|
On October 11 2012 09:21 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events. Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE. I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
|
On October 11 2012 09:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Has the TSA ever caught a terrorist? If so how many? I'm genuinely curious about this.
they've caught hundreds! but they're not allowed to let you know ^.-
|
Seriously? You even stole the TITLE from reddit. At least pretend you aren't just reposting shit..
|
On October 11 2012 09:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:06 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President. What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them. You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that? Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations. Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that. Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever.
The TSA does a terrible job of keeping weapons off planes. http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/01/tsa_threat_detection
Despite all the fancy scanners and personnel, it's really hard to detect a box cutter in someone's carry-on luggage. If 3 out of 4 hijackers made it through security with their weapons, the results wouldn't have changed.
|
On October 11 2012 09:26 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:21 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events. Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE. I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit. Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
But it seems that whether the lawsuit is just or not, sueing is always the first responds.
I would rather have that the agent(s) takes a course it how to handle the situation as a sympathetic humen being. Meaning, if people have a medical condition that will embarrass them, or make them feel uncomfortable, they should move the seach to a nearby room with no windows.
I just hate that yes, the agent did something "wrong", so lets sue and it will all be good again.
The example you made is understandable. Offcause they should have been sued since the company pretty much broke the law and caused people to die in an allready dangerous working environment. You could argue whether or not Dunaj was in danger when they checked the saline bags, contaminating the fluids. etc.
But I understand that they do need to check stuff like that.
|
|
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On October 11 2012 09:36 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 11 2012 09:06 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit... The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar... Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/ No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history? Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day? I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy? Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are! I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them. You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that? Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations. Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that. Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever. The TSA does a terrible job of keeping weapons off planes. http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/01/tsa_threat_detectionDespite all the fancy scanners and personnel, it's really hard to detect a box cutter in someone's carry-on luggage. If 3 out of 4 hijackers made it through security with their weapons, the results wouldn't have changed.
The purpose of the TSA isn't to keep weapons off planes... The purpose of the TSA is to make us think they're working hard to keep us safe. If a terrorist makes it to an airport with a plan to hijack a plane the only thing that can stop him is things like the reinforced pilot's cabin doors or the passengers themselves taking him down (as has happened). Most terrorists are either stopped before they even reach the airport, or are stopped after they got on the plane.
The TSA is security theater, put on for our entertainment, to make us feel safe. That's all people really want anyways.
|
The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
|
title is very misleading. Don't disagree with me because "Woman with Leukaemia humiliated at TSA" is very different from "Dying woman.." I thought someone was watching her die at the airport and then made fun of her corpse because that's how you humiliate a dying person. By watching them die.
Shame on you
|
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
SOOO happy I don't have to travel within US airports. Saw this report recently on YT about TSA agent Ramirez stealing Ipads and other agents stealing forgotten laptops, cameras and etc. The airport officials fired 38 workers but before this report, they refused to help customers knowing that it was prob their workers that took the damn stuff,
|
On October 11 2012 09:56 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:26 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 09:21 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote:
She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events. Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE. I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit. Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit. But it seems that whether the lawsuit is just or not, sueing is always the first responds. I would rather have that the agent(s) takes a course it how to handle the situation as a sympathetic humen being. Meaning, if people have a medical condition that will embarrass them, or make them feel uncomfortable, they should move the seach to a nearby room with no windows. I just hate that yes, the agent did something "wrong", so lets sue and it will all be good again. The example you made is understandable. Offcause they should have been sued since the company pretty much broke the law and caused people to die in an allready dangerous working environment. You could argue whether or not Dunaj was in danger when they checked the saline bags, contaminating the fluids. etc. But I understand that they do need to check stuff like that.
And who is going to force the agents to handle situations like this as sympathetic human beings?
Some sort of enforcement is required. That's where the judicial system comes in.
|
On October 10 2012 18:23 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote:
This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one. just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
They were merely doing their job.
I would never try to put this against the lady in this situation, but dying or not they have to follow all necessary protocols to assure everyone's safety. I'm sure that if she had truly clearly communicated that she was uncomfortable and wanted to move elsewhere, rather than say something like "Is it alright that we do this here," that they would have promptly granted her request. Like neggro said, there is probably a miscommunication between the lady and the TSA, or the media (as seems likely in this case) is hyping it up/changing the way the events actually occurred to develop a news story....
edit: grammar
|
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
Just because the officials steal and have been bribed (could be for a number of different motives) doesn't mean they aren't protecting people with what they do. I guess you're saying that airlines would be just as secure without them?
Also, I'd like to know what you mean by saying you can pay a fee to skip the procedure. You can travel first class or pay extra to skip the lines for being screened, but I'm not aware of any circumstance in which anybody can skip the security screen. It's not optional now days.
|
The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
|
although i believe the agents could have handled the situation a hell of a lot more eloquently, hello private room? I don't believe anyone should really get a free pass on security searches for flying on air planes.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote:
The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
|
To be fair. to a certain warped view point, the very sick and dying are much more likely to be suicide bombers than others, with less to lose. The lack of privacy could be due to lack of room in the airport, as it might have been an older airport with less room.
I'm not defending what they did/ do or saying the above statements are true or accurate, just playing devils advocate, as someone should in this type of thread.
That being said the lack of privacy is disgusting, not matter the circumstances or reasons.
|
On October 11 2012 11:35 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote:
The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
Thank you for typing that. ^_^
|
Thats so fucked up, amongst just being flat out humiliating, they're not even following procedure.
|
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
These are serious accusations. Any proof on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
