Bishop Hedd Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 How is airport security the last few days? Flying to LAX thursday.
Nanker Posted December 29, 2009 Author Posted December 29, 2009 How is airport security the last few days? Flying to LAX thursday. It's fierce. You have to fly nekkid and sit on the floor of the planes. They've removed all the seats.
/dev/null Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 How is airport security the last few days? Flying to LAX thursday. It's fierce. You have to fly nekkid and sit on the floor of the planes. They've removed all the seats. And you can't have any carry ons or keep anything on your lap. So Hedd's going to have to leave his copy of the Levi edition at home
Bishop Hedd Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 It's fierce. You have to fly nekkid and sit on the floor of the planes. They've removed all the seats.Didnt L Ron Hubbard appear on a pebble somewhere?
Bishop Hedd Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 And you can't have any carry ons or keep anything on your lap. So Hedd's going to have to leave his copy of the Levi edition at homeI just dont want to go thru one of those machines where they can see your nodule. I keep my python coiled up after lasso practice.
Magox Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 obama get an F Seems like most of the people who posted down below agree as well. My favorite one was: “inherited from Bush” This is turning into a college drinking game. Everytime they blame Bush, have a shot…
PastaJoe Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting responses from conservatives here and in Congress about the plane incident. Hypocritical, but interesting. I don't recall a similar response when months after 9/11, on Dec. 22, the shoe bomber Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane was thwarted by a group of passengers, after he had passed through all screenings. And this was at the height of scrutiny after 9/11. It was six days before Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about it. He didn't address reporters about it until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas. But the revisionists like to say Bush kept us safe and we weren't attacked again after 9/11. I don't recall any calls for people to be fired like are happening now. In fact, if you did challenge the administration, you were quickly labeled as anti-American. Come to think of it, no members of the cabinet were fired even after 9/11, the biggest and most successful terrorist attack against us in U.S. history. Now if you support the current administration, you're labeled anti-American. Incredible.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 How is airport security the last few days? Flying to LAX thursday. Just make sure you are wearing clean underwear
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting responses from conservatives here and in Congress about the plane incident. Hypocritical, but interesting. I don't recall a similar response when months after 9/11, on Dec. 22, the shoe bomber Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane was thwarted by a group of passengers, after he had passed through all screenings. And this was at the height of scrutiny after 9/11. It was six days before Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about it. He didn't address reporters about it until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas. But the revisionists like to say Bush kept us safe and we weren't attacked again after 9/11. I don't recall any calls for people to be fired like are happening now. In fact, if you did challenge the administration, you were quickly labeled as anti-American. Come to think of it, no members of the cabinet were fired even after 9/11, the biggest and most successful terrorist attack against us in U.S. history. Now if you support the current administration, you're labeled anti-American. Incredible. Wasn't Richard Reid tried in a civilian court, too?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting responses from conservatives here and in Congress about the plane incident. Hypocritical, but interesting. I don't recall a similar response when months after 9/11, on Dec. 22, the shoe bomber Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane was thwarted by a group of passengers, after he had passed through all screenings. And this was at the height of scrutiny after 9/11. It was six days before Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about it. He didn't address reporters about it until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas. But the revisionists like to say Bush kept us safe and we weren't attacked again after 9/11. I don't recall any calls for people to be fired like are happening now. In fact, if you did challenge the administration, you were quickly labeled as anti-American. Come to think of it, no members of the cabinet were fired even after 9/11, the biggest and most successful terrorist attack against us in U.S. history. Now if you support the current administration, you're labeled anti-American. Incredible. The Richard Reid 'attack' is the best comparison. There's not much we can do about this sort of thing right now because airport security is nothing more than Security Theater. In a way, it kind of reminds me of faith and religion. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy even though it's all just an illusion. We should really just get over our modesty and screen everybody with those scanners that can see through clothes.
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting responses from conservatives here and in Congress about the plane incident. Hypocritical, but interesting. I don't recall a similar response when months after 9/11, on Dec. 22, the shoe bomber Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane was thwarted by a group of passengers, after he had passed through all screenings. And this was at the height of scrutiny after 9/11. It was six days before Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about it. He didn't address reporters about it until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas. But the revisionists like to say Bush kept us safe and we weren't attacked again after 9/11. I don't recall any calls for people to be fired like are happening now. In fact, if you did challenge the administration, you were quickly labeled as anti-American. Come to think of it, no members of the cabinet were fired even after 9/11, the biggest and most successful terrorist attack against us in U.S. history. Now if you support the current administration, you're labeled anti-American. Incredible. In Reid's case, I believe it was soon enough after 9/11 that there was a general attitude that "Oh, security couldn't have improved that much in the past three months, anyway", and thus the administration got a pass. Your point is still valid, though. There's a whole lot of unnecessary pants-wetting going on over a failed bombing incident perpetrated by a guy who on the whole seems somewhat of a dullard as terrorists go, and the hypocrisy of it is no less laughable than the comparison between the reaction to the Ft Hood shoot-up vice the attack at the 101st Airborne's camp in Kuwait in 2003.
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 The Richard Reid 'attack' is the best comparison. There's not much we can do about this sort of thing right now because airport security is nothing more than Security Theater. In a way, it kind of reminds me of faith and religion. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy even though it's all just an illusion. We should really just get over our modesty and screen everybody with those scanners that can see through clothes. Or just accept that there is a small risk of terrorist attacks on airplanes. The bad guys actually put a not insignificant amount of planning into getting around security measures, and there's no magic bullet that's going to fix that. I also don't quite see how modifying security procedures in our airports would have prevented this gomer from boarding a plane in Amsterdam, either.
Adam Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 Or just accept that there is a small risk of terrorist attacks on airplanes. The bad guys actually put a not insignificant amount of planning into getting around security measures, and there's no magic bullet that's going to fix that. I also don't quite see how modifying security procedures in our airports would have prevented this gomer from boarding a plane in Amsterdam, either. I agree with both of you- every once in awhile, somebody will slip through. I agree with Gene that those scanners should be used.
erynthered Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 I agree with both of you- every once in awhile, somebody will slip through. I agree with Gene that those scanners should be used. I dont think assbombers would get caught in those new scaners.
DC Tom Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 I agree with both of you- every once in awhile, somebody will slip through. I agree with Gene that those scanners should be used. I'm not necessarily against the scanners either. But demanding them as a necessity in reaction to a guy that tries to light his friggin' underwear on fire (as many people seem to be doing) is asinine.
IDBillzFan Posted December 30, 2009 Posted December 30, 2009 I'm not necessarily against the scanners either. But demanding them as a necessity in reaction to a guy that tries to light his friggin' underwear on fire (as many people seem to be doing) is asinine. Which is fine because the guy failed. But if the guy was somehow successful (by his terms) and he killed 300 people heading to Detroit, demanding full body scans as a necessity would seem like anything BUT asinine.
Nanker Posted December 31, 2009 Author Posted December 31, 2009 Interesting responses from conservatives here and in Congress about the plane incident. Hypocritical, but interesting. I don't recall a similar response when months after 9/11, on Dec. 22, the shoe bomber Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a plane was thwarted by a group of passengers, after he had passed through all screenings. And this was at the height of scrutiny after 9/11. It was six days before Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about it. He didn't address reporters about it until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas. But the revisionists like to say Bush kept us safe and we weren't attacked again after 9/11. I don't recall any calls for people to be fired like are happening now. In fact, if you did challenge the administration, you were quickly labeled as anti-American. Come to think of it, no members of the cabinet were fired even after 9/11, the biggest and most successful terrorist attack against us in U.S. history. Now if you support the current administration, you're labeled anti-American. Incredible. Perhaps it has to do with the perception that President BO is soft on terrorism and his choice for Homeland Security Secretary is less bright than Sarah Palin. Post 9-11 the perception was we were doing everything possible to make the country and its citizens safer than we were before that infamous date. So when shoe-bomber-boy surfaced the argument was put forth to ramp up security by arming pilots and sky marshalls. The President and his supporters seem to take the view that there's no concerted terrorist threat to America. They seem to want to ramp security measures down - not up, and they see attacks like these as isolated criminal events. "The system worked" - "no it didn't" - "yes it did". How many in FDR's cabinet got sacked after December 7, 1942? Speaking of hypocrisy, how's the effort to shut down the NSA's wiretapping of American's telephone conversations going?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Perhaps it has to do with the perception that President BO is soft on terrorism and his choice for Homeland Security Secretary is less bright than Sarah Palin. Post 9-11 the perception was we were doing everything possible to make the country and its citizens safer than we were before that infamous date. So when shoe-bomber-boy surfaced the argument was put forth to ramp up security by arming pilots and sky marshalls. The President and his supporters seem to take the view that there's no concerted terrorist threat to America. They seem to want to ramp security measures down - not up, and they see attacks like these as isolated criminal events. "The system worked" - "no it didn't" - "yes it did". How many in FDR's cabinet got sacked after December 7, 1942? Speaking of hypocrisy, how's the effort to shut down the NSA's wiretapping of American's telephone conversations going? The only ones that seem to be seriously debating Obama's "failure" in this is the partisan press. MSNBC is salavating over the attack by Cheney and Fox is orgasmic over the chance to brand BO a surender monkey but I don't think anyone is really paying attention. Oh, and Pearl Harbor was 1941. People actually got killed there, too. The Undie Bomber didn't kill anyone
Magox Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 The only ones that seem to be seriously debating Obama's "failure" in this is the partisan press. MSNBC is salavating over the attack by Cheney and Fox is orgasmic over the chance to brand BO a surender monkey but I don't think anyone is really paying attention. Oh, and Pearl Harbor was 1941. People actually got killed there, too. The Undie Bomber didn't kill anyone Ya, I don't see BO being someone really to blame here, if I did have a criticism or two on this matter it would be his cold non reassuring response to the American public regarding the terrorist attemtped attack, which clearly we can see he is not comfortable in this role and the appointment of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of DHS. Let's not forget, not only did she make the stupid comment regarding how "the system worked", but this is also the same lady who earlier this year put out on an alert on Right Wing Militias and how they pose a serious threat to this country. Ya, she's a dumbass, and she needs to go.
Recommended Posts