You’re arguing in circles Allen. It doesn’t matter what’s written on the shirt, nor what language it’s in. God forbid he could even wear one that says “Kip Hawley is an idiot!”
Let’s go this route since I am probably confused. Does freedom of speech apply to T-shirts?
If yes, it is circular as you describe because the message on the T’shirt is circular.
If the Arabic line on the shirt says "set off the bomb at 9:00 and the English “so called translation” of the Arabic print says Peace on Earth that probably is a circular as it gets…
If you SPEAK the “true” Arabic translation in English at an American airport and you are busted. TSA sure wouldn’t be able to translate the Arabic message???
Yet, that Arabic counterpart behind the “messenger” sure will know what to do.
They’ll know what to do long before they arrive… relax.
I am one to say that if you dont like the tsa DONT FLY!!!1 GET YOUR ASS IN YOUR CAR AND DRIVE!! PROBLEM SOLVED.
And you are probably the type that says ANYBODY in a position of authority is 100% correct 100% of the time.
I’m sure glad you weren’t around when this nation was born. You would have probably told the British it’s okay to tax me and not allow me to have any say in what’s going on with my taxes.
your wrong flaunting authority will only get you in trouble. you know the rules when you go to the airport, and if you forget that big bottle of hand lotion you should have left at home, or put in the trunk of your car in the parking lot before you go to the terminal. I am not perfect, and I never claim to be perfect, when i screw up, I man up and get on with my life. Tsa doesnt diverge from the rules set forth. asking them too is a waste of breath. last time I flew I changed my seat assignment, got secondary bag check in COS and SEA both ways, and yea I was like why??? but if I wanted to get home i need to shut up and go with the flow. Raising a stink, onlly raises suspicion. so there is no need to jump my case and be an a**hole ok??
Actually, common sense would be to stop smoking because it causes cancer, seriously aggravates non-smokers like myself when I have to breathe it while trying to dine out, and annoys me when smokers litter the ground with their butts. Since I’m here, I’d like to say the problem isn’t with TSA, it’s with men bitching about the size of a bottle of hand creme they can bring on a plane!! 
I continue to read. Are you seriously trying to regulate common sense?
[quote=“damiross”]
Gel type candles, per the TSA web page, are not permitted.
This only one S in mistake and digbat should be diNgbat.
A piece of clothing is just as good as a plastic bag for a never opened bottle.
So now TSA agents have x-ray vision? How can a person see inside an unopened bag as it comes out of the x-ray machine?
If I don’t like the rules, I will complain about them. That, my dear friend, is the right of an American citizen. The founding fathers complained and took action and we became a nation. I refuse to be a sheeple.
You like quotes; fancy this one.
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.
The term run-on comes to mind.
You are aware our country’s founding fathers were slaveholders aren’t you? You keep referencing the beginning of our country as though it was born healthy. I think a lot of people out there think change is necessary and crucial for progress. There are situations the government should stay out of, but there are a lot of things the government does to make all your rants possible.
Tip: you can reply to more then one post in one post. The box is big enough.
Tsa doesnt diverge from the rules set forth.
Yes, they do. On a daily basis. The standard rule is 3.4 ounces of liquid in a qt size container. That’s quite a bit of liquid really, if you pack the bag full of the 3.4 bottles. About 5-7 bottles is what I’ve seen. So the idea that that is preventing anything is right out of the question. TSA already has particle detectors for bags, grab one and test the sample of the liquid and leave it alone.
Going by the idea that if its not allowed then just don’t worry about it. We’ve slowly lost the majority of the ease of travel we used to have. First no shoes, then no liquids, no gels. What’s next? No carry-on baggage at all?
I’ve had 5+ years of security training in the airline field. Anymore it seems like the refresher classes are filled with dumber and dumber people thinking that a knife is a dangerous thing to have on the plane. Last class I had they were flipping out over a tiny 3inch knife that fits into a lipstick container. It was extremely flimsy, and pretty obvious on the xray if your paying attention. These same people thought nothing of 9in knitting needles. Or keys grasped in your hands. Pens/pencils. All could stab better and deeper than that knife. What about the wire on a wirebound notebook? Easily pull it out and turn it into a garrote.
So we’re not actually being secure with our methods. We’re doing the false showy pretending to be secure to look like we’re taking action.
The idea that screening is going to prevent anything is ludicrous. Terrorists will always find a way. Look at gun control, and the war on drugs. So many restrictions, and yet, we still have all kinds of unlicensed guns on the streets, and still have a continuing drug problem. We pretend that having laws against it does something, but with gun control your only keeping the guns out of honest people’s hands.
I don’t remember which crash it was but it was a plane taken down by a bomb hidden in a boom box left on a plane. Overlooked, someone thought it was someone elses, the Flight attendants overlooked it. Simple stuff that was an accident. So now amplify that problem by however many TSA agents we have, and we’re asking them all to be 100% vigilant and on call at all times. Mistakes happen, people let things slip.
CVG was shut down for a 9 hours while TSA searched the airport after a training program on the xray wasn’t paid attention to and they thought they let something slip.
I appreciate the effort that TSA is putting into protecting us, but stop trying to make it look like something its not. Be consistent, be realistic. Don’t regulate water. There is no limit to the amount of lighters you can take on board with you, per TSA’s own guidelines. I’ve argued this point with them on numerous occasions. They “suggest” you only bring one, and if you ask how many you can take they will tell you just one, but the actual regulation doesn’t define how many you can take.
You are aware our country’s founding fathers were slaveholders aren’t you?
Yes, as were everyone else at the time. Slavery was normal then. The idealistic nature of the founding fathers led us to our personal rights and freedoms. So pretending that it wasn’t an accomplishment or trying to decry our founding fathers as less then revolutionary is kind of inane. Holding up one facet of their existance then and saying that the rest of their accomplishments are invalidated is wrong. Not to mention you missed the whole point of that post.
Sorry for the someone rambling nature of the post, kept getting interrupted. My thought-trains derailed, took some time to find the survivors.
Silentnite: It’s good to hear from someone with airline security training. I agree with what you say.
I thought those swabs were for powder type of explosives such as gunpowder? Do they also work for Macgyver style liquid explosives?
First, my reponse to damiross was in reference to all the complaining about TSA and how the government shouldn’t be allowed to search you prior to boarding a plane voluntarily. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to argue on one hand the government’s involvement should be limited, and on the other mentioning, “I’m sure glad you weren’t around when this nation was born”, as if he’s implying, with all this reference to the beginning of our country, it was created flawlessly with no room for improvement, thus admitting indirectly that change isn’t necessary to improve current conditions, or in fact change is necessary thereby discrediting his argument in favor of eliminating the government’s involvement with airlines.
Secondly, if you wish to stick with your, “The idealistic nature of the founding fathers led us to our personal rights and freedoms”, then I suggest you reread your history. Without rereading however, it should be intuitive to realize slaveholders are not people who will ever lead a people to personal rights and freedoms, oppressed people standing up and fighting back are.
Finally, the fun part. You said, “So pretending that it wasn’t an accomplishment or trying to decry our founding fathers as less then revolutionary is kind of inane. Holding up one facet of their existance then and saying that the rest of their accomplishments are invalidated is wrong.” I challenge you to find ONE instance in my prior posts, ANYWHERE, where I said the rest of their accomplishments were invalidated. Surprisingly you are correct with regard to one aspect, I did miss the point of the post.
While I’m not 100% on the particle detectors they have, from my understanding, the machine “sniffs” particles and compounds from whatever they swab onto the sterile cotton. If it matches any of a known family of explosives it flags and the bag is screened further. Assuming they could pour some liquid onto the cotton and have that as the sample should be fine, but again that’s leading into the idea that liquid really represents that much of a threat.
Without rereading however, it should be intuitive to realize slaveholders are not people who will ever lead a people to personal rights and freedoms, oppressed people standing up and fighting back are.
I’ve read my history, I know where we came from. The oppressed people your talking about were also slaveholders at the time. To them it was the same as owning land. Yes its wrong, but ignoring that facet they did actually lead us to personal rights and freedoms. Hence: America.
You’re not making any sense, you’re arguing a point that isn’t being disputed (To them it was the same as owning land). Obviously they treated their slaves as property.
You go on to say, “The oppressed people your <—(Spelling, try you’re) talking about were also slaveholders at the time”, not only will I say you are completely incorrect, the oppressed I’m speaking of were slaves and indentured servants, but I also reiterate my prior statements that require you to touch up on your history because you keep saying “they” actually led us to rights and freedoms. You need to define “they”.
Also, you say, “Hence: America”, as though “they” led us to America, a perfect place. In case you didn’t know, slavery flourished for hundreds of years in America until it was abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865. So when I speculate your pronoun “they” are our founding fathers, the timing of the 13th Amendment disproves your statements.
I don’t advise brandishing academically-challenged knives in the midst of a proverbial gunfight.
I’m sorry that your missing the point of what I’m saying. I won’t argue against your straw man arguments. I’ll consider my point made to the general public and consider you a personal failure.
You ask me to define “they” like its not inherently obvious from the topic. I appreciate the ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the argument itself, and your overly simplistic interpretation of history.
While I understand that the founding fathers were fallible, and they were oppressing slaves, they were also being oppressed themselves. They fought back and started the revolution. Keep in mind that more then one set of people can be oppressed at any given moment.
I’d advise a reading comprehension course when coming to a blunted knife fight. The whole issue of slavery was a red herring to begin with. Stop attacking me, and understand the posts that came before.
I see no strawman here. You’re trying to equate the oppression by the crown on the colonists to the colonists on the slaves they owned. I find you’re comparison… ummmm… weak is the only kind word I can find. While the colonists were dealing with the taxation without representation issue, they had far, Far, FAR more options at their disposal than any slave.
I’m glad this thread has devolved into a dissertation on Early American History due to a red herring argument.
Keep in mind that taxation without representation was a small part of the larger issue at hand. The original formation of the colonies being due to religious persecution. I wasn’t trying to say that the original oppression of the early americans was the same as slavery. You simply can’t equate the two. Again I’ll reference the original posts and say that we can simply forget about the misunderstandings come about by reading comprehension. I know its a tough subject, maybe just read one post at a time.
Anything else should be taken to the banter thread.