View Full Version : Florida teen detained by TSA for design on her purse
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-teen-detained-tsa-design-her-purse-221835034.html
This is really one of those "Really??" moments that makes people question the sanity, if any, of the people charged with our security...
Sailor Steve
12-03-11, 03:45 PM
:o :rotfl2: :dead: :damn:
Just imagine what would have happened if Gibbs had also been wearing stiletto heels.
Or a bomber jacket.
Looks like I picked the right sig for the month.
Platapus
12-03-11, 04:09 PM
The TSA definitely needs some adult oversight. How could anyone consider a leather embossed design of a gun on a purse as a "replica weapon"? :doh:
Really, no on-duty supervisor looked at this and could have made a decision? :nope:.
TSA officers seem to have the authority decide to fist some 6-year old girl if they feel like it but no one at TSA has the authority to look at an embossed design?
The terrorists are still winning folks. :yep:
I think part of the idiocy of the TSA (and other such governmental entities) is the unwillingness to admit they have basically "screwed up". They do something stupid and then, realizing that it makes them look like the east end of a west-facing jackass, they try to mitigate the error by escalating the situation hoping, perhaps, they might stumble on something able to justify their original error. It's the of inability such agencies to cut their losses that makes such situations a major irritation to the victims of such actions and causes embarassment and lack of respect for the agencies. The TSA agent screws up, the supervisor is afraid the screw-up will reflect badly on his/her ability to manage properly and so the TSA seeks to justify the original error by trying to make the traveller look like the "guilty" party... :nope:
kraznyi_oktjabr
12-03-11, 04:24 PM
:doh: TSA has lack of work again?
Btw on another forum one lady summarized TSA's entry (intelligence) requirements as "being few fries short of Happy Meal". :DL
Platapus
12-03-11, 04:34 PM
It is too bad that judgement is not a criteria for being a TSA supervisor. The shift supervisor who reviewed this action needs to be severely reprimanded or even fired for lack of judgement.
And people wonder why the TSA screeners don't carry weapons. Could you imagine these people with guns?
soopaman2
12-03-11, 05:50 PM
Beauracracy at it's finest. Yet a symptom of a larger problem.
I hear alot about deregulate the EPA and stuff from certain senators, but no one wants to deregulate these guys.
Ignore the arab and grope granny. Ignore the lady in a burqa and go through your kids diaper.
The requirements to work there are low as well. Maybe I will dredge up a list of bad moves by the TSA since it's induction, and how it is complicit in the American plot to take away our liberties.
Oh, but your paranoid....
Nope.
The patriot act caused this crap.
More terrorist acts after 9-11 were thwarted by passengers than the TSA.
But it is a great money sinkhole for the government, while we prepare to starve the elderly, with "cuts"
Pitchforks and lynch mobs are the only thing that will save us.
Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown
And people wonder why the TSA screeners don't carry weapons. Could you imagine these people with guns?
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/2/0/7/6/5/7/hjkl-10440899600.jpeg
Jimbuna
12-03-11, 05:56 PM
Absolutely crazy :DL
Yes, overreaction, that being said: how about flying with another purse...just saying.:o
joegrundman
12-03-11, 06:56 PM
Yes, overreaction, that being said: how about flying with another purse...just saying.:o
don't you think that if that is your recommended policy, they should have stated somewhere that no images of weapons should be allowed on planes either?...just saying :o
Yes, overreaction, that being said: how about flying with another purse...just saying.:o
I don't think the young lady expected the purse to be an issue. I think if you went to the TSA website, you wouldn't find "embossed reprentation of a firearm" in the list of prohibited items. She had already flown with the purse and had no previous problems (apparently at airports where Barney Fife did not work for the TSA). This is just common sense: the "gun" is basically a 3D picture that is neither operable, loadable, or potentially dangerous or lethal. Quite frankly, if there were no other items of any possible harm in the purse, ti was an inert, non-threatening object. (Although, some purses, in the hands of some women, can be formidible weapons, as are some of the contents some women carry...)
Tribesman
12-03-11, 07:00 PM
How could anyone consider a leather embossed design of a gun on a purse as a "replica weapon"?
It was metal in the shape of a gun, any security check should flag that up.
Even without the gun design a bag with that much metal stuck on it is going to get attention, just like a big belt buckle does or a big bunch of keys.
Really, no on-duty supervisor looked at this and could have made a decision?
Whats the chance that she made a big scene refusing to check the bag and as such was given even more scrutiny for that suspicious behavior...which made her miss the flight.
Yes, overreaction, that being said: how about flying with another purse...just saying
Well said
don't you think that if that is your recommended policy, they should have stated somewhere that no images of weapons should be allowed on planes either?...just saying
Common sense would be that if they have a policy as stated then attempting to fly with a bit of metal shaped like a gun is not very clever
Platapus
12-03-11, 07:04 PM
Was the object really metal and shaped like a gun? From the pictures it looked like it was more like leather-working embossing.
If it was made of metal, that changes the story a little.
Tribesman
12-03-11, 07:16 PM
Was the object really metal and shaped like a gun?
Watch the video.
As much as I am going to be flamed for this, you have no constitutional right to fly on a plane. It comes down to "private property" issues. My house my rules and in this case, federal laws and guidelines. If you want to fly on a plane anywhere in the world (you should see how they treat round eyes in Chinese airports) , you give up your 4th amendment right to search and seizure.
If you want to get into how the government should or should not regulate air travel is a completely different discussion.
don't you think that if that is your recommended policy, they should have stated somewhere that no images of weapons should be allowed on planes either?...just saying :o
You can bring firearms on a plane, as long as it is declared, in a locked suitcase that is checked in. Carry-on no. Shucks, look at the restrictions on toiletries, does it surprise you that a little common sense would have told you not to bring that particular purse......
Jimbuna
12-04-11, 05:51 AM
As much as I am going to be flamed for this
Shouldn't be any flaming because that is against the forum rules...good honest debate and I personally find this thread interesting.
The TSA may have overreacted but the individual may have been better advised to carry an item with a different logo considering the location.
Just my two cents.
Sailor Steve
12-04-11, 11:11 AM
As much as I hope I am going to be flamed for this
Fixed.
you have no constitutional right to fly on a plane.
Ninth Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.
It comes down to "private property" issues. My house my rules and in this case, federal laws and guidelines.
On the one hand, it's the airlines' house and rules. As a private concern they do have the right to refuse service to anyone, as the Constitution only applies to the Federal Government.
On the other hand, we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and only the Federal Government is big enough to protect us all in this case. In these modern times something like TSA is, like law, taxes and government in general, is a necessary evil. That said, it is indeed necessary, and we all pay the price.
If you want to fly on a plane anywhere in the world (you should see how they treat round eyes in Chinese airports) , you give up your 4th amendment right to search and seizure.
Comparing experiences here with experiences elsewhere is, to my mind, is in this case irrelevant. Are you saying that we should be grateful that our intrusive system is not as bad as theirs? I am, but I shouldn't have to be.
Saying the girl should have known better is just like saying she shouldn't have dressed provocatively if she didn't want to be raped. While true, it's still commenting on something that shouldn't be. A one-minute examination of the purse would have told the officials everything they needed to know.
nikimcbee
12-04-11, 11:23 AM
All I needed to see was:
Florida
Teen
TSA
That's all you really need to know, the story just writes itself at that point.:dead:
nikimcbee
12-04-11, 11:29 AM
Shouldn't be any flaming because that is against the forum rules...good honest debate and I personally find this thread interesting.
okay, I'll do it.:doh:
Damn bears fan!:dead:
(proceeds to throw bottle at Misha, but hits Steedhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQafJzgh7oZzQ0Q1gRkDyJwa26Hi-mNjkkh4hOSDj_7s8PE-LYSLYY-aEY (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQzMjQ1OTU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTY1NDE3Mw%40% 40._V1._SY314_CR34,0,214,314_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797453/&usg=__jOX4RD_-7J-o4uqPq_x3nqqOOCs=&h=314&w=214&sz=14&hl=en&start=3&zoom=1&tbnid=CVj5FGFJM1-jWM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=80&ei=kJ_bTtyGMOatiAK43czBDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkarl%2Bpilkington%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1) instead, then quietly slips out of thread.)
Jimbuna
12-04-11, 11:43 AM
okay, I'll do it.:doh:
Damn bears fan!:dead:
(proceeds to throw bottle at Misha, but hits Steedhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQafJzgh7oZzQ0Q1gRkDyJwa26Hi-mNjkkh4hOSDj_7s8PE-LYSLYY-aEY (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQzMjQ1OTU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTY1NDE3Mw%40% 40._V1._SY314_CR34,0,214,314_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797453/&usg=__jOX4RD_-7J-o4uqPq_x3nqqOOCs=&h=314&w=214&sz=14&hl=en&start=3&zoom=1&tbnid=CVj5FGFJM1-jWM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=80&ei=kJ_bTtyGMOatiAK43czBDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkarl%2Bpilkington%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1) instead, then quietly slips out of thread.)
Back in ya kennel...bonny lad :DL
Tribesman
12-04-11, 03:00 PM
Comparing experiences here with experiences elsewhere is, to my mind, is in this case irrelevant.
Comparing them with US experiences since sept 11th would be relevant, so would travel between here and the UK during the sillyness, so would flying on ElAl for decades, or for that matter flying on any of the other middle eastern airlines.
Krauter
12-04-11, 03:06 PM
The TSA may have overreacted but the individual may have been better advised to carry an item with a different logo considering the location.
Just my two cents.
However, the issue I find here is that she stated she had no previous issues while flying to her destination with the same purse. If it wasn't an issue going there why should it be coming back?
Tribesman
12-04-11, 03:12 PM
However, the issue I find here is that she stated she had no previous issues while flying to her destination with the same purse.
Thats just like saying to a traffic cop " but you didn't pull me last time I was a ton up on this road"
Jimbuna
12-04-11, 03:22 PM
However, the issue I find here is that she stated she had no previous issues while flying to her destination with the same purse. If it wasn't an issue going there why should it be coming back?
Different staff, different levels of observation skills, different number of people in the immediate vicinity, different distractions...any number of things I suppose.
soopaman2
12-04-11, 03:24 PM
So I will ask, how far is acceptable?
Pop a finger into your wife because she might be hiding something "in there"
Don't worry it is in the name of national security. All the searchers are making a sound 9$ an hour , it is ok. Well trained in modern America means underpaid.
Why do other countries (excepting Israel) do so well without dystopian rules to air travel?
Orwell would crap his pants at what we tolerate today, But then again in the end, even Winston Smith screamed genuine anger at the telescreen.
I guess we are all just brainwashed. Sorry...Not we.
You
I see what this is.
Except this time, we are all the "Juden"
So give your papers to the ex con working behind the TSA desk and let him feel your families assorted privated parts. If you tape them moaning in pleasure then you are guilty of a crime.
Sailor Steve
12-04-11, 03:58 PM
Comparing them with US experiences since sept 11th would be relevant, so would travel between here and the UK during the sillyness, so would flying on ElAl for decades, or for that matter flying on any of the other middle eastern airlines.
Because of your childish penchant for deleting the person you're quoting, I had to go make sure it was me. :nope:
And you're wrong. Overreaction is overreaction, no matter who does it.
Thats just like saying to a traffic cop " but you didn't pull me last time I was a ton up on this road"
No, because unlike your example she didn't actually do anything wrong. As I said, it should have taken one minute to make sure that it was only a piece of fashion, and she would have been on her way. These people overreacted, pure and simple.
[QUOTE]Ninth Amendment.
You have the right to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.
The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Mitchell-14) It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Mitchell-14)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=75).
Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).
"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.
Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991
"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."
So in my humble opinion, it is not a right.
On the one hand, it's the airlines' house and rules. As a private concern they do have the right to refuse service to anyone, as the Constitution only applies to the Federal Government.
On the other hand, we make laws to protect ourselves from each other, and only the Federal Government is big enough to protect us all in this case. In these modern times something like TSA is, like law, taxes and government in general, is a necessary evil. That said, it is indeed necessary, and we all pay the price.
We basically agree on this. Had the airlines been a private entity there would be no discussion here.
Comparing experiences here with experiences elsewhere is, to my mind, is in this case irrelevant. Are you saying that we should be grateful that our intrusive system is not as bad as theirs? I am, but I shouldn't have to be.
Actually, Bejing airport looks exactly like O'hare, just dimmer lighting. They have their own version of TSA but they go through if not exactly the same protocols than pretty much look cross trained with our TSA. And the reason why I mentioned it, was the three times I was searched after the initial screening. Must have been the Blackhawks jersey I had on :hmmm:
Saying the girl should have known better is just like saying she shouldn't have dressed provocatively if she didn't want to be raped. While true, it's still commenting on something that shouldn't be. A one-minute examination of the purse would have told the officials everything they needed to know.
Never liked that argument and it has no relevance to this particular incident. Rape is a crime of violence.
None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute either. Too many examples of case law that prove that. I'll PM them to you if you would like.
And Buna, you know I am terrible with semantics :doh:
Why do other countries (excepting Israel) do so well without dystopian rules to air travel?
In my experiences, airport security seems standardized now.
Spoon 11th
12-04-11, 06:39 PM
Yes, overreaction, that being said: how about flying with another purse...just saying.:o
YO DAWG! We heard TSA didn't like your purse so we put it inside another purse, so you can still carry your purse while you carry a purse.
okay, I'll do it.:doh:
Damn bears fan!:dead:
(proceeds to throw bottle at Misha, but hits Steedhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQafJzgh7oZzQ0Q1gRkDyJwa26Hi-mNjkkh4hOSDj_7s8PE-LYSLYY-aEY (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQzMjQ1OTU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTY1NDE3Mw%40% 40._V1._SY314_CR34,0,214,314_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797453/&usg=__jOX4RD_-7J-o4uqPq_x3nqqOOCs=&h=314&w=214&sz=14&hl=en&start=3&zoom=1&tbnid=CVj5FGFJM1-jWM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=80&ei=kJ_bTtyGMOatiAK43czBDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkarl%2Bpilkington%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1) instead, then quietly slips out of thread.)
Oh Pasha, shouldn't you be counting trees?
YO DAWG! We heard TSA didn't like your purse so we put it inside another purse, so you can still carry your purse while you carry a purse.
:har::har::har:
Krauter
12-04-11, 06:46 PM
So give your papers to the ex con working behind the TSA desk and let him feel your families assorted privated parts. If you tape them moaning in pleasure then you are guilty of a crime.
Can I ask... What the hell is wrong with you?
Tribesman
12-04-11, 06:54 PM
Because of your childish penchant for deleting the person you're quoting, I had to go make sure it was me. :nope:
You should be better than that.
So straight back at ya..........
plonker, no deletion, its all in your mind
See that little thing between "insert image" and "wrap[CODE] tags"?
Are you having a bad day?
And you're wrong. Overreaction is overreaction, no matter who does it.
That does not address what was written. or what it was written about
But also that comes back and bites you at the bottom
No, because unlike your example she didn't actually do anything wrong.
How do you know?
As I said, it should have taken one minute to make sure that it was only a piece of fashion, and she would have been on her way
Possibly, but then further down the line you get more problems so that isn't a solution.
These people overreacted, pure and simple.
How do you know that it wasn't the underage pregnant girl who overreacted and bought this all on herself?
It happens frequently in airports everywhere, people get uppity for no real reason and make a big scene which causes them delay then they make a scene about being delayed then go on about how unfair it is which delays them even more.
Sailor Steve
12-04-11, 06:55 PM
The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Mitchell-14) It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Mitchell-14)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=75).
Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).
"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.
Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991
"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."
So in my humble opinion, it is not a right.
And that is a prime example of the court specifically ignoring the man who wrote the Bill Of Rights. James Madison "The Father of the Constitution", didn't want a Bill Of Rights at all, for the express reason that he believed that if he listed them some would inevitably be left out, and some lawyer down the road would say "They didn't mention that one, so it must not count." He believed that the Congressional and Executive powers listed could and would not be usurped, hence the Federal Government could never incroach on any of our rights, and that ALL rights belonged to the people, and none to the Government. He eventually let himself be persuaded by Jefferson, and by the fact that pretty much everybody else refused to sign if he didn't guarantee that he would include one.
Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
James Madison, Federalist #84
When he did give in, he did everything he could to prevent the government from intruding on unnamed rights.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
James Madison, Draft submitted to Congress
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.
James Madison, speech introducing the Bill Of Rights
My point is that it's true that the Government does indeed have the authority (granted by us - Government per se has no "rights" at all) to create an entity to protect its citizens. In this the NTA is no different than the police department - it's there for a reason. I also agree that the NTA and other Federal Agencies have the authority to prohibit the carrying of weapons, even fake or replica weapons, on an airliner. Where I disagree is that an purse with an embossed picture of a gun qualifies, especially when even a cursory look would show that it's obvious that her finger couldn't even fit inside the trigger guard.
Never liked that argument and it has no relevance to this particular incident. Rape is a crime of violence.
It was the first one that came to my head. But the point here isn't the crime, it's the implication that "She should have known better." My point is that she shouldn't have to know better.
None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute either. Too many examples of case law that prove that. I'll PM them to you if you would like.
You don't need to show me anything. As I often say, I read the Bill Of Rights as meaning one thing: I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe anyone else's right to do exactly the same. Everything else springs from that concept.
Tribesman
12-04-11, 07:06 PM
And the reason why I mentioned it, was the three times I was searched after the initial screening.
In your country(which of course make it eminently relevant:03:) I was searched outside the terminal, then again inside before the check in, then at check in, then again through to departures then once more before actual boarding....and that was before the ATSA was enacted and there was piles of people getting far more thorough goings over than that.
@ S S.
Understand where you are coming from, and agree with some of the things you present. But the fact is, the judiciary interprets what is written down, whether or not it was intended or not by the framers.
As to personal responsibility for one's own behavior, I believe if people policed themselves and used a little common sense, we would not need a nanny state.
In your country(which of course make it eminently relevant:03:) I was searched outside the terminal, then again inside before the check in, then at check in, then again through to departures then once more before actual boarding....and that was before the ATSA was enacted and there was piles of people getting far more thorough goings over than that.
It's the accent, I blame the Simpsons for that. Next time wear a kilt without drawers :haha:
Tribesman
12-04-11, 07:57 PM
It's the accent, I blame the Simpsons for that. Next time wear a kilt without drawers
The accent was in my favour, like I said lots of other passengers(or potential passengers) were getting it very severe from all sorts of security.
Platapus
12-04-11, 07:59 PM
I remember flying in South Korea during the Olympics. TSA needs to talk to the South Koreans.
I have never felt so secure but at the same time respected as when I was in the airport around the time of the Olympics.
1. Security started as you drove in to the parking lot - vehicle was sniffed and scoped.
2. All baggage was inspected roadside at the airport with sniffers and x-ray. Passenger stayed with baggage
3. Passenger escorted baggage to a secondary security screening (x-ray, sniffers and swabs. It was at this point when checked luggage left onto a third check
4. Passengers were scanned in metal detector, wanded, and patted down (two lines per sex)
5. Passengers were scanned and wanded when they got to the waiting area.
6. On the jetway, just prior to entering the aircraft, all passengers were wanded and patted down, as well was all carry on inspected.
The good part was that all this took far less time than it takes TSA and at all times everyone was treated with respect. And most importantly, every thing kept moving.
Armed teams of security with automatic weapons patrolled all the areas. and Dog teams were used.
So much security and so little inconvenience or slow down. Either hire South Korean security as trainers, or just fire TSA and hire South Korean security to do the job.
But seriously, TSA really needs to study how the South Koreans handled security. It was awesome and most importantly, professional. :up:
Sailor Steve
12-04-11, 08:04 PM
@ S S.
Understand where you are coming from, and agree with some of the things you present. But the fact is, the judiciary interprets what is written down, whether or not it was intended or not by the framers.
That is very true, and unlike some others who deride that, I also understand and accept it while still disagreeing. I'm a huge fan of John Marshall and the amazing way he outfoxed Jefferson to bring about that state of affairs.
As to personal responsibility for one's own behavior, I believe if people policed themselves and used a little common sense, we would not need a nanny state.
I do agree with both your points, and where I disagree, well, there's room for that as well. It's part of what freedom is about. :sunny:
I remember flying in South Korea during the Olympics. TSA needs to talk to the South Koreans.
I have never felt so secure but at the same time respected as when I was in the airport around the time of the Olympics.
1. Security started as you drove in to the parking lot - vehicle was sniffed and scoped.
2. All baggage was inspected roadside at the airport with sniffers and x-ray. Passenger stayed with baggage
3. Passenger escorted baggage to a secondary security screening (x-ray, sniffers and swabs. It was at this point when checked luggage left onto a third check
4. Passengers were scanned in metal detector, wanded, and patted down (two lines per sex)
5. Passengers were scanned and wanded when they got to the waiting area.
6. On the jetway, just prior to entering the aircraft, all passengers were wanded and patted down, as well was all carry on inspected.
The good part was that all this took far less time than it takes TSA and at all times everyone was treated with respect. And most importantly, every thing kept moving.
Armed teams of security with automatic weapons patrolled all the areas. and Dog teams were used.
So much security and so little inconvenience or slow down. Either hire South Korean security as trainers, or just fire TSA and hire South Korean security to do the job.
But seriously, TSA really needs to study how the South Koreans handled security. It was awesome and most importantly, professional. :up:
The problem with our TSA is it's a J O B. Pride and in some cases professionalism in work is out the window for the most part. Accountability means common sense goes out the window. As I was taught by an old timer when I first got on the job: treat people as you would want your own family to be treated by another officer. Yeah, I guess he plagiarized the golden rule a bit, but it made sense.
That is very true, and unlike some others who deride that, I also understand and accept it while still disagreeing. I'm a huge fan of John Marshall and the amazing way he outfoxed Jefferson to bring about that state of affairs.
When one looks out for their own self interest, one works a lot harder. ;)
I do agree with both your points, and where I disagree, well, there's room for that as well. It's part of what freedom is about. :sunny:
:up: More debate is needed, otherwise we will be chanting the following:
Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clement's.
You owe me five farthings,
Say the bells of St. Martin's.
When will you pay me?
Say the bells of Old Bailey.
When I grow rich,
Say the bells of Shoreditch.
When will that be?
Say the bells of Stepney.
I do not know,
Says the great bell of Bow.
Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to chop off your head
Sailor Steve
12-04-11, 08:44 PM
:up: More debate is needed
Fine. You're a stupid-head, and your mom dresses you funny! :O:
Kongo Otto
12-04-11, 08:45 PM
Happy must be the Nation, which has such tremendous problems like ugly teens with even more uglier purses.
Happy must be the Nation, which has such tremendous problems like ugly teens with even more uglier purses.
:yep:
Platapus
12-04-11, 08:48 PM
Happy must be the Nation, which has such tremendous problems like ugly teens with even more uglier purses.
A knocked up teen so someone found her attractive. :D
But I have to admit that is a fugly purse.
Kongo Otto
12-04-11, 08:57 PM
A knocked up teen so someone found her attractive. :D
Hmm remembers me when i was plastered like a rat i woke up with that Punk Chick, she had more metal between her....anyways. :oops:
Sometimes men do strange things when their best part starts thinking. :haha:
Hmm remembers me when i was plastered like a rat i woke up with that Punk Chick, she had more metal between her....anyways. :oops:
Sometimes men do strange things when their best part starts thinking. :haha:
Why did God invent 0400hrs taverns?
Ugly chicks need love too.....
@Platapus, you mean to tell me you never went hogging while in college????
Jimbuna
12-05-11, 06:30 AM
Hmm remembers me when i was plastered like a rat i woke up with that Punk Chick, she had more metal between her....anyways. :oops:
Sometimes men do strange things when their best part starts thinking. :haha:
Oh the memories :DL
Oh the memories :DL
Don't you mean blackouts?:up:
Jimbuna
12-05-11, 04:30 PM
Don't you mean blackouts?:up:
Cheeky bugga :stare:
Yes :oops:
Platapus
12-05-11, 08:10 PM
@Platapus, you mean to tell me you never went hogging while in college????
I am rather proud to say that I had to look that expression up. And no, I never did that.
Every woman I ever hooked up with was beautiful... to me. :yep:
I am rather proud to say that I had to look that expression up. And no, I never did that.
Every woman I ever hooked up with was beautiful... to me. :yep:
They say love is blind, but the neighbors ain't.:03:
Jimbuna
12-06-11, 06:06 AM
They say love is blind, but the neighbors ain't.:03:
Never went to bed with an ugly female in my life :nope:
Woke up with a few though :doh:
Never went to bed with an ugly female in my life :nope:
Woke up with a few though :doh:
:har:
Jimbuna
12-06-11, 09:26 AM
:03:
Sailor Steve
12-06-11, 11:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVYn1dokgQ
http://images.codingforcharity.org/dmp/20101202/Beer-Goggles_20101202215307_reg.png
soopaman2
12-06-11, 01:44 PM
Nasty females works for MLB player.
Taken from a Mark Grace fansite.
On the definition of a "slumpbuster", after being pressed by host Jim Rome in a now-infamous 2003 interview on the television show "Rome is Burning" to clarify the baseball slang term...
"A slumpbuster is when you have to take one for the team. It's finding the biggest, nastiest, fattest broad, and you put the wood to her to come out of your slump. Also known as 'jumping on a grenade for the team'."
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.