More from the TSA

Sundancer said:
I don't think "hard evidence", "guessing", and "well it seems" go together. Nor does "MANY. . ."

I could tell you "MANY" recruits at MEPS are also there for loftier reasons, and/or multiple reasons. I do have a lot of times at MEPS, DMDC. But you and I are gonna talk past each other, to the annoyance and boredom of others. . .
Click to expand...

So unless your government says its so, it's just not a fact?
 
Sundancer said:
If you have some hard evidence on the effectiveness of various ISIL recruting tactics, other than anecdotes from MSNBC or coastal city newspapers, share it with the Feds. Otherwise, you're just parroting noise from people with thier own agenda.
Click to expand...
Are inland city newspapers more reliable, for some reason?
 
Unit74 said:
From the article she got screened out to more scrutiny and then bolted. They chased and tackled her. WTH do you think they are gonna do? Let you go? What am I missing here? If I did that at a security checkpoint, they'd tackle my ass too, and I'd expect it's coming. In a foreign country, they'd effing choot me!

Sucks she got ruffed up, but damn, don't bolt from security. She's gonna sue? For what? Deep pockets is what she sees. What I see is no personal responsibility. She caused the whole mess.
Click to expand...
What I got from the article is that when you have a traveler who is not able to respond appropriately to TSA instructions, the traveler needs to have a known and trusted person with them to assist. She had such a person traveling with her, but the TSA did not allow that person to remain close enough to serve that function.
 
kkoran said:
What makes airports so special? Are they going to put up checkpoints outside of train stations, subway stations, cruise ship terminals, and other facilities where people congregate? Shouldn't DHS be equally as concerned about non-transportion locations where there are crowds, such as theaters, shopping malls, etc.?
Click to expand...

Now you've done it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Are inland city newspapers more reliable, for some reason?
Click to expand...
Maybe more pragmatic? In general, maybe less driven by idealogy? A generalization, I know. Plenty of exceptions. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Maybe more pragmatic? In general, maybe less driven by idealogy? A generalization, I know. Plenty of exceptions. . .
Click to expand...
Maybe driven by a different ideology which corresponds better to yours?
 
Everskyward said:
Maybe driven by a different ideology which corresponds better to yours?
Click to expand...
Maybe you're correct; maybe the NY and LA Times, the Washington Post (on my kitchen table right now) are paragons of balanced journalism, with no agenda but to deliver the facts, unbiased and complete. Perhaps my own bias has clouded my judgement, and I unfairly characterize these fine institutions. . .then again. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Maybe you're correct; maybe the NY and LA Times, the Washington Post (on my kitchen table right now) are paragons of balanced journalism, with no agenda but to deliver the facts, unbiased and complete. Perhaps my own bias has clouded my judgement, and I unfairly characterize these fine institutions. . .then again. . .
Click to expand...
No news source can be unbiased. They have their editors and their audience. But people gravitate to sources that correspond to their own ideas. That's not to say that some do not seek out opposing viewpoints, but they are more likely to think that a source they agree with is "unbiased".
 
Yeah, if newspapers printed just the facts without any editorializing or analysis (almost always biased), they would be paper thin. ;)
 
Hey, they gotta sell ads, I get it. Focus on thier audience, to pay the bills. The genesis was my implication that left coast and North east papers tend to liberal bias. That's probably not too far out of line with reality, is it?
 
Sundancer said:
Hey, they gotta sell ads, I get it. Focus on thier audience, to pay the bills. The genesis was my implication that left coast and North east papers tend to liberal bias. That's probably not too far out of line with reality, is it?
Click to expand...
Sure, but there are plenty of other news sources with the opposite bias.
 
Sundancer said:
Uhhhh, no. . .just because a guy on POA says something, doesn't make it a fact.
Click to expand...

And just because a paper prints it, or a website says it doesn't mean it's true, or false ether.

Gotta think for yourself, but I do believe folks are waking up when it comes to National $ecurity in this country, this ain't 2001 propaganda dance around the flag fest anymore and many people are getting tired of the taste of government kool aid.
 
Unit74 said:
From the article she got screened out to more scrutiny and then bolted. They chased and tackled her. WTH do you think they are gonna do? Let you go? What am I missing here? If I did that at a security checkpoint, they'd tackle my ass too, and I'd expect it's coming. In a foreign country, they'd effing choot me!

Sucks she got ruffed up, but damn, don't bolt from security. She's gonna sue? For what? Deep pockets is what she sees. What I see is no personal responsibility. She caused the whole mess.
Click to expand...

Except the girl was hard of hearing, easily confused, and not fully mentally aware. Instead of allowing the mother to assist, they separated the two, which undoubtedly made the girl bolt.

Would separating an 8 year old kid from the parents be OK? How about an elderly person with Alzheimers.

The TSA broke their own policies in not allowing the mother to assist someone that is less than fully cognizant.

Chip Sylverne said:
When the judge who dismisses the charges suggests to her mother that she get a lawyer to do just that, I suspect she's got a pretty good case.
Click to expand...

RJM62 said:
Except that her family had explained her situation to the TSA agents. If they're such automatons that they can't figure out an alternative to forcibly tackling a woman who has a freshly-dug hole in her brain, then please see my previous post.

Rich
Click to expand...

Yes, this.

Palmpilot said:
What I got from the article is that when you have a traveler who is not able to respond appropriately to TSA instructions, the traveler needs to have a known and trusted person with them to assist. She had such a person traveling with her, but the TSA did not allow that person to remain close enough to serve that function.
Click to expand...

This, too.

If you call the TSA, they tell you to advise the screeners of the situation. Apparently they chose to ignore that and harm the girl. There is absolutely no reason to do what they did, and no reason to harm the girl.
 
Everskyward said:
No news source can be unbiased. They have their editors and their audience. But people gravitate to sources that correspond to their own ideas. That's not to say that some do not seek out opposing viewpoints, but they are more likely to think that a source they agree with is "unbiased".
Click to expand...

Even when they sincerely try to be unbiased, they almost always fail. They give themselves away with their choice of words, phrases, assumptions, what they choose to explain and not to explain, headlines (if they write them -- often they don't), and in other subtle ways.

For example, much was said during the Democratic primaries about the distribution of wealth among various social classes. Reporters who leaned to the right tended to use terms like "wealth distribution," while those on the left would be more likely to use "income inequality" to refer to the same phenomenon. Other examples include "illegal aliens" versus "undocumented workers," "military-style rifle" versus "assault weapon," "terrorist attack" versus "mass shooting," "pro-life" versus "anti-choice," and so forth.

I know quite a few journalists, including one Pulitzer Prize winner. Most of them genuinely do try their best to be fair and objective. But it's a tough thing to do. There are very few who can pull it off.

Rich
 
wsuffa said:
Except the girl was hard of hearing, easily confused, and not fully mentally aware. Instead of allowing the mother to assist, they separated the two, which undoubtedly made the girl bolt.

Would separating an 8 year old kid from the parents be OK? How about an elderly person with Alzheimers.

The TSA broke their own policies in not allowing the mother to assist someone that is less than fully cognizant.





Yes, this.



This, too.

If you call the TSA, they tell you to advise the screeners of the situation. Apparently they chose to ignore that and harm the girl. There is absolutely no reason to do what they did, and no reason to harm the girl.
Click to expand...



That's right, you were there, reviewed the report, watched the video, took statements conferred with the prosecutor and convened your own grand jury.... My bad.


Oh wait.....shucks. You DIDNT do that. You made well educated conclusion of fact and have already convicted them based on NO credible information, no evidence, no review of video, no real understand of anything......just like the rest of the nit wits and wanna be sea lawyers on MSN, CNN, and CNBC do.


Sorry, but I have to say, it's people like this who really **** up the world all the time. It's as if once an option is formed, they cannot stray from it even in the face of fact. They hold so tightly to the believe they are self righteous, when the facts are finally published, they refuse to except them.

Before you tie the noose and send them to the gallows, how about you wait for the truth to come out, not a one sided, edited statement from biased party, em Kay?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Not to mention the vast number of civilians we've killed, men women and children, in our quest to bring them "democracy. " Iran, Vietnam , Iraq, on and on.
Click to expand...

You might wonder what these three countries have in common. One word OIL. While serving in Vietnam in 1970, I stood on the shore of the South China Sea and watched Royal Dutch Shell drill. Drilling and pumping platforms in the sea as far as one could see.
 
wsuffa said:
And this is a perfect example of why so many have left PoA.

Plonk.
Click to expand...


Really?

Seems quite tame, sadly the meek only like "easy listening" stuff, I'd say this thread is quite tame and if this offends one to the point they can't handle it and never come back, they have bigger issues than POA.
 
wsuffa said:
And this is a perfect example of why so many have left PoA.

Plonk.
Click to expand...

Why, because leftist people come here and profess to burn the the system down on nothing more than a news story? Because that is what has happened. Some are ready to light the torches and march with absolutely no facts other than word of mouth. Didn't work out so well in recent past Ferguson, cough, Baltimore Cough..... Thy Bruins them at the stake only to later find out when the facts were presented, the guys did the right thing.

But I'm sure those who already convicted them based on a 5 paragraph story slanted left still refuse to accept the real story, not their self fabricated novel-to-suit for shock and awe, aka, web hits and advertising revenue.
 
Sundancer said:
Maybe you're correct; maybe the NY and LA Times, the Washington Post (on my kitchen table right now) are paragons of balanced journalism, with no agenda but to deliver the facts, unbiased and complete. Perhaps my own bias has clouded my judgement, and I unfairly characterize these fine institutions. . .then again. . .
Click to expand...
Maybe the papers you prefer are paragons of balanced journalism, with no agenda but to deliver the facts, unbiased and complete. Perhaps my own bias has clouded my judgement, and I unfairly judge those fine institutions. . .then again. . .
 
Unit74 said:
Why, because leftist people come here and profess to burn the the system down on nothing more than a news story? Because that is what has happened.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that it's not only "leftists" who think the TSA often oversteps their authority, or who think they were given too much authority in the first place.
 
Unit74 said:
That's right, you were there, reviewed the report, watched the video, took statements conferred with the prosecutor and convened your own grand jury.... My bad.


Oh wait.....shucks. You DIDNT do that. You made well educated conclusion of fact and have already convicted them based on NO credible information, no evidence, no review of video, no real understand of anything......just like the rest of the nit wits and wanna be sea lawyers on MSN, CNN, and CNBC do.


Sorry, but I have to say, it's people like this who really **** up the world all the time. It's as if once an option is formed, they cannot stray from it even in the face of fact. They hold so tightly to the believe they are self righteous, when the facts are finally published, they refuse to except them.

Before you tie the noose and send them to the gallows, how about you wait for the truth to come out, not a one sided, edited statement from biased party, em Kay?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you've convicted the girl using the same methods that you deplore.
 
The TSA is more likely to sabatoge your aircraft and cause a crash than a "terrorist"


When they are not over escalating and assaulting the disabled, they to pat themselves on the back for rendering multiple aircraft, which people were about to board, unairworthy.

A TSA clown decided to climb on over 7 aircraft which were waiting to board pax, TSA guys was using fragile OAT probes (think of a idiot with 2 weeks of "training" doing a pull up on your pitot tube), then threaten to fine the airline who's aircrafts they just rendered unairworthy.

Luckily the ATP trained crew, found the damage before they went airborne.



"
Information on the Chicago Aircraft Inspections
There have been some questions on our blog and elsewhere about the Chicago aircraft inspections.

Also, I've noticed some confusion out there, so please note that this involved a Transportation Security Inspector, (TSI) not a Transportation Security Officer. (TSO)

On August 19 a Transportation Security Inspector (TSI) was conducting a routine compliance inspection on aircraft parked on the airfield at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport (ORD). The TSI inspected nine American Eagle aircraft to look for and test, among other things, access vulnerabilities or areas were someone with ill intent could gain access to the aircraft.

Aircraft operators are required to secure each aircraft when left unattended. The TSIs are encouraged to look for and follow through on vulnerabilities. During the inspection process at ORD the Inspector used a Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe – a probe that protrudes from the side of the aircraft that is used to measure outside air temperature – to pull himself up while investigating possible access vulnerabilities with the unattended aircraft.

The Inspector was following through on regulatory inspection activity. The Inspector was able to gain access to the interior of seven of the nine aircraft inspected, which is an apparent violation of the airline’s security program. TSA is reviewing the inspection results and depending on the conclusion, could take action with the airline, up to and including levying of civil penalties.

While the inspection process is a vital layer of aviation security, it is not TSA’s intent to cause delays or potential damage to aircraft as a result of our inspections. TSA took immediate steps to re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane."

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/08/update-on-chicago-aircraft-inspections.html?m=1
 
Last edited:
I wonder if they were really re-enforcing education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a plane, or just providing it in the first place!
 
There is no way that a TSA agent could have inadvertently damaged airplanes like that. After all we learned in another thread that they are aviation professionals just like pilots and mechanics.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe the papers you prefer are paragons of balanced journalism, with no agenda but to deliver the facts, unbiased and complete. Perhaps my own bias has clouded my judgement, and I unfairly judge those fine institutions. . .then again. . .
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, the Washington Post hits my driveway every day. I don't have a paper "preference", just noted the apparent, particular bias of the of the ones I mentioned. Rather more strident, rather more extreme, and as is the case with exremists, both left and right, a very low tolerance for ideas not aligned with their own.
 
Sundancer said:
As I mentioned, the Washington Post hits my driveway every day. I don't have a paper "preference", just noted the apparent, particular bias of the of the ones I mentioned. Rather more strident, rather more extreme, and as is the case with exremists, both left and right, a very low tolerance for ideas not aligned with their own.
Click to expand...
OK, so I used the wrong word. I was trying to find a concise way of referring to newspapers other than the ones that you were referring to as biased. I failed.

My point was that unsupported opinions work both ways.
 
Unit74 said:
Why, because leftist people come here...
Click to expand...

You know... getting REAL tired of these broad stroke characterizations.

I'm generally a moderate "leftist." I think the TSA is a friggin' joke because they're a massive utilization of federal dollars to insure that we have the same rate of transportation terrorism as we had before 9/11. We somehow managed for a good long time without massive security screening... then 9/11 happened and instead of responding proportionally, I can't take a bottle of shampoo with me on a damn airplane and someone's 87 year old grandmother is getting groped in secondary screening, all so the TSA can fail 95% of their screening tests. I know of one case where one person I work with forgot she had a VERY PROHIBITED item in her carry on. Bag went through the x-ray machine. Still got on to the plane with her. Thanks TSA.

I'm also a moderate "leftist" that believes that if you take off sprinting from a secondary screening area, you're going to get tackled, and that it's not UNREASONABLE for that to happen.

You know who really likes to make broad characterizations of "leftists" as though they're an enemy on a battlefield? Ignorant people.
 
deonb said:
Wait... don't you own an Eclipse? (Or am I thinking of somebody else with a similar avatar?)
Click to expand...
No, I don't own an eclipse.

Never have, and never will. You couldn't pay me to own one of those pos's.
 
ircphoenix said:
You know... getting REAL tired of these broad stroke characterizations.

I'm generally a moderate "leftist." I think the TSA is a friggin' joke because they're a massive utilization of federal dollars to insure that we have the same rate of transportation terrorism as we had before 9/11. We somehow managed for a good long time without massive security screening... then 9/11 happened and instead of responding proportionally, I can't take a bottle of shampoo with me on a damn airplane and someone's 87 year old grandmother is getting groped in secondary screening, all so the TSA can fail 95% of their screening tests. I know of one case where one person I work with forgot she had a VERY PROHIBITED item in her carry on. Bag went through the x-ray machine. Still got on to the plane with her. Thanks TSA.

I'm also a moderate "leftist" that believes that if you take off sprinting from a secondary screening area, you're going to get tackled, and that it's not UNREASONABLE for that to happen.

You know who really likes to make broad characterizations of "leftists" as though they're an enemy on a battlefield? Ignorant people.
Click to expand...
Moderate consevative here. Yet we may share some points of view. Maybe the gap will close a bit again, and some work will get done.

I do see the same dismissive attitudes from the left, as you do from the right. There are some non-ignorant, thougtful people with ideas that don't align with mainstream liberal dogma. I'm notseeing greater (or honestly, lesser) respect for divergent opinion on the left, either.
 
DHS always never fails to impress with their excellent stewardship and effectiveness in spending $40 billion a year, no? Best loan money we've ever paid interest on, eh?
 
Sundancer said:
Moderate consevative here. Yet we may share some points of view. Maybe the gap will close a bit again, and some work will get done.

I do see the same dismissive attitudes from the left, as you do from the right. There are some non-ignorant, thougtful people with ideas that don't align with mainstream liberal dogma. I'm notseeing greater (or honestly, lesser) respect for divergent opinion on the left, either.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain there is any such thing as mainstream liberal dogma, other than among politicians. I think non-politicians have a wide variety of viewpoints.
 
I guarantee you I share MANY political viewpoints with MOST of the people here.

I guarantee you any given "leftist" will share some common ground with someone on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I'm just wholly against throwing labels around for no reason. There was zero political debate going on, then someone comes out of right(?) field with more of this leftist nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top