Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TSA Making Air Travel safe
9 views
Skip to first unread message
number6
Apr 24, 2012, 9:44:47 AM4/24/12
to
The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
passing a gun ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
passing a gun ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
BTSinAustin
Apr 24, 2012, 10:58:35 AM4/24/12
to
the government.
Google search for... 4 year old hug tsa
Now see how many pages you have to go through to get CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC,
NYT, etc
7 pages in the links started being about other stories and no MSM hits.
The MSM is doing it's job, divide right and left, class warfare, race
baiting, and diversions around the real stories that matter.
------
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 24, 2012, 11:56:48 AM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 7:58 am, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> The MSM is doing it's job, divide right and left, class warfare, race
> baiting, and diversions around the real stories that matter.
You consider this TSA story a real story that matters??? It's
> The MSM is doing it's job, divide right and left, class warfare, race
> baiting, and diversions around the real stories that matter.
insignificant bullshit, and the story itself is dishonest. Notice the
caption of the first picture --
"Terror threat? Four-year-old Isabella was subjected to a full body
pat-down and accused of carrying a gun in an airport"
But if you read the actual story, you see that Isabella was NOT
subjected to a full body pat down because she did not give her
permission.
We are only hearing one side of the story. I guarantee you there was
more to this incident than the mother's version, which is all we are
told about. The girl was ultimately allowed to board the plane
without a pat down. And you think this is a real story that matters?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Mossingen
Apr 24, 2012, 12:31:44 PM4/24/12
to
"BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
I'm not a big fan of the TSA, but Shirley you must recognize the thankless
situation that they are in. If you are the head of the TSA and the
President said, "hey, BTSinAustin, you are in charge of security at airports
now," how do you do that job?
Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal is
beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt. Using old ladies and
four-year-olds is exactly how a really good and dedicated terrorist group
would infiltrate a plane. Maybe a terrorist has the four-year-old's little
sister and parents at her house, tied up, and orders the grandmother and
four-year-old to smuggle a gun on the plane or the family will be killed.
How do you know it's not the case? Once you start making security decisions
based on your own view of things (ick...using a four-year-old and an old
lady is contemptuous), rather than on how a terrorist would think, you're
toast. Same thing when they hassle people in wheelchairs. We get outraged
by it and roll our eyes, what kind of terrorist would use someone in a
wheelchair, we thing to ourselves. The answer is: all of them. If it
would accomplish their goals, they would all use a person in a wheelchair.
Just put yourself in the place of a dedicated terrorist with the
single-minded objective of getting some box-cutters or even a gun on a
plane. How would you do it? You have no restrictions on the methods you
use and you have plenty of money to spend on it, and your boss says get it
done, and he doesn't care how you do it. If you're a TSA person up against
that sort of threat, how do you handle the herd of people that come into the
airport everyday?
I visit prisons here in Oklahoma regularly and talk to the prisoners and the
guards a lot. There is no limit to the creativity that men (and women) will
use to bring contraband into a prison, or to create weapons once inside. It
can't be stopped. And this is a place where the administration has complete
physical control of all aspects of the place and where the population has
essentially no rights or standing to object to any search. And they still
can't stop contraband from getting in. Even the guards are searched now
since cell phone abuse has become so prevalent. Guards searching guards.
The TSA has it much worse. They have much less authority over the
population they are trying to monitor and are subject to public scrutiny and
ridicule even when they make rational decisions. People don't like it when
traveling becomes a hassle, or they have a bad experience, and TSA takes it
on the chin every time.
Personally, I think it's entirely rational for a TSA agent to notice
unauthorized contact like that, especially if it's by tow persons no one
would suspect of being terrorists. Like the Wilford Brimley character said
in The Firm when Gene Hackman said that they didn't have any reason to be
suspicious of Mitch: I get paid to be suspicious when I have nothing to be
suspicious about.
If anything, TSA isn't aggressive enough in dealing with the job they have
to do.
news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
situation that they are in. If you are the head of the TSA and the
President said, "hey, BTSinAustin, you are in charge of security at airports
now," how do you do that job?
Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal is
beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt. Using old ladies and
four-year-olds is exactly how a really good and dedicated terrorist group
would infiltrate a plane. Maybe a terrorist has the four-year-old's little
sister and parents at her house, tied up, and orders the grandmother and
four-year-old to smuggle a gun on the plane or the family will be killed.
How do you know it's not the case? Once you start making security decisions
based on your own view of things (ick...using a four-year-old and an old
lady is contemptuous), rather than on how a terrorist would think, you're
toast. Same thing when they hassle people in wheelchairs. We get outraged
by it and roll our eyes, what kind of terrorist would use someone in a
wheelchair, we thing to ourselves. The answer is: all of them. If it
would accomplish their goals, they would all use a person in a wheelchair.
Just put yourself in the place of a dedicated terrorist with the
single-minded objective of getting some box-cutters or even a gun on a
plane. How would you do it? You have no restrictions on the methods you
use and you have plenty of money to spend on it, and your boss says get it
done, and he doesn't care how you do it. If you're a TSA person up against
that sort of threat, how do you handle the herd of people that come into the
airport everyday?
I visit prisons here in Oklahoma regularly and talk to the prisoners and the
guards a lot. There is no limit to the creativity that men (and women) will
use to bring contraband into a prison, or to create weapons once inside. It
can't be stopped. And this is a place where the administration has complete
physical control of all aspects of the place and where the population has
essentially no rights or standing to object to any search. And they still
can't stop contraband from getting in. Even the guards are searched now
since cell phone abuse has become so prevalent. Guards searching guards.
The TSA has it much worse. They have much less authority over the
population they are trying to monitor and are subject to public scrutiny and
ridicule even when they make rational decisions. People don't like it when
traveling becomes a hassle, or they have a bad experience, and TSA takes it
on the chin every time.
Personally, I think it's entirely rational for a TSA agent to notice
unauthorized contact like that, especially if it's by tow persons no one
would suspect of being terrorists. Like the Wilford Brimley character said
in The Firm when Gene Hackman said that they didn't have any reason to be
suspicious of Mitch: I get paid to be suspicious when I have nothing to be
suspicious about.
If anything, TSA isn't aggressive enough in dealing with the job they have
to do.
BTSinAustin
Apr 24, 2012, 12:29:51 PM4/24/12
to
erosion of rights and the huge waste of money spent on TSA and security
theater.
---
number6
Apr 24, 2012, 12:46:28 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 11:56 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are only hearing one side of the story. I guarantee you there was
> more to this incident than the mother's version, which is all we are
> told about. The girl was ultimately allowed to board the plane
> without a pat down. And you think this is a real story that matters?
>
One side only ?? So you missed the part that the TSA reviewed it and
> We are only hearing one side of the story. I guarantee you there was
> more to this incident than the mother's version, which is all we are
> told about. The girl was ultimately allowed to board the plane
> without a pat down. And you think this is a real story that matters?
>
found the agents actions appropriate ...
Isn't THAT the other side ??
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 24, 2012, 12:49:14 PM4/24/12
to
actually happened from the TSA agents involved.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BTSinAustin
Apr 24, 2012, 12:59:29 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Apr 24 2012 9:44 AM, number6 wrote:
> >
> >> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> >> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> >>
> >> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> >>
> >> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> >> passing a gun ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
> >
> >
> > Yet more proof that the main stream media is corrupt and in the pocket of
> > the government.
> > Google search for... 4 year old hug tsa
> > Now see how many pages you have to go through to get CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC,
> > NYT, etc
> >
> > 7 pages in the links started being about other stories and no MSM hits.
> >
> > The MSM is doing it's job, divide right and left, class warfare, race
> > baiting, and diversions around the real stories that matter.
>
>
>
> I'm not a big fan of the TSA, but Shirley you must recognize the thankless
> situation that they are in. If you are the head of the TSA and the
> President said, "hey, BTSinAustin, you are in charge of security at airports
> now," how do you do that job?
I'd outsource it to the Israelis. They profile and watch people. They
> "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Apr 24 2012 9:44 AM, number6 wrote:
> >
> >> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> >> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> >>
> >> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> >>
> >> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> >> passing a gun ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
> >
> >
> > Yet more proof that the main stream media is corrupt and in the pocket of
> > the government.
> > Google search for... 4 year old hug tsa
> > Now see how many pages you have to go through to get CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC,
> > NYT, etc
> >
> > 7 pages in the links started being about other stories and no MSM hits.
> >
> > The MSM is doing it's job, divide right and left, class warfare, race
> > baiting, and diversions around the real stories that matter.
>
>
>
> I'm not a big fan of the TSA, but Shirley you must recognize the thankless
> situation that they are in. If you are the head of the TSA and the
> President said, "hey, BTSinAustin, you are in charge of security at airports
> now," how do you do that job?
don't worry about grandmas hand lotion. They can tell more by looking you
in the eye than a two dozen of TSA's finest can with the radiation
machines and the shoes off.
For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that whisks
you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
Show me the list of terrorist that TSA has stopped.
------
ChrisRobin
Apr 24, 2012, 4:06:09 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 12:59 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
> For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
> offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
> generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
> bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
> Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that whisks
> you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
> power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
> instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
> to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
Security theater.
> For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
> offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
> generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
> bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
> Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that whisks
> you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
> power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
> instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
> to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
> Show me the list of terrorist that TSA has stopped.
Either:
1) The TSA is incredibly competent at their job (please stifle your
laughter).
2) The threat of domestic terrorism is so overblown as to be nearly
non-existent, and in fact you're more likely to die choking on an airline
pretzel than from a suicide bomber.
_______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
Apr 24, 2012, 4:11:08 PM4/24/12
to
go with door 2 Monte.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
--------
VegasJerry
Apr 24, 2012, 5:29:02 PM4/24/12
to
job. You'd be the first one to bitch if you lost your family on a plane
going down because a weapon or bomb was snuck aboard on a kid.
If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family, you'd
be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
officials do their job.
Jerry 'n Vegas
------
VegasJerry
Apr 24, 2012, 5:32:50 PM4/24/12
to
Israelis.
Jerry 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Apr 24, 2012, 5:37:26 PM4/24/12
to
> They can tell more by looking you
> in the eye than a two dozen of TSA's finest can with the radiation
> machines and the shoes off.
are always learning from each other. They also learned NOT to broadcast
information about those they've caught, nor the methods used.
Just shut up and do what the nice TAS Agent tell you. They're smarter and
wiser than you.
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
> offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
> generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
> bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
> Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that whisks
> you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
> power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
> instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
> to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
>
> Show me the list of terrorist that TSA has stopped.
>
> ------
bratt
Apr 24, 2012, 6:05:33 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family, you'd
> be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> officials do their job.
>
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> ------
Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family, you'd
> be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> officials do their job.
>
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> ------
the TSA. He got the bomb on the plane - it failed to go off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
-------
VegasJerry
Apr 24, 2012, 6:10:51 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
>
> > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family, you'd
> > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > officials do their job.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> > ------
>
> Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> the TSA.
JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
>
> > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family, you'd
> > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > officials do their job.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> > ------
>
> Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> the TSA.
over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
Jerry
He got the bomb on the plane - it failed to go off.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> -------
bratt
Apr 24, 2012, 6:54:17 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 5:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
you'd
> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > officials do their job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > ------
> >
> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > the TSA.
>
> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>
> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>
>
> Jerry
No Jerry, I don't. I read what you write and respond accordingly without
> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
you'd
> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > officials do their job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > ------
> >
> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > the TSA.
>
> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>
> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>
>
> Jerry
insults thrown in. If the *messenger* makes an error is it incorrect to
point it out?
Beldin the Sorcerer
Apr 24, 2012, 7:28:04 PM4/24/12
to
"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:phnj69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Apr 24 2012 5:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
>> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
>> > > place.
>> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
>> > > officials do their job.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
>> > >
>> > > ------
>> >
>> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
>> > the TSA.
>>
>> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
>> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>>
>> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>>
>>
>> Jerry
>
> No Jerry, I don't. I read what you write and respond accordingly without
> insults thrown in. If the *messenger* makes an error is it incorrect to
> point it out?
>
>
Susan, Jerry is a troll.
>
>> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
>> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
>> > > place.
>> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
>> > > officials do their job.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
>> > >
>> > > ------
>> >
>> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
>> > the TSA.
>>
>> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
>> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>>
>> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>>
>>
>> Jerry
>
> No Jerry, I don't. I read what you write and respond accordingly without
> insults thrown in. If the *messenger* makes an error is it incorrect to
> point it out?
>
>
He is fully aware that his post makes him look like an extreme shithead, and
he's wrong.
That's why he does it.
O-PGManager
Apr 24, 2012, 7:46:47 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 6:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
you'd
> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > officials do their job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > ------
> >
> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > the TSA.
>
> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>
> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>
>
> Jerry
Susan made a good point. It's got to hurt when Susan makes you look silly.
> On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
you'd
> > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in place.
> > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > officials do their job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > ------
> >
> > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > the TSA.
>
> JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
>
> Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
>
>
> Jerry
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
_____________________________________________________________________
O-PGManager
Apr 24, 2012, 7:52:09 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal is
> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
from a determined individual...
that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
grope downs of four years olds.
If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
terminal and subway station in the country.
But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
_______________________________________________________________________
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
O-PGManager
Apr 24, 2012, 7:48:27 PM4/24/12
to
absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 24, 2012, 7:58:22 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
> absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
Huh? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially from
> What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
> absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
people emotionally involved in a situation, as was this mother.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
brewmaster
Apr 24, 2012, 8:44:03 PM4/24/12
to
YOU but they aren't smarter and wiser than most of us here.
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
> > offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
> > generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
> > bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
> > Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that whisks
> > you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
> > power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
> > instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
> > to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
> >
> > Show me the list of terrorist that TSA has stopped.
> >
> > ------
>
> -------
FangBanger
Apr 24, 2012, 9:24:53 PM4/24/12
to
"power"
I know the 2 billion is an inflated number, but no one has come up
with a figure that is accurate.
Alim acknowleding that he is full of shit
_____________________________________________________________________
BTSinAustin
Apr 24, 2012, 10:53:14 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
is
> > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
>
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
>
> that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> grope downs of four years olds.
>
> If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> terminal and subway station in the country.
>
> But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>
>
Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
is
> > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
>
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
>
> that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> grope downs of four years olds.
>
> If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> terminal and subway station in the country.
>
> But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>
>
attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
brewmaster
Apr 24, 2012, 11:03:38 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 7:53 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
> is
> > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> >
> > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > from a determined individual...
> >
> > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > grope downs of four years olds.
> >
> > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > terminal and subway station in the country.
> >
> > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> >
> >
>
>
> Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
You were right in an earlier post. We are exclusively reactionary. We
> On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
> is
> > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> >
> > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > from a determined individual...
> >
> > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > grope downs of four years olds.
> >
> > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > terminal and subway station in the country.
> >
> > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> >
> >
>
>
> Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
put measures in place AFTER an attack. Nobody in a position of authority
has ever put anything in place for something that might happen that has
never happened before.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
--------
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
number6
Apr 24, 2012, 11:09:16 PM4/24/12
to
account given them ... They had the opportunity ... There have been
other incidents where they did question the accuser account ... here
they could have but did not ...
Like most government regulations ... they lose sight of what they are
trying to do and read the regulation ...
here it said that if a screened passenger has contact with an
unscreened passenger the previously screened passenger must be patted
down ... Bureauracy and bureaucrats put their brains in their asses
and pray to the federal registry ... I deal with these idiots on a
daily basis ... not the TSA but their neighbors in their bureaucratic
heaven ...
I once had one tell me ... "I don't care if the test gives the wrong
answer ... you have to follow it exactly ..."
and get the wrong result ?? Foolishly I asked ... "Of course ...
because the regulation says so ... "
O-PGManager
Apr 24, 2012, 11:23:15 PM4/24/12
to
more light on the situation?
O-PGManager
Apr 24, 2012, 11:24:22 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 11:03 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 7:53 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their
goal
> > is
> > > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> > >
> > > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > > from a determined individual...
> > >
> > > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > > grope downs of four years olds.
> > >
> > > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > > terminal and subway station in the country.
> > >
> > > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> > attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
>
> You were right in an earlier post. We are exclusively reactionary. We
> put measures in place AFTER an attack. Nobody in a position of authority
> has ever put anything in place for something that might happen that has
> never happened before.
Please tell me you are not advocating bringing the TSA to the subways and
> On Apr 24 2012 7:53 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their
goal
> > is
> > > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> > >
> > > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > > from a determined individual...
> > >
> > > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > > grope downs of four years olds.
> > >
> > > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > > terminal and subway station in the country.
> > >
> > > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> > attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
>
> You were right in an earlier post. We are exclusively reactionary. We
> put measures in place AFTER an attack. Nobody in a position of authority
> has ever put anything in place for something that might happen that has
> never happened before.
trains.
Mossingen
Apr 24, 2012, 11:30:12 PM4/24/12
to
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:9uqj69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
I was criticizing the way the media and people criticize the TSA for doing a
thankless, and hopeless, task. The answer isn't to expand the TSA
authority, it is to disband the TSA.
But, as long as the TSA is at the airport, and their mandate is to strictly
control the flow of contraband onto airplanes, the people doing that job
have to do it. If I was a TSA employee and saw a little kid making physical
contact with an old lady under circumstances that deviated from security
rules, I'd be over there checking it out, too.
news:9uqj69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
>> is
>> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
>
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
>
> that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> grope downs of four years olds.
>
> If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> terminal and subway station in the country.
>
> But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
I agree with you.
>
>> Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
>> is
>> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
>
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
>
> that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> grope downs of four years olds.
>
> If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> terminal and subway station in the country.
>
> But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
I was criticizing the way the media and people criticize the TSA for doing a
thankless, and hopeless, task. The answer isn't to expand the TSA
authority, it is to disband the TSA.
But, as long as the TSA is at the airport, and their mandate is to strictly
control the flow of contraband onto airplanes, the people doing that job
have to do it. If I was a TSA employee and saw a little kid making physical
contact with an old lady under circumstances that deviated from security
rules, I'd be over there checking it out, too.
brewmaster
Apr 24, 2012, 11:34:51 PM4/24/12
to
place to counteract things that the bad guys have already thought of, hire
some non-retarded people to think of measures that don't hamper normal
people and might thwart things the bad guys think of in the future. Kind
of like antivirus software. Yeah, we have signatures of current viruses
so we can protect you from those, but we have other code to protect you
from future viruses as yet unknown.
brewmaster
Apr 24, 2012, 11:37:05 PM4/24/12
to
terrorists are 20-40 year old men." This is not entirely true, but it is
close. Profiling is certainly the answer, but everybody in the US is so
scared of being politically incorrect that nobody will do it. So, we have
4 year olds and grandmothers being frisked.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
Mossingen
Apr 25, 2012, 12:28:51 AM4/25/12
to
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:148k69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> I once read, "not all 20-40 year old men are terrorists, but almost all
> terrorists are 20-40 year old men." This is not entirely true, but it is
> close. Profiling is certainly the answer, but everybody in the US is so
> scared of being politically incorrect that nobody will do it. So, we have
> 4 year olds and grandmothers being frisked.
Even if all 20-40 year old men were terrorists, it doesn't follow that they
can't use non-20-40-year-old-men as tools to assist in acts of terrorism.
That's why the TSA mandate is impossible, even with more authority.
news:148k69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> I once read, "not all 20-40 year old men are terrorists, but almost all
> terrorists are 20-40 year old men." This is not entirely true, but it is
> close. Profiling is certainly the answer, but everybody in the US is so
> scared of being politically incorrect that nobody will do it. So, we have
> 4 year olds and grandmothers being frisked.
can't use non-20-40-year-old-men as tools to assist in acts of terrorism.
That's why the TSA mandate is impossible, even with more authority.
BillB
Apr 25, 2012, 12:57:35 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/2012 6:44 AM, number6 wrote:
> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
>
> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
>
> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> passing a gun ...
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
Let me get this straight...grandmother sets off alarm. *While* she is
> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
>
> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
>
> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> passing a gun ...
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
being searched, little brat comes up and hugs her. Why??
Security agent says, "great...we have to search you now too." Of course
they do. You think smugglers are above using kids? Think again. Little
brat runs away like she's guilty. When it comes to checking her, little
brat throws a fierce tantrum. Mother exacerbates situation by being
belligerent. Family turns what should have been a non-event into a major
incident.
This is a total parenting shift from when I was four or five. I never
would have behaved like that as a kid. If I did (which I wouldn't), my
mom would have been falling all over herself apologizing to the agents
and scolding me, not running to the papers to complain that her rights
were violated. What a spoiled, pampered society we live in.
Clave
Apr 25, 2012, 1:19:04 AM4/25/12
to
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:2vLlr.25686$Ex1....@newsfe18.iad...
<...>
> This is a total parenting shift from when I was four or five. I never
> would have behaved like that as a kid. If I did (which I wouldn't), my mom
> would have been falling all over herself apologizing to the agents and
> scolding me, not running to the papers to complain that her rights were
> violated. What a spoiled, pampered society we live in.
Look -- over there -- kids on your lawn!
news:2vLlr.25686$Ex1....@newsfe18.iad...
<...>
> This is a total parenting shift from when I was four or five. I never
> would have behaved like that as a kid. If I did (which I wouldn't), my mom
> would have been falling all over herself apologizing to the agents and
> scolding me, not running to the papers to complain that her rights were
> violated. What a spoiled, pampered society we live in.
BillB
Apr 25, 2012, 1:16:12 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/24/2012 4:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
What are they really doing that they haven't always been doing (more or
> Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> from a determined individual...
less)? You don't expect tight security in an airport? I rather
appreciate it.
> that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> grope downs of four years olds.
> If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> terminal and subway station in the country.
>
> But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
improving train and bus security. I noticed the buses here have
casino-style cameras now. I thought that was a good thing?? I take it as
a value-added service. What do you take it as?
Pepe Papon
Apr 25, 2012, 2:04:26 AM4/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:23:15 -0700, "O-PGManager"
<ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 24 2012 7:58 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
>> > absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
>>
>> Huh? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially from
>> people emotionally involved in a situation, as was this mother.
>
>But eyewitness testimony from lying TSA agents is what we need to shine
>more light on the situation?
Yes. It's called "hearing both sides of the story".
<ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 24 2012 7:58 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
>> > absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
>>
>> Huh? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially from
>> people emotionally involved in a situation, as was this mother.
>
>But eyewitness testimony from lying TSA agents is what we need to shine
>more light on the situation?
Pepe Papon
Apr 25, 2012, 2:09:58 AM4/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:09:16 -0700 (PDT), number6 <snum...@aol.com>
wrote:
Not a whole lot different from many of the mindless jobs in the
private sector. Some employers make rules designed to avoid having
employees make any decisions at all. I've come across this at
stadium concessions and convenience stores. Something goes wrong and
the rule prohibits the employee from the common-sense solution.
wrote:
private sector. Some employers make rules designed to avoid having
employees make any decisions at all. I've come across this at
stadium concessions and convenience stores. Something goes wrong and
the rule prohibits the employee from the common-sense solution.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 25, 2012, 2:14:57 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24, 8:23 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 7:58 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
> > > absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
> > Huh? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially from
> > people emotionally involved in a situation, as was this mother.
> But eyewitness testimony from lying TSA agents is what we need to shine
> more light on the situation?
As I have told you several times before, Opie, you are a serious
> On Apr 24 2012 7:58 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 4:48 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > What reason is there to doubt the mother? As opposed to the TSA, she has
> > > absolutely nothing to gain by lying.
> > Huh? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially from
> > people emotionally involved in a situation, as was this mother.
> But eyewitness testimony from lying TSA agents is what we need to shine
> more light on the situation?
idiot. There is no reason to assume the TSA agents would lie about
this if asked. And of course hearing what they had to say would give
us a more complete picture of what happened.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 25, 2012, 2:16:23 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24, 8:09 pm, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> They were asked to comment and made no statement contradicting the
> account given them
The TSA agents actually involved were not asked to comment.
> They were asked to comment and made no statement contradicting the
> account given them
William Coleman (ramashiva)
bratt
Apr 25, 2012, 8:12:48 AM4/25/12
to
I would like to see a video if to see if it came down the way you just
described, or the mothers/grandmothers version.
Kids are often used as pawns - shoplifting, etc.
I was driving home late one night in Oceanside CA, and had just left the
freeway when a small (2 or 3 yr) child came out of the brush next to the
freeway, no adult in sight. My first instinct was to stop and help the
crying child, and then started thinking about this being a trap. As I was
deciding what to do I spotted a police car and honked and blinked lights.
He came over and I left. I still have no idea what happened, nor do I
know what I would have decided to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
mo_ntresor
Apr 25, 2012, 8:52:02 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 2:11 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> > It's a remarkably short list, which leads to 2 obvious possibilities.
> > Either:
> >
> > 1) The TSA is incredibly competent at their job (please stifle your
> > laughter).
> >
> > 2) The threat of domestic terrorism is so overblown as to be nearly
> > non-existent, and in fact you're more likely to die choking on an airline
> > pretzel than from a suicide bomber.
>
> I'd wager that minimum wage retards hired by TSA are not protecting me and
> go with door 2 Monte.
minimum wage? LOL. public union idiots are well paid to waste our time.
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm
mo_ntresor
---
> > It's a remarkably short list, which leads to 2 obvious possibilities.
> > Either:
> >
> > 1) The TSA is incredibly competent at their job (please stifle your
> > laughter).
> >
> > 2) The threat of domestic terrorism is so overblown as to be nearly
> > non-existent, and in fact you're more likely to die choking on an airline
> > pretzel than from a suicide bomber.
>
> I'd wager that minimum wage retards hired by TSA are not protecting me and
> go with door 2 Monte.
minimum wage? LOL. public union idiots are well paid to waste our time.
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm
mo_ntresor
---
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:35:31 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 4:46 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 6:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
> > > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
place.
> > > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > > officials do their job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > >
> > > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > > the TSA.
> >
> > JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> > over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
> >
> > Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
> Susan made a good point.
While admitting she was unable to address mine.
> On Apr 24 2012 6:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
> > > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
place.
> > > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > > officials do their job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > >
> > > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > > the TSA.
> >
> > JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> > over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
> >
> > Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
> Susan made a good point.
Jerry
It's got to hurt when Susan makes you look silly.
>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:34:22 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 3:54 PM, bratt wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 5:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
> > > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
place.
> > > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > > officials do their job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > >
> > > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > > the TSA.
> >
> > JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> > over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
> >
> > Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
> No Jerry, I don't.
But you felt obligated to reply and show the world your stupidity… See why
you're sS?
Jerry 'n Vegas
I read what you write and respond accordingly without
> insults thrown in. If the *messenger* makes an error is it incorrect to
> point it out?
------
> On Apr 24 2012 5:10 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 3:05 PM, bratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 4:29 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the underwear bomber had been successful, and killed your family,
> you'd
> > > > be the first to ask why there wasn't better security procedures in
place.
> > > > Why don't you just back out of the way and let the nice, trained,
> > > > officials do their job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > >
> > > Just a little point here Jerry - the Underwear bomber was not caught by
> > > the TSA.
> >
> > JFC! The number of times you dodge the message (becaues it's once again
> > over your head) and go directly to the messanger, is astounding!
> >
> > Do you have any fucking clue as to what I was getting at?
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
But you felt obligated to reply and show the world your stupidity… See why
you're sS?
Jerry 'n Vegas
I read what you write and respond accordingly without
> insults thrown in. If the *messenger* makes an error is it incorrect to
> point it out?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ----
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
------
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:39:02 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 8:09 PM, number6 wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:49 pm, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 9:46 am, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24, 11:56 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We are only hearing one side of the story. I guarantee you there was
> > > > more to this incident than the mother's version, which is all we are
> > > > told about. The girl was ultimately allowed to board the plane
> > > > without a pat down. And you think this is a real story that matters?
> > > One side only ?? So you missed the part that the TSA reviewed it and
> > > found the agents actions appropriate ...
> > > Isn't THAT the other side ??
> >
> > No, I did not miss that. The other side would be an account of what
> > actually happened from the TSA agents involved.
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> They were asked to comment and made no statement contradicting the
> account given them ... They had the opportunity ... There have been
> other incidents where they did question the accuser account ... here
> they could have but did not ...
>
> Like most government regulations ... they lose sight of what they are
> trying to do and read the regulation ...
We'll have to leave this as your uneducated opinion..... Just do what the
> On Apr 24, 12:49 pm, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 9:46 am, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24, 11:56 am, Wilhelm Kuhlmann <ramashiv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We are only hearing one side of the story. I guarantee you there was
> > > > more to this incident than the mother's version, which is all we are
> > > > told about. The girl was ultimately allowed to board the plane
> > > > without a pat down. And you think this is a real story that matters?
> > > One side only ?? So you missed the part that the TSA reviewed it and
> > > found the agents actions appropriate ...
> > > Isn't THAT the other side ??
> >
> > No, I did not miss that. The other side would be an account of what
> > actually happened from the TSA agents involved.
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> They were asked to comment and made no statement contradicting the
> account given them ... They had the opportunity ... There have been
> other incidents where they did question the accuser account ... here
> they could have but did not ...
>
> Like most government regulations ... they lose sight of what they are
> trying to do and read the regulation ...
nice TSA agent says, and everything will move along just nicely.
Jerry (moving along) 'n Vegas
> here it said that if a screened passenger has contact with an
> unscreened passenger the previously screened passenger must be patted
> down ... Bureauracy and bureaucrats put their brains in their asses
> and pray to the federal registry ... I deal with these idiots on a
> daily basis ... not the TSA but their neighbors in their bureaucratic
> heaven ...
> I once had one tell me ... "I don't care if the test gives the wrong
> answer ... you have to follow it exactly ..."
> and get the wrong result ?? Foolishly I asked ... "Of course ...
> because the regulation says so ... "
BTSinAustin
Apr 25, 2012, 9:47:15 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 5:37 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 9:59 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
So what you are saying is that TSA agents are just as good as Israeli
profile experts? Under that logic we can say that a Rent-a-cop is the
same as an FBI agent? CSI Mall Of America tonight on ABC.
As for Americans not broadcasting who they've caught. LOL. They parade
every poor sucker they entrap out on national news. They are drooling to
show off how good they are.
Oh and also, I'll pass on Christmas dinner, not fond of shit stuffing.
Thanks anyway
>
> Just shut up and do what the nice TAS Agent tell you. They're smarter and
> wiser than you.
LOL
-----
> On Apr 24 2012 9:59 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> > > "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > > news:rlri69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > > > On Apr 24 2012 9:44 AM, number6 wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> > > >> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> > > >>
> > > >> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> > > >>
> > > >> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> > > >> passing a gun ...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> > > >> that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> > > >>
> > > >> CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> > > >>
> > > >> 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> > > >> passing a gun ...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
> > > >
> > > >
profile experts? Under that logic we can say that a Rent-a-cop is the
same as an FBI agent? CSI Mall Of America tonight on ABC.
As for Americans not broadcasting who they've caught. LOL. They parade
every poor sucker they entrap out on national news. They are drooling to
show off how good they are.
Oh and also, I'll pass on Christmas dinner, not fond of shit stuffing.
Thanks anyway
>
> Just shut up and do what the nice TAS Agent tell you. They're smarter and
> wiser than you.
-----
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:45:31 AM4/25/12
to
Jerry 'n Vegas
They might be smarter than
> YOU but they aren't smarter and wiser than most of us here.
>
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For gods sake, they blew all that money on sniffing machines that are now
> > > offline since they never worked. Spent 100s of millions on several
> > > generations of body scanners through back door deals. Chertoff ring a
> > > bell? They chase after yesterdays news. Shoe bomber? Take off shoes.
> > > Liquid bomber, no hand lotion for mom. Now you can buy a card that
whisks
> > > you through security. (look up who is behind that one). It's all about
> > > power and money and nothing about protecting your ass. Even kids
> > > instinctively know it's bullshit. My GF's 14 year old said "I don't want
> > > to walk into that thing, I don't want to be x-rayed".
> > >
> > > Show me the list of terrorist that TSA has stopped.
> > >
> > > ------
> >
> > -------
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> ----
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:49:17 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 8:03 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 7:53 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their
goal
> > is
> > > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> > >
> > > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > > from a determined individual...
> > >
> > > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > > grope downs of four years olds.
> > >
> > > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > > terminal and subway station in the country.
> > >
> > > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> > attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
>
> You were right in an earlier post. We are exclusively reactionary. We
> put measures in place AFTER an attack. Nobody in a position of authority
> has ever put anything in place for something that might happen that has
> never happened before.
I'd show you how stupid that statement is, but you're too stupid to able
> On Apr 24 2012 7:53 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24 2012 7:52 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their
goal
> > is
> > > > beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> > >
> > > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > > from a determined individual...
> > >
> > > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > > grope downs of four years olds.
> > >
> > > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > > terminal and subway station in the country.
> > >
> > > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Exactly. World wide there have been many times more bus and train
> > attacks. Let's put scanners and rent a cop tsa everywhere
>
> You were right in an earlier post. We are exclusively reactionary. We
> put measures in place AFTER an attack. Nobody in a position of authority
> has ever put anything in place for something that might happen that has
> never happened before.
to understand it.
number6
Apr 25, 2012, 9:59:06 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 25, 2:09 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >I once had one tell me ... "I don't care if the test gives the wrong
> >answer ... you have to follow it exactly ..."
> >and get the wrong result ?? Foolishly I asked ... "Of course ...
> >because the regulation says so ... "
>
> Not a whole lot different from many of the mindless jobs in the
> private sector. Some employers make rules designed to avoid having
> employees make any decisions at all. I've come across this at
> stadium concessions and convenience stores. Something goes wrong and
> the rule prohibits the employee from the common-sense solution.
I see that also ... We sell chemicals and have private companies that
> >I once had one tell me ... "I don't care if the test gives the wrong
> >answer ... you have to follow it exactly ..."
> >and get the wrong result ?? Foolishly I asked ... "Of course ...
> >because the regulation says so ... "
>
> Not a whole lot different from many of the mindless jobs in the
> private sector. Some employers make rules designed to avoid having
> employees make any decisions at all. I've come across this at
> stadium concessions and convenience stores. Something goes wrong and
> the rule prohibits the employee from the common-sense solution.
can't have the actual name of the chemical on the COA ... It can only
have their product code
Like at MacDonalds .. you order a hamburger and they ask if you want
some product code 237198H with that instead of fries ...
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 9:58:18 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 8:30 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9uqj69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> >> Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
> >> is
> >> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> >
> > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > from a determined individual...
> >
> > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > grope downs of four years olds.
> >
> > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > terminal and subway station in the country.
> >
> > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>
>
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I was criticizing the way the media and people criticize the TSA for doing a
> thankless, and hopeless, task. The answer isn't to expand the TSA
> authority, it is to disband the TSA.
This will somehow make us safer when we fly?
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9uqj69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Apr 24 2012 12:31 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >
> >> Terrorists operate under no rules. No method of accomplishing their goal
> >> is
> >> beneath them, or too morally repugnant to attempt.
> >
> > Christ James. I'm surprised to see you advocating for a nanny protective
> > bubble state. You are absolutely right, there is NO WAY to be 100% safe
> > from a determined individual...
> >
> > that's an argument AGAINST their ridiculous cancer machine scanners and
> > grope downs of four years olds.
> >
> > If you think the TSA's policies are needed on an airplane then there is
> > absolutely no reason you shouldn't support their expansion into every bus
> > terminal and subway station in the country.
> >
> > But you'd never do that, cuz it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>
>
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I was criticizing the way the media and people criticize the TSA for doing a
> thankless, and hopeless, task. The answer isn't to expand the TSA
> authority, it is to disband the TSA.
Jerry
>
> But, as long as the TSA is at the airport, and their mandate is to strictly
> control the flow of contraband onto airplanes, the people doing that job
> have to do it. If I was a TSA employee and saw a little kid making physical
> contact with an old lady under circumstances that deviated from security
> rules, I'd be over there checking it out, too.
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 10:06:19 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24 2012 6:24 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> On Apr 24 2012 8:44 AM, number6 wrote:
>
> > The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> > that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> >
> > CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> >
> > 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> > passing a gun ...
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
>
> scary what can happen when you give shit stick morons a little bit of
> "power"
Like express their opinion on a discussion group.
>
>
> I know the 2 billion is an inflated number, but no one has come up
> with a figure that is accurate.
>
> Alim acknowleding that he is full of shit
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
> On Apr 24 2012 8:44 AM, number6 wrote:
>
> > The WORST thing about this entire incident is that the TSA told us
> > that all agents correctly followed prodcedures ...
> >
> > CFR 141 2:34 paragraph 5 section 3
> >
> > 4 Year old girls can't hug their Grandmothers ... they could be
> > passing a gun ...
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN
>
> "power"
Like express their opinion on a discussion group.
>
>
> I know the 2 billion is an inflated number, but no one has come up
> with a figure that is accurate.
>
> Alim acknowleding that he is full of shit
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 10:03:49 AM4/25/12
to
to 40" year old men, and a women wearing a vest exploded. Then there was
my pal in Vietnam that stopped and talked to a little 5-year-old kid. He
turned, walked away, and got about 20 yards before the kid exploded. My
pal lost one of his kidneys, and three friends.
Why don't you just consider the distinct possibility that the TSA knows
what they're doing and you don’t'?
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
number6
Apr 25, 2012, 10:00:09 AM4/25/12
to
input from the TSA agents involved ...
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 10:32:48 AM4/25/12
to
(like input from the agent involved, video, etc) then make the
determination as to who is told what. There is nothing unusual about this.
Most agencies have a Press Release Officials people are directed to.
Jerry
______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 10:39:14 AM4/25/12
to
got from what I wrote? Really?
> Under that logic ….
WHA! HA~HA! You using the word "logic."
we can say that a Rent-a-cop is the
> same as an FBI agent? CSI Mall Of America tonight on ABC.
>
>
> As for Americans not broadcasting who they've caught. LOL. They parade
> every poor sucker they entrap out on national news.
Jerry 'n Vegas
They are drooling to
> show off how good they are.
>
> Oh and also, I'll pass on Christmas dinner, not fond of shit stuffing.
> Thanks anyway
>
>
> >
> > Just shut up and do what the nice TAS Agent tell you. They're smarter and
> > wiser than you.
>
> LOL
>
> -----
BTSinAustin
Apr 25, 2012, 11:12:25 AM4/25/12
to
_____________________________________________________________________�
VegasJerry
Apr 25, 2012, 3:09:09 PM4/25/12
to
statement. You're under arrest for changing the thread. "You have the
right to STFU." (I used that once on an asshole).
Jerry
Pepe Papon
Apr 26, 2012, 1:58:43 AM4/26/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:59:06 -0700 (PDT), number6 <snum...@aol.com>
wrote:
It's kinda funny at McDonald's. There's obviously a script of some
kind that the order takers are supposed to follow. I'll say
something like, "I'll have a Big Mac and medium fries and that's all."
Invariably, they'll say, "Would you like anything else?". Do they
not understand the meaning of "that's all"?
wrote:
kind that the order takers are supposed to follow. I'll say
something like, "I'll have a Big Mac and medium fries and that's all."
Invariably, they'll say, "Would you like anything else?". Do they
not understand the meaning of "that's all"?
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 9:18:33 AM4/26/12
to
When I'd do the Drive-Through, I'd end my statement like you did, "And
that's all." They'd invariably add, "You want an apple pie with that?"
I'd reply, "Apple pie?"
"Yes sir, hot apple pie."
"Is it free?"
"No sir," they'd reply.
"Is it two for one or something?"
"No."
"Is there a special on them? I don't understand why you're offering it to
me."
"Well, it's just something we have and I'm supposed to offer it."
"I had told you, 'that's all;' are you going to read me the whole menu?"
I'd find some way to drag out their time - in hopes the Manager was
listening - because they sure were wasting my time.
Jerry (wasting time) 'n Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
BTSinAustin
Apr 26, 2012, 10:10:54 AM4/26/12
to
--------
BTSinAustin
Apr 26, 2012, 10:09:40 AM4/26/12
to
than you
Here, the only ones that speak English are the ones who take the order and
the money.
______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 12:08:48 PM4/26/12
to
in the back, but your point is one I use by never sending any food back.
Jerry (is that a condiment in my burger?) 'n Vegas
-----
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 12:16:02 PM4/26/12
to
World (or Disney Something) and the ticket seller give me some kind of
spiel I couldn't understand because she was Mexican, tring to speak
English. I said, "What?" And she repeates it excatally as she had before.
I said "What?" again. She repeated it the same, again.
(I didn't say the following - it's one of them, "I which I had saids."):
"JFC! Change something! Say it a different way! Learn the language. Why
the hell would Uncle Disney put you in a position where you have to
actually talk to the public and be understood!"
I had to ask the person behind me for a translation.
Jerry (ranting) 'n Vegas
--------
Steam
Apr 26, 2012, 6:09:50 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 7:09 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
suspect you are just showing off Mr. Country Club
_____________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
Apr 27, 2012, 2:38:35 AM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:18:33 -0700, "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:
>> It's kinda funny at McDonald's. There's obviously a script of some
>> kind that the order takers are supposed to follow. I'll say
>> something like, "I'll have a Big Mac and medium fries and that's all."
>> Invariably, they'll say, "Would you like anything else?". Do they
>> not understand the meaning of "that's all"?
>
>It's like advertizing. They just gotta push the product.
It's not just that. If I say, "I'd like a #1 meal to go", they'll
almost always say, "Is this for here or to go?". It's the script.
They don't want to leave anything to the discretion of the peons.
wrote:
>> It's kinda funny at McDonald's. There's obviously a script of some
>> kind that the order takers are supposed to follow. I'll say
>> something like, "I'll have a Big Mac and medium fries and that's all."
>> Invariably, they'll say, "Would you like anything else?". Do they
>> not understand the meaning of "that's all"?
>
>It's like advertizing. They just gotta push the product.
almost always say, "Is this for here or to go?". It's the script.
They don't want to leave anything to the discretion of the peons.
0 new messages