hire top notch security, you would have EXACTLY the same people you have now, only they would be privately hired instead of working for the government. So if your objection is that TSA agents aren't highly skilled enough to do their jobs correctly, privatizing them would gain you nothing.

Do you really not understand capitalism, competition, accountability, etc.?


Well, you certainly ATTEMPTED to correct me, but you were and are wrong. Private firms run checks against SOME federal and state databases. They certainly aren't privy to EVERYTHING that Homeland Security is.

I DID correct you, you just have to be able to understand it. I am right and provably so, that banks only run checks against SOME databases is admission by you that they have the ability to work with the government to check every passenger against every relevant database. Do you honestly think that flight lists aren't getting checked until they show up in the inspection line and have their TSA encounter?

[ConHog]

Do you really not understand capitalism, competition, accountability, etc.?



I DID correct you, you just have to be able to understand it. I am right and provably so, that banks only run checks against SOME databases is admission by you that they have the ability to work with the government to check every passenger against every relevant database. Do you honestly think that flight lists aren't getting checked until they show up in the inspection line and have their TSA encounter?

Do YOU think flight lists aren't checked by the TSA until passengers show up for flights? LOL. They are checked as SOON as they book a flight, and then checked AGAIN once passengers actually check in.

That's a fact jack.

And they are using databases that the government simply is NOT going to allow private businesses to have access to. Homeland Security and thus TSA have access to ANY database in the intelligence community, and have instant communications with all agencies of the government.

Oh, and banks don't do to much checking themselves. They intake forms of ID and make sure names and such match and then catalog the information in case its needed at a further date. They certainly don't compare their customer roster to CIA intelligence reports, etc etc. There is not a no banking list that they have to constantly monitor to make sure none of their customers is on. There is no ............ Well, you SHOULD get the point. It's just a piss poor comparison.

TSA does much more than steal your cupcake. They have to make sure that every person who boards a flight is not a safety risk of course, but they also are tied into police and intelligence databases to make sure no one is fleeing a jurisdiction, they also of course have to make sure that luggage is safe to put on a plane, oh and there are certain people who try to get in or out of the country that the TSA may not want to prevent from doing so, but other agencies may want to know where they are. Etc. They also have the responsibility of making sure that children are not illegally removed from a jurisdiction (IE Kidnapped) by airplane.


All of that requires access to government computers that not only is the government not going to grant access to a private company, they SHOULDN'T grant access to a foreign country.

Listen, we all agree security is necessary, no?

Good , then given that we can discuss all day long the tactics the TSA should use, how much authority the agents should have, how much flexibility there should be in the rules, etc etc. But it is utterly comical to suggest that the job of securing a national asset should be entrusted to a private firm.

All you guys that are against the very existence of the TSA come across is a bunch of lunatics who neither know nor care about actually making our ariways safe.

Oh, come back with the old " make airlines pay for their own security" bullshit again, so I can once again point out that the TSA is providing safety for the airways , which "belong" to the government , they are NOT providing security for just the airlines, nor airline passengers.

[fj1200]

Do YOU think flight lists aren't checked by the TSA until passengers show up for flights? LOL. They are checked as SOON as they book a flight, and then checked AGAIN once passengers actually check in.

That's a fact jack.

And they are using databases that the government simply is NOT going to allow private businesses to have access to. Homeland Security and thus TSA have access to ANY database in the intelligence community, and have instant communications with all agencies of the government.

If you'll take the time to re-read my question, I asked if you denied that they checked before they showed up; are you really that daft? That's exactly my point, they are already checked against the databases before they even show up at the airport. I didn't say that they had access to the databases, I said they checked their flight lists against the governments database. If something pops up then it gets investigated; If your name is Charles Taylor they will have to prove you are NOT a Liberian? dictator.


Oh, and banks don't do to much checking themselves. They intake forms of ID and make sure names and such match and then catalog the information in case its needed at a further date. They certainly don't compare their customer roster to CIA intelligence reports, etc etc. There is not a no banking list that they have to constantly monitor to make sure none of their customers is on. There is no ............ Well, you SHOULD get the point. It's just a piss poor comparison.

Yeah, there is. But the POINT, if you'll take the time to see it, is that there are already rules in place for private firms to run checks when required by the government; How do I know? IT WAS MY JOB! We had to bump new investors before deposit and we had to run nightly checks if new information came up. You can't just dismiss the comparison because it doesn't jibe with your argument.


TSA does much more than steal your cupcake. They have to make sure that every person who boards a flight is not a safety risk of course, but they also are tied into police and intelligence databases to make sure no one is fleeing a jurisdiction, they also of course have to make sure that luggage is safe to put on a plane, oh and there are certain people who try to get in or out of the country that the TSA may not want to prevent from doing so, but other agencies may want to know where they are. Etc. They also have the responsibility of making sure that children are not illegally removed from a jurisdiction (IE Kidnapped) by airplane.

I'm surprised that you haven't advocated that the TSA just be granted police powers over the entire US based on that list. :rolleyes:


All of that requires access to government computers that not only is the government not going to grant access to a private company, they SHOULDN'T grant access to a foreign country.

No it doesn't.


Listen, we all agree security is necessary, no?

Good , then given that we can discuss all day long the tactics the TSA should use, how much authority the agents should have, how much flexibility there should be in the rules, etc etc. But it is utterly comical to suggest that the job of securing a national asset should be entrusted to a private firm.

All you guys that are against the very existence of the TSA come across is a bunch of lunatics who neither know nor care about actually making our ariways safe.

That's such BS. You have to sell that to yourself to make your position sound intelligent because there are wide swaths of the country that the government does NOT run. Once you determine that only the government can make the airways safe then eventually only the government will make the roads safe.


Oh, come back with the old " make airlines pay for their own security" bullshit again, so I can once again point out that the TSA is providing safety for the airways , which "belong" to the government , they are NOT providing security for just the airlines, nor airline passengers.

Comical.

[SassyLady]

conhog....do you really believe the air belongs to the government?

[logroller]

In trying to reason the arguments for and against, I see where CH is coming from. What he fails to mention, and what I believe is key to rationalizing TSA providing security, is it shields the liability of airlines, thereby keeping the costs down. Arguing that it will be less safe and cheaper if privatized is sheer lunacy IMHO; if anything both rise, as it puts the onus of protection/liability squarely on the shoulders of the airline, and no doubt their insurance premium would rise to the where risk is matched to what level of safety/risk the customers/investors are willing to pay for-- which I'm guessing isn't much-- and the airline industry would collapse, and bookoo jobs would be lost, private of course. but also in the public sector whose responsibility is managing the airways. I could be wrong, maybe it'd work out; but airline deregulation already showed the propensity for airlines to fail, and I doubt most of society and government are willing to see what more freedom in air travel will cost, so TSA,
The
Socialist
Airlines

remain. :cool:

[ConHog]

conhog....do you really believe the air belongs to the government?

I don't think it does, I KNOW it does.

FCC
FAA
EPA

just right there, three agencies which regulate the air above our heads.


If you'll take the time to re-read my question, I asked if you denied that they checked before they showed up; are you really that daft? That's exactly my point, they are already checked against the databases before they even show up at the airport. I didn't say that they had access to the databases, I said they checked their flight lists against the governments database. If something pops up then it gets investigated; If your name is Charles Taylor they will have to prove you are NOT a Liberian? dictator.



Yeah, there is. But the POINT, if you'll take the time to see it, is that there are already rules in place for private firms to run checks when required by the government; How do I know? IT WAS MY JOB! We had to bump new investors before deposit and we had to run nightly checks if new information came up. You can't just dismiss the comparison because it doesn't jibe with your argument.



I'm surprised that you haven't advocated that the TSA just be granted police powers over the entire US based on that list. :rolleyes:



No it doesn't.



That's such BS. You have to sell that to yourself to make your position sound intelligent because there are wide swaths of the country that the government does NOT run. Once you determine that only the government can make the airways safe then eventually only the government will make the roads safe.



Comical.

so long story short, you acknowledge that passenger lists need to be checked against federal databases to ensure that no one who isn't supposed to be flying is flying, but claim that the airlines should have private security which gathers the information then passes the list onto the government to be checked and okayed by them? Great, so we'll do that and no more last minute fliers since they obviously can't be checked instantaneously if the government isn't the one doing the checking. Seven day waiting list for flying.

Yeah, that's not a limit on freedoms at all.

[fj1200]

I don't think it does, I KNOW it does.

FCC
FAA
EPA

just right there, three agencies which regulate the air above our heads.

Regulation is not ownership; But geez, at least make the right argument.
United States v. Causby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby)

so long story short, you acknowledge that passenger lists need to be checked against federal databases to ensure that no one who isn't supposed to be flying is flying, but claim that the airlines should have private security which gathers the information then passes the list onto the government to be checked and okayed by them? Great, so we'll do that and no more last minute fliers since they obviously can't be checked instantaneously if the government isn't the one doing the checking. Seven day waiting list for flying.

Yeah, that's not a limit on freedoms at all.

:rolleyes: Are you that out of touch that you need to create outdated scenarios to justify your position? It doesn't take seven days to do a check; How do you think the government finds out about who's flying? The airlines already tell them which means that a private firm is already gathering the information to be passed on.

Oh, and I'll take your silence on financial firms validating investors against Federal databases as acknowledgement that you were incorrect and that private firms can in fact check their client listings against said databases.

[ConHog]

Regulation is not ownership; But geez, at least make the right argument.
United States v. Causby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby)


:rolleyes: Are you that out of touch that you need to create outdated scenarios to justify your position? It doesn't take seven days to do a check; How do you think the government finds out about who's flying? The airlines already tell them which means that a private firm is already gathering the information to be passed on.

Oh, and I'll take your silence on financial firms validating investors against Federal databases as acknowledgement that you were incorrect and that private firms can in fact check their client listings against said databases.

The seven days was being facetious, since I have already acknowledged in other threads that a 7 day waiting list to buy a handgun is ridiculous in this day and age. BUT it wouldn't be instantaneous access either




Oh and I never said financial institutions couldn't check with SOME federal databases, I said they didn't have access to ALL federal databases, which the TSA does and needs to be able to to their jobs.




My bad on saying owning instead of regulating, I thought we were all adults here and understood the concept of regulation = ownership in this instance.

[fj1200]

The seven days was being facetious, since I have already acknowledged in other threads that a 7 day waiting list to buy a handgun is ridiculous in this day and age. BUT it wouldn't be instantaneous access either

Yes it would.


Oh and I never said financial institutions couldn't check with SOME federal databases, I said they didn't have access to ALL federal databases, which the TSA does and needs to be able to to their jobs.

Thank you for acknowledging that the only difference is their particular industry. The only difference from an IT perspective is a line of code and additional databases.


My bad on saying owning instead of regulating, I thought we were all adults here and understood the concept of regulation = ownership in this instance.

Adults don't create false arguments to bolster their position.

[ConHog]

Yes it would.



Thank you for acknowledging that the only difference is their particular industry. The only difference from an IT perspective is a line of code and additional databases.



Adults don't create false arguments to bolster their position.

No it's not and you know it. Well maybe you don't know it.


Anyway, the TSA is here to stay. too bad for you.

[fj1200]

No it's not and you know it. Well maybe you don't know it.


Anyway, the TSA is here to stay. too bad for you.

That's quite the damning argument, is that what you say when you take your ball and go home? :rolleyes:

Every argument you make about other industries not performing similar functions, from an IT perspective (did you miss that nugget?), has been shot down but you will still insist that they can't perform this one for some reason.

If you want to think that the government, via the TSA, should be the entity in charge of this function then so be it but at least be honest about your arguments. It is an almost certainty that private enterprise does, can, and would perform the same functions at least as well as a Federal agency without massive new bureaucracies and ever present mission creep*. Even you have already complained about that last part right?

[ConHog]

That's quite the damning argument, is that what you say when you take your ball and go home? :rolleyes:

Every argument you make about other industries not performing similar functions, from an IT perspective (did you miss that nugget?), has been shot down but you will still insist that they can't perform this one for some reason.

If you want to think that the government, via the TSA, should be the entity in charge of this function then so be it but at least be honest about your arguments. It is an almost certainty that private enterprise does, can, and would perform the same functions at least as well as a Federal agency without massive new bureaucracies and ever present mission creep*. Even you have already complained about that last part right?

All of your post is bunk, except the last sentence.

[fj1200]

All of your post is bunk, except the last sentence.

Nice "Gunny" argument.

[ConHog]

Nice "Gunny" argument.

SHut up, you can't hang....................:laugh2:



Seriously, we aren't going to agree here FJ. You're dead set on being wrong, and I respect you as a poster too much to keep going to were this might get ugly.

I fully admit that 20 + years as a federal law enforcement agent has obviously biased me on this topic.

[fj1200]

SHut up, you can't hang....................:laugh2:



Seriously, we aren't going to agree here FJ. You're dead set on being wrong, and I respect you as a poster too much to keep going to were this might get ugly.

I fully admit that 20 + years as a federal law enforcement agent has obviously biased me on this topic.

Possibly, though not proven by you however. ;) But you're right about one thing; you're bias is clear. :poke:

[ConHog]

Possibly, though not proven by you however. ;) But you're right about one thing; you're bias is clear. :poke:

And yours isn't? Eh, much respect lost if you can't admit that.

[Abbey Marie]

Love how an ad for cupcake wrappers keeps appearing above this thread. :laugh:

[fj1200]

And yours isn't? Eh, much respect lost if you can't admit that.

Bias against government competence? That's not bias, it's troof. :slap:

[ConHog]

Bias against government competence? That's not bias, it's troof. :slap:

Oh whatever, this thread was about the TSA, not government in total.

[ConHog]

Love how an ad for cupcake wrappers keeps appearing above this thread. :laugh:

Makes me want to start a thread about a naked Drew Barrymore.

[fj1200]

Oh whatever, this thread was about the TSA, not government in total.

So is your position that government is incompetent except for the TSA?

[Abbey Marie]

Makes me want to start a thread about a naked Drew Barrymore.

Hmmm.
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez

AND:

Mark Sanchez

:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Anyway, the TSA is here to stay. too bad for you.


That's quite the damning argument, is that what you say when you take your ball and go home? :rolleyes:


All of your post is bunk, except the last sentence.


Nice "Gunny" argument.

SHut up, you can't hang....................:laugh2:

Seriously, we aren't going to agree here FJ. You're dead set on being wrong, and I respect you as a poster too much to keep going to were this might get ugly.

I fully admit that 20 + years as a federal law enforcement agent has obviously biased me on this topic.

:popcorn:

Shit, it's supposed to get ugly. I'm sitting here eating my popcorn waiting to read more rebuttals and more legal references, and it all went down the drain with a whimper. I mean, we're only on like the 5th page, and you guys are giving up already? The "lets shake hands and agree to disagree" lines aren't supposed to come out till after at least 10 pages. Thanks for nothing, fuckers. :hyper: <--- can't get enough of that little guy!

[jimnyc]

Hmmm.
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez
Mark Sanchez

AND:

Mark Sanchez

:laugh2:

And after all that typing I see Romney ads up there now. It's the "establishment" I tell ya. I know they're hacking my site to get rid of Ron Paul references.

[fj1200]

:popcorn:

Shit, it's supposed to get ugly. I'm sitting here eating my popcorn waiting to read more rebuttals and more legal references, and it all went down the drain with a whimper. I mean, we're only on like the 5th page, and you guys are giving up already? The "lets shake hands and agree to disagree" lines aren't supposed to come out till after at least 10 pages. Thanks for nothing, fuckers. :hyper: <--- can't get enough of that little guy!

He knows when to cut bait. :salute:




:laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

And after all that typing I see Romney ads up there now. It's the "establishment" I tell ya. I know they're hacking my site to get rid of Ron Paul references.

:laugh2: Excuse me, but I'm having a little trouble switching gears in my head from Sanchez to Romney.

[ConHog]

He knows when to cut bait. :salute:




:laugh:

Hmm, I really didn't think you were so childish that you couldn't accept an offer to leave it be since it's obvious no one is going to change their minds here.

Disappointed.............

[jimnyc]

Hmm, I really didn't think you were so childish that you couldn't accept an offer to leave it be since it's obvious no one is going to change their minds here.

Disappointed.............

I think that reply was to my post and he was being funny. I don't think he was acting in any manner towards you. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time!

[ConHog]

I think that reply was to my post and he was being funny. I don't think he was acting in any manner towards you. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time!

I'm good either way. I just don't think this discussion is going anywhere so why just keep saying the same things over and over to each other.

[Abbey Marie]

3107


3108

3109

3110

[ConHog]

3107


3108

3109

3110

I would absolutely tazer anyone carrying that blue thing around.

[fj1200]

Hmm, I really didn't think you were so childish that you couldn't accept an offer to leave it be since it's obvious no one is going to change their minds here.

Disappointed.............

Jeesh, lighten up.

[ConHog]

Jeesh, lighten up.

Can't. Someone stole my sweet roll and I'm pissed

[fj1200]

The TSA probably. Their powers are broad and far reaching, only a Federal agency can protect the security of the sweetgoods industry.

[ConHog]

The TSA probably. Their powers are broad and far reaching, only a Federal agency can protect the security of the sweetgoods industry.

Well, it DID have more than 5 oz of icing on it, so my fault for not following the rules. But much more fun of course to bitch about someone else.

Especially when I have a fucking right to have my sweet roll. It's covered under the 5th amendment, no wait the 9th amendment, no wait , it's just illegal to take my sweet roll.


Grrrrrrrrrrrr Conhog mad, ConHog smash...............

[fj1200]

Since the Strip Search thread was closed I'll add an update to the elderly lying "b!tches" here:

TSA admits it was wrong in strip search of two elderly women (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/tsa-admits-it-was-wrong-in-strip-search-of-two-elderly-women/story-e6frf7jx-1226247974261)

THE Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has admitted wrongdoing in the strip searches of two elderly South Florida women at John F Kennedy International Airport in New York last year.

[ConHog]

Since the Strip Search thread was closed I'll add an update to the elderly lying "b!tches" here:

TSA admits it was wrong in strip search of two elderly women (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/tsa-admits-it-was-wrong-in-strip-search-of-two-elderly-women/story-e6frf7jx-1226247974261)

Seems like TSA confirms what I have said all along, SOME employees are simply poorly trained. And of course there are NO doubt some perverts taking advantage of the situation. They should retrain the first group, or get rid of them if they can't be trained, and they should throw the second group in jail.

Two cases, or even two thousand cases though doesn't mean the entire TSA is either corrupt, evil, or unneeded.

[fj1200]

... SOME employees are simply poorly trained.

So when their ineptness is confirmed/exposed the accusers shouldn't be dismissed as "lying bitches"? Interesting.

[ConHog]

So when their ineptness is confirmed/exposed the accusers shouldn't be dismissed as "lying bitches"? Interesting.

Did I miss something? Was this the same woman? If it was then she's just a money grubbing bitch, not a lying bitch. No problem with me admitting that.

[fj1200]

Did I miss something? Was this the same woman? If it was then she's just a money grubbing bitch, not a lying bitch. No problem with me admitting that.

Yes.

[ConHog]

Yes.

Well then, in relation to that woman, she obviously didn't lie when she claimed she had to partially disrobe. Good to see that her first two calls were the newspapers and a lawyer. LOL.

Seriously, she could have refused, and anyone who is asked to disrobe SHOULD refuse. Even if the damned K9 has hit on a kilo of coke you have stuffed up your ass, make the TSA work for that shit, don't volunteer....... Admittedly asking an old lady to know that is a bit much.

IF I were the head of the TSA, I'd fire these agents and move on.

[fj1200]

... she obviously didn't lie when she claimed she had to partially disrobe.

That wasn't so hard was it?

[Abbey Marie]

That wasn't so hard was it?

Oh heck, give him credit. There are lots of people here who would sell their mothers before admitting they were wrong about anything. :cool:

[ConHog]

That wasn't so hard was it?

Hey, I got no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's rare, so I can be generous.

My beef from the get go was these TSA bastards were guilty right from the start, without waiting for anything more than some old ladies word for it, AND not only that but so to the entire agency is guilty because of it, and oh yeah my favorite "being strip searched by TSA (and they were only partially disrobed anyway) is akin to rape" LOL

If I were to post examples of cops/TSA being wrongly accused and proving it how many would get on here and admit to being wrong? My best guess? None.

[fj1200]

^And you absolved the TSA right from the start. Goes both ways eh?

And not so rare. ;)

[ConHog]

^And you absolved the TSA right from the start. Goes both ways eh?

And not so rare. ;)

Correct, I absolved the TSA, I don't believe I made any judgement on the guilt of the individual agents.

That wasn't even your best effort FJ.

[fj1200]

^And it wasn't even necessary. :disco:

[ConHog]

^And it wasn't even necessary. :disco:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUFQ2ECfPOw