Airplane passenger smuggles monkey under his hat [Archive] - Military Significant Others and Spouse Support

Wicked

08-09-2007, 02:42 PM

Cut it out. Think for just a minute. Where could he have had the monkey on his body when he walked through the metal detector? ANYWHERE.

The monkey ain't made of damn metal, people. He didn't go through special screening, he went through the same screening YOU go through. How many times has someone said "Hey, lift up your shirt so we can see if your pregnant belly is really a baby and it's an orangutan. Never. They don't PAT everyone down. They run a metal and chemical detector over them.

So THINK.

I am thinking... that the security measures there to protect us are probably only there for the whole illusion of protection if a freakin monkey got through undetected. LOL.

I'm gonna step out of this thread now. I know no one is blaming ME, but when you question what the TSA is up to, I'm going to try to answer as best I can. Blame the screeners who make $23k a year. Maybe if they were paid more, they'd care more.

All I'm saying is that the precautions and policies are there for YOUR protection.

Everyone screams about how unsafe they feel and where is the protection, but as soon as they are inconvenienced, they scream about that too.

I don't care about being inconvenienced. I have never bitched about having to wait in line, get searched, be at the airport 2 hours early, or anything like that. I just think that if the screening measures were really there for our protection and not just for the illusion of protection, everyone would be screened the same way my husband and I are every time we go to the airport. I am assuming it is because we use military ID as our identification, but we are not only patted down (and a monkey would be obvious through a pat down no matter what body part is attached itself to) but we are asked to removed all excess clothing including jackets, shoes, socks, hats, etc. We also get our suitcases searched, half our stuff confiscated, and a nice big long lecture about how we should know better if we are military from a 12 year old bag screener. LOL.

How much screeners get paid is a WHOLE other debate. LOL. So is the inconsistencies in the do not carry on list. Lighters are allowed again? Matches were always allowed weren't they? Maybe I am just not understanding something I should be taking into consideration?

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 02:48 PM

I am thinking... that the security measures there to protect us are probably only there for the whole illusion of protection if a freakin monkey got through undetected. LOL.

If it's an illusion, maybe I should just go home and not come back to work then. :lol

You get patted down every time you go through an airport? Is it the same airport each time? As far as I know, patting down everyone who goes through is NOT a required security measure. :confused

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 02:52 PM

btw, my comment about not coming back to work is meant to be taken jokingly, not snarkily (is that a word?)

Wicked

08-09-2007, 02:54 PM

If it's an illusion, maybe I should just go home and not come back to work then. :lol

You get patted down every time you go through an airport? Is it the same airport each time? As far as I know, patting down everyone who goes through is NOT a required security measure. :confused

LOL, no no, don't go home. My husband was Intel remember? I can understand your pain. Hell, he STILL blames himself for the readiness of the Strykers Brigade because he was training them before they deployed and throughout the first year and a half of the war. I don't mean to imply that YOU are doing anything wrong or that everyone is faking it, I just see definite flaws and find it amusing that things like monkeys on planes actually happen!

Yep, every time. And the only airports I have flown out of since getting military ID were SEA/TAC, SLC, and PHX. I'm sure it isn't required. LOL. Like I said, I think it's a military ID thing. The two times Adam has flown without me and used his civilian ID, he didn't get any extra special treatment. LOL. He did see some guys in uniform getting searched though! I figure this is the reasoning... If they let someone with military ID through and they do something bad, the airlines will be blamed for letting them through without checking them because they had military ID. So, they check us extra careful to cover their asses, KWIM? Either that or I am just scary looking? Haha. I never minded going through the extra security.

Ellen

08-09-2007, 02:56 PM

My gosh people - it was an ANIMAL.....I'm sure there are people that have tried and succeeded getting a small dog or kitten thru security.... Blood, tissue, bones....etc. NO Metal... They ARE successful in stopping all the knives, guns, etc. This was an animal.

How would YOU suggest they would have found it???

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 02:57 PM

LOL, no no, don't go home. My husband was Intel remember? I can understand your pain. Hell, he STILL blames himself for the readiness of the Strykers Brigade because he was training them before they deployed and throughout the first year and a half of the war. I don't mean to imply that YOU are doing anything wrong or that everyone is faking it, I just see definite flaws and find it amusing that things like monkeys on planes actually happen!

Yep, every time. And the only airports I have flown out of since getting military ID were SEA/TAC, SLC, and PHX. I'm sure it isn't required. LOL. Like I said, I think it's a military ID thing. The two times Adam has flown without me and used his civilian ID, he didn't get any extra special treatment. LOL. He did see some guys in uniform getting searched though! I figure this is the reasoning... If they let someone with military ID through and they do something bad, the airlines will be blamed for letting them through without checking them because they had military ID. So, they check us extra careful to cover their asses, KWIM? Either that or I am just scary looking? Haha. I never minded going through the extra security.

i used my mil. ID to go through sea tac and didn't get patted down or any other security measures above and beyond.

Green~Mammy

08-09-2007, 02:59 PM

We are in agreement there. Some measures at some airports are extreme. TSA puts out minimum security requirements to follow, and airports are free to expound on those if they so desire. The bolded part is what I agree with most. These screening efforts are all good and fine, but there are things that will never be detected without full on body cavity searches. That's just the way it is.

They are put there because people think they will make them safer, it's peace of mind for most.

I wanted to add this since I thought of it on my way to work. You mentioned diapers and such, and the only diaper that doesn't get screened, is the one on the infant. When the diaper bag goes through the xray, it's screened.

Yeah I know my son wears cloth diapers though if I was a crazy mad woman intent on blowing up a plane a pocket diaper (which is a cloth diaper with an opening for stuffing things in to make it absorbent) would be a good place to put something. I just thought of that last night when you showed me the shoe flask.

You have a thankless job that is for sure. No one thinks about your area unless something goes wrong, and I am sure you get complaints all of the time. Sorry.

Wicked

08-09-2007, 03:08 PM

i used my mil. ID to go through sea tac and didn't get patted down or any other security measures above and beyond.

Lucky you, cuz I have NEVER gone through SEA/TAC with my military ID and not been patted down and searched.

My gosh people - it was an ANIMAL.....I'm sure there are people that have tried and succeeded getting a small dog or kitten thru security.... Blood, tissue, bones....etc. NO Metal... They ARE successful in stopping all the knives, guns, etc. This was an animal.

How would YOU suggest they would have found it???

I don't see anyone getting mad about it, just wondering how it happened. LOL. Although, I would suggest paying closer attention to each person as they walk through. Not all bomb materials are metal and not all explosives show up in those chemical scanners. If a monkey is as detectable as a bomb could be if made right, then why is it so hard to believe that a monkey secretly boarding a plane would bother some people? Especially when a monkey is a living breathing, moving, sound making thing, and a bomb isn't? It isn't about knives and guns and metal. It's about the things that AREN'T knives and guns and metal that can STILL hurt people, and based on the monkey incident, can get through.

And BTW, I am not saying that I expect security to be perfect. If you have read any of my other posts in debate, I actually think that the level of security in this country when it comes to a LOT of things is unnecessary because it doesn't actually work. All I'm saying is that a monkey got through, so a bomb could, too. That's it. When I fly, I am aware that the plane could be hijacked by a crazy and I could die. I have been aware of that since before 9/11, in fact. And I take that into account when I choose to fly anyway.

On the subject of chemical scanners... if you really want to scare a soldier shitless, put a bar of Dove soap next to the chemical alarm.

monkeygirl

08-09-2007, 03:10 PM

They make you take off your shoes because people hide explosives in their shoes. the shoes have to be scanned because explosives are not metal, thus the metal detector would not identify them. Also, some shoes have metal on them and would set off the metal detector so that's why they make you put them in the tray to be scanned.

Bobby pins are metal. If you beep, they need to rule out the bobby pins and make sure you dont keep beeping because the bobby pins were a decoy to hide your gun.

He got through because the monkey is made of muscle, bone, and biological fluids. There are no explosives or metal in a monkey.

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:clap

Wicked

08-09-2007, 03:11 PM

btw, my comment about not coming back to work is meant to be taken jokingly, not snarkily (is that a word?)

LOL, yeah I figured. :giggle
Snarky wasn't always a word, although I'm sure it has been used enough now that it is one. So, if snarky can be made a word, so can snarkily right? LOL.

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 03:13 PM

Thankless definitely.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we don't make you take off your shoes, the screening sucks. If we DO make you take off your shoes, the screening is overly ridiculous.

Every day, another challenge. We rarely get commended. But I know what I do is keeping you as safe as we can keep you, so I sleep well at night knowing I am making a difference.

And now, I must write another report :D

monkeygirl

08-09-2007, 03:17 PM

LOL, yeah I figured. :giggle
Snarky wasn't always a word, although I'm sure it has been used enough now that it is one. So, if snarky can be made a word, so can snarkily right? LOL.

I'm going with "yes" on that one!!!! Seriously, Tawny is right. If people saw what does get caught everyday they would start shaking the hands of those people in white uniforms who take crap from the public day in and day out. .....and a lot of those people are reserve soldiers between deplyments. Just my two cents. :wink

Rach

08-09-2007, 03:33 PM

Hey, if they wanted me to strip down to my bra & undies to proove I had nothing on me to ensure safety, that's fine with me! :lol I'm one of those that doesn't care about how much of a hassle it is as long as everyone else is getting the same treatment to ensure that we're safe!

Rach

08-09-2007, 03:36 PM

I just remembered that I had to take off my flip flops too when I last flew in June...Never even thought about it. I WANT to see all the extra safety precautions. They also threw away my water bottle that was in my bag, that I had just bought...oops!

monkeygirl

08-09-2007, 03:37 PM

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 03:38 PM

MIKOSWIFEY

08-09-2007, 03:47 PM

I agree with having the obvious safety measures, but I don't think it's worth strip and cavity searching everyone. People (like my husband, a martial artist) can use their hands to overpower and take over a plane too, so should we have them strap us all in little cages to keep us from causing trouble too?

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 04:07 PM

Well, my main issue is that the vast majority of items that are taken away from people are not generally regarded as weapons.

Let's take a bottle of water as an example... Yes, you can kill someone by drowning them in as little as a teaspoon of water... but how ridiculous is that? Forcing people to throw away bottles of water only wastes their money when there are items going on the plane which are far more lethal.

Perhaps the alcohol in my hair jell could have helped to start a fire on the plane, but only if I also brought a book of matches on board as well. If I had the matches, then what would I need with the hair jell? I could just burn the newspaper that I bought as well and gotten a hotter fire much faster.

Besides, if I can't have my hair jell, then why do they sell alcohol on planes? Seriously, I would get a very poor fire out of my hair jell, but a mini-bottle of whiskey is perfect for making a hot, destructive fire.

I say, ignore the stupid shit like the bottles of water, and just concentrate on providing real protection. Knives still make their ways onto planes, numerous research groups and college kid experiments have demonstrated this.

For those who still think that we should take away everything that might be used in a weapon, take your shirt off... Then, roll it up so that it makes a rope... Now, tell me if you can use your shirt to strangle someone. Yes, your shirt is a potentially lethal weapon. Should we require that everybody who boards a plane be naked?

What about your hands? You can kill someone with your bare hands, by hitting them continuously, or by wrestling someone against a sharp object like the edges of a drink cart. Heck, you can even choke them to death. Should we require that everybody throw away (amputate) their hands before boarding a plane?

Yes, these are extreme examples... but your clothes and hands are far more lethal than a bottle of water or hair jell.

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 04:11 PM

Well, my main issue is that the vast majority of items that are taken away from people are not generally regarded as weapons.

Let's take a bottle of water as an example... Yes, you can kill someone by drowning them in as little as a teaspoon of water... but how ridiculous is that? Forcing people to throw away bottles of water only wastes their money when there are items going on the plane which are far more lethal.

Perhaps the alcohol in my hair jell could have helped to start a fire on the plane, but only if I also brought a book of matches on board as well. If I had the matches, then what would I need with the hair jell? I could just burn the newspaper that I bought as well and gotten a hotter fire much faster.

Besides, if I can't have my hair jell, then why do they sell alcohol on planes? Seriously, I would get a very poor fire out of my hair jell, but a mini-bottle of whiskey is perfect for making a hot, destructive fire.

I say, ignore the stupid shit like the bottles of water, and just concentrate on providing real protection. Knives still make their ways onto planes, numerous research groups and college kid experiments have demonstrated this.

For those who still think that we should take away everything that might be used in a weapon, take your shirt off... Then, roll it up so that it makes a rope... Now, tell me if you can use your shirt to strangle someone. Yes, your shirt is a potentially lethal weapon. Should we require that everybody who boards a plane be naked?

What about your hands? You can kill someone with your bare hands, by hitting them continuously, or by wrestling someone against a sharp object like the edges of a drink cart. Heck, you can even choke them to death. Should we require that everybody amputate their hands before boarding a plane?

Yes, these are extreme examples... but your clothes and hands are far more lethal than a bottle of water or hair jell.

the reasons liquids were taken away were because of one of the recent attempts that used various liquids to make a liquid bomb.

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 04:54 PM

the reasons liquids were taken away were because of one of the recent attempts that used various liquids to make a liquid bomb.

So, if a liquid can't be used to make a bomb, we still have to throw it away?

I would need my hands to be able to make a bomb... and clothes are still far more practical weapons. So, by your logic, we should be required to strip naked and be placed in high security restraints... After all, if water isn't allowed on a plane, why are people allowed on planes?

monkeygirl

08-09-2007, 05:00 PM

I would need my hands to be able to make a bomb... and clothes are still far more practical weapons. So, by your logic, we should be required to strip naked and be placed in high security restraints... After all, if water isn't allowed on a plane, why are people allowed on planes?[/QUOTE]

:lmao Well that is one he!! of a visual!!!!!. Here is the deal with what appears to be a bottle of juice, water, gel - etc.........it may not be what it appears to be KWIM? Who knows where to draw the line? Until technology catches up with the threat we have to do what we can do. Sometimes it makes sense - somtimes ..well :banghead

Wicked

08-09-2007, 05:25 PM

I would need my hands to be able to make a bomb... and clothes are still far more practical weapons. So, by your logic, we should be required to strip naked and be placed in high security restraints... After all, if water isn't allowed on a plane, why are people allowed on planes?

:lmao Well that is one he!! of a visual!!!!!. Here is the deal with what appears to be a bottle of juice, water, gel - etc.........it may not be what it appears to be KWIM? Who knows where to draw the line? Until technology catches up with the threat we have to do what we can do. Sometimes it makes sense - somtimes ..well :banghead[/QUOTE]

Make the people drink out of their juice bottles and put the gel in their hair before they get on the plane? LOL.

monkeygirl

08-09-2007, 05:33 PM

PERFECT

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 05:57 PM

So, if a liquid can't be used to make a bomb, we still have to throw it away?

I would need my hands to be able to make a bomb... and clothes are still far more practical weapons. So, by your logic, we should be required to strip naked and be placed in high security restraints... After all, if water isn't allowed on a plane, why are people allowed on planes?

i'm telling you why the liquids are taken away from you and for a short time weren't even allowed on planes.

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 06:00 PM

Who said a liquid can't be made into a bomb? Liquid explosives?? Yeah. They can.

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 07:54 PM

Who said a liquid can't be made into a bomb? Liquid explosives?? Yeah. They can.

"Liquids" can... but not water... and not hair gel.

Seriously, require that a person demonstrates the use of the liquid if it is that much of a big deal... If that person is unwilling to demonstrate the safety of their belongings, such as by drinking it or using it in their hair, then it is appropriate to take it away. Otherwise, you are simply stealing, and wasn't the government stealing from the people in America what started our whole revolution in the first place?

Besides, the vast majority of explosive liquids are highly unstable. The few stable liquid explosives give off distinct chemical traces that would set off chemical detectors for miles around. If you can't get to the plane without blowing yourself up or getting caught, then what is the point of trying to get it on board?

If all liquids in sizable quantities are banned because they are potentially explosive, then what about solids and gasses? Certain solids and gasses are explosive, so why not ban all materials, liquid, gaseous, or solid?

Oh, and to split hairs, humans are huge containers of hazardous liquid, some of which are extremely destructive in nature, such as hydrochloric acid. Why are only some liquids banned, when known biohazards and chemical agents are allowed on the planes?

What really pisses me off, though, is the illusion of security.

The illusion of security is generally far more dangerous than the knowledge of a threat.

To illustrate my point, ask an infantryman if it is safe to walk in close groups when there is a potential threat of an explosive device in the area. Of course he'll say that, no it is not safe, and that, at most, you should only be in groups of two, preferably staying about five meters away from anybody else who might be drawing fire.

Here's a good example of an illusory security that caused more damage than if the truth were known: The Green Zone in Iraq. Over the past few months, attacks originating within the Green Zone have been highly successful. Their unusually high rate of success (and our deaths) were due to people letting their guards down... gathering in large groups in a known battle zone... not watching their environment for suspicious activity... and forgetting that they are a foreign ocupational military in a hostile country. The same attacks could have been tried any many, many other places throughout Iraq, but because people don't feel as safe outside of the Green Zone, they take the precautions necessary to keep deaths down to one or two, rather than dozens.

This was a lesson that we supposedly learned in Vietnam, when young girls would walk up to soldiers carrying a hand grenade... yet here we are, giving ourselves the false impression of security, and another innocent looking combatant will take the opportunity to take us out in large numbers.

I will admit that the illusion of security is necessary for business to survive... but since when did a corporation have a soul? Since when did a corporation have a body that could be shot, stabbed, or blown up? Human life is more important than corporate life... The illusion of security can only protect an illusory being such as a corporation.

As we make our security measures more and more complex, those who wish to kill us become more and more clever in their ability to hide weapons. Using an X-Ray, can you tell the difference between a metal insulating plate in a laptop or a small sheet of aluminum with one edge sharpened? What is to stop a terrorist from hiding an improvized weapon right under the keyboard of their laptop? The terrorists who took over the planes on Sept 11, 2001 used box cutters... very small, flimsy razors... so how much more dangerous would a ten inch long, one inch wide sheet of sharpened aluminum be?

I brought up tying people down and stripping them of their clothes for the entire flight because that is the only way to ensure that a flight is completely secure. Anything short of that is only the illusion of security, and is just as dangerous as no security at all. At least if we knew that there was no security, we could be ready to protect ourselves, or would even forego the risk entirely and take a train instead. At least a train can't be flown into a building.

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 07:58 PM

"Liquids" can... but not water... and not hair gel.

Seriously, require that a person demonstrates the use of the liquid if it is that much of a big deal... If that person is unwilling to demonstrate the safety of their belongings, such as by drinking it or using it in their hair, then it is appropriate to take it away. Otherwise, you are simply stealing, and wasn't the government stealing from the people in America what started our whole revolution in the first place?

Besides, the vast majority of explosive liquids are highly unstable. The few stable liquid explosives give off distinct chemical traces that would set off chemical detectors for miles around. If you can't get to the plane without blowing yourself up or getting caught, then what is the point of trying to get it on board?

If all liquids in sizable quantities are banned because they are potentially explosive, then what about solids and gasses? Certain solids and gasses are explosive, so why not ban all materials, liquid, gaseous, or solid?

Oh, and to split hairs, humans are huge containers of hazardous liquid, some of which are extremely destructive in nature, such as hydrochloric acid. Why are only some liquids banned, when known biohazards and chemical agents are allowed on the planes?

What really pisses me off, though, is the illusion of security.

The illusion of security is generally far more dangerous than the knowledge of a threat.

To illustrate my point, ask an infantryman if it is safe to walk in close groups when there is a potential threat of an explosive device in the area. Of course he'll say that, no it is not safe, and that, at most, you should only be in groups of two, preferably staying about five meters away from anybody else who might be drawing fire.

Here's a good example of an illusory security that caused more damage than if the truth were known: The Green Zone in Iraq. Over the past few months, attacks originating within the Green Zone have been highly successful. Their unusually high rate of success (and our deaths) were due to people letting their guards down... gathering in large groups in a known battle zone... not watching their environment for suspicious activity... and forgetting that they are a foreign ocupational military in a hostile country. The same attacks could have been tried any many, many other places throughout Iraq, but because people don't feel as safe outside of the Green Zone, they take the precautions necessary to keep deaths down to one or two, rather than dozens.

This was a lesson that we supposedly learned in Vietnam, when young girls would walk up to soldiers carrying a hand grenade... yet here we are, giving ourselves the false impression of security, and another innocent looking combatant will take the opportunity to take us out in large numbers.

I will admit that the illusion of security is necessary for business to survive... but since when did a corporation have a soul? Since when did a corporation have a body that could be shot, stabbed, or blown up? Human life is more important than corporate life... The illusion of security can only protect an illusory being such as a corporation.

As we make our security measures more and more complex, those who wish to kill us become more and more clever in their ability to hide weapons. Using an X-Ray, can you tell the difference between a metal insulating plate in a laptop or a small sheet of aluminum with one edge sharpened? What is to stop a terrorist from hiding an improvized weapon right under the keyboard of their laptop? The terrorists who took over the planes on Sept 11, 2001 used box cutters... very small, flimsy razors... so how much more dangerous would a ten inch long, one inch wide sheet of sharpened aluminum be?

I brought up tying people down and stripping them of their clothes for the entire flight because that is the only way to ensure that a flight is completely secure. Anything short of that is only the illusion of security, and is just as dangerous as no security at all. At least if we knew that there was no security, we could be ready to protect ourselves, or would even forego the risk entirely and take a train instead. At least a train can't be flown into a building.

Thanks for that big long post.

But I work for the government :hi

maddie967

08-09-2007, 07:58 PM

maddie967

08-09-2007, 08:09 PM

Ok I see the flip flop thing I still say that I would be unable to sneak anything in my one year olds shoes. These are what he wears:
http://robeez.richfx.com.edgesuite.net/Image/media/BDI1BABY_rs.jpg
They are just leather very thin soled. There is no way you can store anything except his foot in there. I mean why not check their diapers you CAN store things in there , ESP my pocket diapers which you stuff to make them absorbent.

I think a shoe flask is BEYOND disgusting too who wants to drink out of something you wear gross.

They make EVERYONE take off their shoes because it is much quicker and easier than inspecting everyone's shoes individually and deciding whether or not there is enough extra space in them to hide a bomb. Think of how much longer you would have to be standing in line if they had security people bending down to look at EACH and EVERY person's shoes.

maddie967

08-09-2007, 08:36 PM

So, if a liquid can't be used to make a bomb, we still have to throw it away?

I would need my hands to be able to make a bomb... and clothes are still far more practical weapons. So, by your logic, we should be required to strip naked and be placed in high security restraints... After all, if water isn't allowed on a plane, why are people allowed on planes?

Because they don't know that it is water and not some clear chemical and they are now about to test everyone's water to find out.

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 08:38 PM

But I work for the government :hi

Alright, I just have to say "huh???"

Are you saying that, because of your position of power within your ivory tower, you know everything and I know nothing? :D

Or are you saying that you agree with me, but because of your position, you don't think that you can do anything?

To either of those, I just have to say: Thanks, but I have a TS security clearance. (Lots of info, no ability to use any of it :P )

Or are you saying something else entirely? Please explain, because that comment can be taken so many different ways, and not all of them are good. :D

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 08:39 PM

Alright, I just have to say "huh???"

Are you saying that, because of your position of power within your ivory tower, you know everything and I know nothing? :D

Or are you saying that you agree with me, but because of your position, you don't think that you can do anything?

To either of those, I just have to say: Thanks, but I have a TS security clearance. (Lots of info, no ability to use any of it :P )

Or are you saying something else entirely? Please explain, because that comment can be taken so many different ways, and not all of them are good. :D

My ivory tower huh? K.

I was saying that you aren't educating me at all. I work for Homeland Security. So yes, I DO know a LITTLE bit about what I say in this type of topic.

HOWEVER, I have been advised to NOT debate this topic any longer, and I prefer to NOT get fired.

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 08:42 PM

Because they don't know that it is water and not some clear chemical and they are now about to test everyone's water to find out.

Why not? They're taking the time to pull the people asside, triple check their bags, and publicly humiliate the person if they do find a bottle of any sort of liquid, so why not make them open it up and take a drink? It won't add any more time or humiliation to an already irritating situation, and at least afterwards, they can still have their bottle of water or expensive ass hair gel.

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 08:42 PM

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 08:42 PM

Because they don't know that it is water and not some clear chemical and they are now about to test everyone's water to find out.

exactly. you can ignite liquor on fire so bringing in a high proof liquor and matches (which are allowed on planes) can create a fire not to mention other various chemicals that can be explosive when mixed right

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 08:43 PM

exactly. you can ignite liquor on fire so bringing in a high proof liquor and matches (which are allowed on planes) can create a fire not to mention other various chemicals that can be explosive when mixed right

..

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 08:44 PM

Why not? They're taking the time to pull the people asside, triple check their bags, and publicly humiliate the person if they do find a bottle of any sort of liquid, so why not make them open it up and take a drink? It won't add any more time or humiliation to an already irritating situation, and at least afterwards, they can still have their bottle of water or expensive ass hair gel.

simply put the ruels are there, they've been publicized don't bring the expensive hair gel in your carry on, don't bring that water bottle in your carry on. and i've had them search my bags because my KEYS were laying funny when it went through x-ray and guess what they looked saw i had nothing and i went on my merry way. if you don't like it perhaps you should fin another mode of transportation

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 08:44 PM

..

certain chemicals when they are alone are stable, mixing them together in the right quantities can cause them to have liquid bomb properties

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 08:46 PM

certain chemicals when they are alone are stable, mixing them together in the right quantities can cause them to have liquid bomb properties

I know. I bolded the important part I agreed with :D

I not allowed to debate this anymore, I just gonna highlight what I agree with :D

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 08:46 PM

I know. I bolded the important part I agreed with :D

I not allowed to debate this anymore, I just gonna highlight what I agree with :D

ahh wasn't sure if you were unclear with what i meant :)

maddie967

08-09-2007, 08:48 PM

Why not? They're taking the time to pull the people asside, triple check their bags, and publicly humiliate the person if they do find a bottle of any sort of liquid, so why not make them open it up and take a drink? It won't add any more time or humiliation to an already irritating situation, and at least afterwards, they can still have their bottle of water or expensive ass hair gel.

First, they don't triple check EVERY bag. They do this randomly or if they feel that this specific bag could be dangerous.
Second, why would anyone be humiliated because they had to throw away a bottle of water?
Third, if people took the time to check out what the security requirements are BEFORE going through security, they could easily pack their hair gel in their check-in luggage, or wait to buy water until they are past security.

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 08:50 PM

First, they don't triple check EVERY bag. They do this randomly or if they feel that this specific bag could be dangerous.
Second, why would anyone be humiliated because they had to throw away a bottle of water?
Third, if people took the time to check out what the security requirements are BEFORE going through security, they could easily pack their hair gel in their check-in luggage, or wait to buy water until they are past security.

:yes

maddie967

08-09-2007, 08:54 PM

I agree that people can still get things by security if they want to badly enough. But I am going to bet there are a lot of people out there who WOULD do it, but decide not to because it would be too much of a pain in the a$$ or they are just not smart enough to think of a way to get by security.

MIKOSWIFEY

08-09-2007, 09:18 PM

Why not? They're taking the time to pull the people asside, triple check their bags, and publicly humiliate the person if they do find a bottle of any sort of liquid, so why not make them open it up and take a drink? It won't add any more time or humiliation to an already irritating situation, and at least afterwards, they can still have their bottle of water or expensive ass hair gel.

Because you're not supposed to HAVE any liquids in excess that aren't packaged to their standards ON you. So if you have it and it's not something that follows their rules (which by the way are set that way for a reason. Smaller amounts of liquids are easier to scan and figure out than a larger container) then it looks like you were trying to circumvent their security measures. What kind of person would be trying to sneak something liquid/gel past security? Hmm.... :thinking

SailorWife2B0620

08-09-2007, 09:40 PM

Why not? They're taking the time to pull the people asside, triple check their bags, and publicly humiliate the person if they do find a bottle of any sort of liquid, so why not make them open it up and take a drink? It won't add any more time or humiliation to an already irritating situation, and at least afterwards, they can still have their bottle of water or expensive ass hair gel.

It will add more time if you have to take a drink out of everything. Thats just stupid to me. Its very clear there are strict restrictions to bringing liquids on a flight. Maybe you should know them before going to the airport and having to throw away your things. Or simply just check it.

Ghedi

08-09-2007, 09:46 PM

Publicly humiliate? :no

Yes, publicly humiliate. It happened to me. I was humiliated in a public place, ergo: public humiliation. I didn't mean throwing away someone's water is a form of public humiliation. I meant publicly humiliate by searching people with water, pulling their personal belongings out of their luggage for everyone else in the airport to see. Have you ever had your underwear held up in front of a large group of people waiting at a security check point? Not fun.

exactly. you can ignite liquor on fire so bringing in a high proof liquor and matches (which are allowed on planes) can create a fire not to mention other various chemicals that can be explosive when mixed right

Didn't I already say this? And, didn't I already mention that high proof alcohol can be bought on some flights?

This further proves my point... there is only an illusion of security, not actual security.

simply put the ruels are there, they've been publicized don't bring the expensive hair gel in your carry on, don't bring that water bottle in your carry on. and i've had them search my bags because my KEYS were laying funny when it went through x-ray and guess what they looked saw i had nothing and i went on my merry way. if you don't like it perhaps you should fin another mode of transportation

Where are these rules publicized? The only place where I've ever seen them was on signs that can only be read after you are already in line for the security check.

First, they don't triple check EVERY bag. They do this randomly or if they feel that this specific bag could be dangerous.
Second, why would anyone be humiliated because they had to throw away a bottle of water?
Third, if people took the time to check out what the security requirements are BEFORE going through security, they could easily pack their hair gel in their check-in luggage, or wait to buy water until they are past security.

I know that they don't triple check every bag... but those bags that do have liquids in them are triple checked... so it is easy enough for them to demonstrate that the liquids are safe when they are pulled aside. Refer to my above response to goldilockz for the humiliation explanation.

And, what if you don't have checked luggage, such as if you are only taking an overnight hop a couple of states away for a business trip? Should I buy a bag, place one item in it, then spend time (and company money) waiting for that one bag to come off of the plane?

Perhaps if the rules didn't change weekly... Perhaps if people made an effort to notice what is going on around them, rather than simply look at an x-ray screen and only pay attention long enough to humiliate someone who didn't hear the latest rule changes... Perhaps if we admitted that the only way to get security would be to give up all freedom (for instance, go to Communist China)... Maybe then, I wouldn't be upset to find out that someone smuggled a wild animal on a plane when I had to throw away a safe, non-flamable, non-dangerous-at-all bottle of hair gel.

I spent five years of my life living under an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I see America turning into as much of a security state as Nazi Germany, and I will continue to debate with and inform as many people as I can until I see this trend reversed, because while I'm not currently being held to that oath, I still hold it sacred, and I will continue to live by my oath of enlistment daily.

I consider the Patriot Act, and by extension the Dept. of Homeland Security to be a direct, violent threat to the Constitution, and to the freedoms for which soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have fought and died for. I won't take arms against them, because my "weapons" are words, which are far more powerful than rifles... but I will continue to resist injustice and promote freedom and actual security, even if it means making people uncomfortable with my words. I will especially use my constitutionally guaranteed right, privilege, and duty to question my government, no matter how much I might agree or disagree with it, because that is what our nation is founded upon.

I am not disagreeing that airport security can not catch everything. What I'm doing, though, is wondering why more people aren't outraged that they're being put through such injustice for such little real security.

While yes, it is possible to combine certain inert liquids to make an explosive... how effective would that explosive be? Even if a person used every inch of their carry-on space to bring on some inert liquids to make a bomb, the worst "explosive" that can be created without a chemical laboratory (where they have special freezers and heaters, special mixers and distillers, and equipment to put the chemicals under pressure or to remove atmospheric pressure) is the equivalent to a quart of gasoline, which will burn, but it won't explode. It would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and much much less suspicious to burn a newspaper... not to mention, you don't run the risk of getting a chemical burn before you even get on the plane, if you accidently spilled your chemicals.

We all want the same things... to be safe on planes. I just think that my opinion of safety includes the ability to defend yourself.

And Goldi... I don't know how your boss does things... but if I was ever told to get out of a debate for "national security" reasons, and that debate ever appeared on one of my computers after that, then I would have been thrown in jail. I'm just wondering, how much are you actually risking by remaining in this debate (by agreeing with certain points), after you have been explicetly "advised" to leave it?

harrisonsdream

08-09-2007, 09:47 PM

how about it's publicized on the airline's website (i know for american or continental they do), also they are posted BEFORE you go through security

goldilockz

08-09-2007, 10:04 PM

Read the security guidelines and they won't have reason to "publicly humiliate" you.

fridayheather

08-09-2007, 10:07 PM

maddie967

08-09-2007, 10:33 PM

Yes, publicly humiliate. It happened to me. I was humiliated in a public place, ergo: public humiliation. I didn't mean throwing away someone's water is a form of public humiliation. I meant publicly humiliate by searching people with water, pulling their personal belongings out of their luggage for everyone else in the airport to see. Have you ever had your underwear held up in front of a large group of people waiting at a security check point? Not fun.

Didn't I already say this? And, didn't I already mention that high proof alcohol can be bought on some flights?

This further proves my point... there is only an illusion of security, not actual security.

Where are these rules publicized? The only place where I've ever seen them was on signs that can only be read after you are already in line for the security check.

I know that they don't triple check every bag... but those bags that do have liquids in them are triple checked... so it is easy enough for them to demonstrate that the liquids are safe when they are pulled aside. Refer to my above response to goldilockz for the humiliation explanation.

And, what if you don't have checked luggage, such as if you are only taking an overnight hop a couple of states away for a business trip? Should I buy a bag, place one item in it, then spend time (and company money) waiting for that one bag to come off of the plane?

Perhaps if the rules didn't change weekly... Perhaps if people made an effort to notice what is going on around them, rather than simply look at an x-ray screen and only pay attention long enough to humiliate someone who didn't hear the latest rule changes... Perhaps if we admitted that the only way to get security would be to give up all freedom (for instance, go to Communist China)... Maybe then, I wouldn't be upset to find out that someone smuggled a wild animal on a plane when I had to throw away a safe, non-flamable, non-dangerous-at-all bottle of hair gel.

I spent five years of my life living under an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I see America turning into as much of a security state as Nazi Germany, and I will continue to debate with and inform as many people as I can until I see this trend reversed, because while I'm not currently being held to that oath, I still hold it sacred, and I will continue to live by my oath of enlistment daily.

I consider the Patriot Act, and by extension the Dept. of Homeland Security to be a direct, violent threat to the Constitution, and to the freedoms for which soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have fought and died for. I won't take arms against them, because my "weapons" are words, which are far more powerful than rifles... but I will continue to resist injustice and promote freedom and actual security, even if it means making people uncomfortable with my words. I will especially use my constitutionally guaranteed right, privilege, and duty to question my government, no matter how much I might agree or disagree with it, because that is what our nation is founded upon.

I am not disagreeing that airport security can not catch everything. What I'm doing, though, is wondering why more people aren't outraged that they're being put through such injustice for such little real security.

While yes, it is possible to combine certain inert liquids to make an explosive... how effective would that explosive be? Even if a person used every inch of their carry-on space to bring on some inert liquids to make a bomb, the worst "explosive" that can be created without a chemical laboratory (where they have special freezers and heaters, special mixers and distillers, and equipment to put the chemicals under pressure or to remove atmospheric pressure) is the equivalent to a quart of gasoline, which will burn, but it won't explode. It would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and much much less suspicious to burn a newspaper... not to mention, you don't run the risk of getting a chemical burn before you even get on the plane, if you accidently spilled your chemicals.

We all want the same things... to be safe on planes. I just think that my opinion of safety includes the ability to defend yourself.

And Goldi... I don't know how your boss does things... but if I was ever told to get out of a debate for "national security" reasons, and that debate ever appeared on one of my computers after that, then I would have been thrown in jail. I'm just wondering, how much are you actually risking by remaining in this debate (by agreeing with certain points), after you have been explicetly "advised" to leave it?

If they make an exception for people who inadvertently left these items in their bag, then people would find out and everybody would do it, bringing me back to my point of saving time.

Also, if somebody actually HELD UP your underwear, I agree that would be embarrassing and completely unneccessary. If they have to look through a bag with undergarments in it, they could easily set them on the table instead of holding them up. They SHOULD have a more discreet area to do these kinds of searches.

Ghedi

08-10-2007, 12:39 AM

how about it's publicized on the airline's website (i know for american or continental they do), also they are posted BEFORE you go through security

Read the security guidelines and they won't have reason to "publicly humiliate" you.

Well, how many of us, who have already checked the site when we got the tickets, will double check it on that morning? Especially when we have to drive three hours to get to the airport, and the plane leaves at 8am? When I said that the regulations change weekly, that's what I meant... It changed from when I checked the site to when I boarded the plane.

If they make an exception for people who inadvertently left these items in their bag, then people would find out and everybody would do it, bringing me back to my point of saving time.

Also, if somebody actually HELD UP your underwear, I agree that would be embarrassing and completely unneccessary. If they have to look through a bag with undergarments in it, they could easily set them on the table instead of holding them up. They SHOULD have a more discreet area to do these kinds of searches.

Now you see why it was such a big deal for me... We would all be embarrassed about our luggage being emptied out for the world to see, even if we had nothing to hide.

And, the search area was extremely anti-discreet. The guy had a table that had a cloth divider running down the middle. He stood on one side, and I stood on the other, and as he emptied my bag, he held each item up one at a time and placed it over the divider, so nothing went unseen. Just imagine if I were a woman and had certain sanitary items... Yikes!

What really gets me is just how much time and manpower is being put towards harassing us about hair gel and bottled water, yet someone can get a live animal onto a plane. Until I was already in line, I didn't know that the regulations had changed, when it was already too late to have my bag checked.

goldilockz

08-10-2007, 12:43 AM

If he yanks out my box of tampons in a search, I don't give a crap. :dunno

Ghedi

08-10-2007, 12:47 AM

If he yanks out my box of tampons in a search, I don't give a crap. :dunno

LOL, yeah, well, I didn't want to put it quite so bluntly. :D

Although, I must say that you're the only woman I've met who would say that... :puzz Every woman I've talked to about tampons had made it quite clear that they would be thoroughly pissed off if some anonymous hired-security guy took their tampons out of their purse. That, out of any item, is one that they'd request be searched through while it is still in their bag.

MIKOSWIFEY

08-10-2007, 07:33 AM

LOL, yeah, well, I didn't want to put it quite so bluntly. :D

Although, I must say that you're the only woman I've met who would say that... :puzz Every woman I've talked to about tampons had made it quite clear that they would be thoroughly pissed off if some anonymous hired-security guy took their tampons out of their purse. That, out of any item, is one that they'd request be searched through while it is still in their bag.

Some women are overly sensitive. Who would get upset about someone seeing their BOX of tampons anyway? :lol it's not like they're USED (I hope).

Anyway, if you have something you're embarrassed to have seen in your bags, that's on YOU. Every person who gets in that line KNOWS that they might have their luggage searched. It's a risk you take. They want to hold up MY underwear, go for it. They're clean anyway.

The way people complain about all this stuff makes me wonder why the hell they're even flying. Rent a car. Take a train, it's the same price almost. I know because I have looked.

Berkley

08-10-2007, 08:59 AM

Well, how many of us, who have already checked the site when we got the tickets, will double check it on that morning? Especially when we have to drive three hours to get to the airport, and the plane leaves at 8am? When I said that the regulations change weekly, that's what I meant... It changed from when I checked the site to when I boarded the plane.

Now you see why it was such a big deal for me... We would all be embarrassed about our luggage being emptied out for the world to see, even if we had nothing to hide.

And, the search area was extremely anti-discreet. The guy had a table that had a cloth divider running down the middle. He stood on one side, and I stood on the other, and as he emptied my bag, he held each item up one at a time and placed it over the divider, so nothing went unseen. Just imagine if I were a woman and had certain sanitary items... Yikes!

What really gets me is just how much time and manpower is being put towards harassing us about hair gel and bottled water, yet someone can get a live animal onto a plane. Until I was already in line, I didn't know that the regulations had changed, when it was already too late to have my bag checked.

IMO you are one of those people who defines the phrase, damned if you do damned you don't. Security could be really tight and it would never be enough in you're eyes to keep us safe. But in the same sentence you claim it's to much b/c they take away you're water bottle and hold up you're undies.
it bothers me btw b/c it seems as you only have 11 posts and were all of them made on this thread?!? Personally when I join a board first place I go is NOT debates.
Also I could care less if they held up my tampons. I could care less if they strip searched me. If it's to make people safe then I'm ok with that.

MIKOSWIFEY

08-10-2007, 09:05 AM

IMO you are one of those people who defines the phrase damned if you do damned you don't. Security could be really tight and it would never be enough in you're eyes to keep us safe. But in the same sentence while you claim you it's to much b/c they take you're water bottle and help up you're undies.
it bothers me btw b/c it seems as you only have 11 posts and were all of them made on this thread?!? Personally when I join a board first place I go is NOT debates. Also I could care less if they held up my tampons. I could care less if they strip searched me. If it's to make people safe then I'm ok with that.

What about Hatetank? Just sayin. Plus his wife is in the military according to his Newbies post. Men don't usually go and post all over the board anyway, they'd usually much rather keep it in the logical/nonemotional forums like the News/Debates.

Just thought I'd say that since I was thinking the same thing you were until I thought a little harder about it.

Berkley

08-10-2007, 09:11 AM

What about Hatetank? Just sayin. Plus his wife is in the military according to his Newbies post. Men don't usually go and post all over the board anyway, they'd usually much rather keep it in the logical/nonemotional forums like the News/Debates.

Just thought I'd say that since I was thinking the same thing you were until I thought a little harder about it.

eh you're right. I didn't really think on it much. I just thought wow! This newbie surely is getting into it...ROFL.
I still however feel as though it's one of those damned if you do damned if don't situations. (the debate I mean)

MIKOSWIFEY

08-10-2007, 09:13 AM

It really is. It sucks for the people who work in that field. They don't check WELL enough and some dumbass sneaks contraband through, it's all over the news. They check too much and inconvenience people then everyone complains and it's on the news "are regulations too strict?"

Berkley

08-10-2007, 09:14 AM

monkeygirl

08-10-2007, 10:50 AM

I've got a lot of metal in my body (facial reconstructive surgery) and I know it's not :quote supposed :quote to set off detectors but somehow I always get pulled aside for it. I don't mind though because it is for safety measures. I would rather get tagged for something everytime by someone DOING their job than not.

God bless you for that attitude. :clap

Ghedi, I don't know you but having read your posts I suggest a couple of things:

1) Start taking the Greyhound bus because air travel is obviously too stressful and complicated for you and

2) Try living in a dictatorship where they “disappear” you and your family members for making statements far far less controversial than those items in your postings that you are able to make in this country without fear of reprisal of any sort. Perhaps that will give you a greater appreciation for our country and our constant attempts to balance constitutional rights against the need to protect ourselves from an ever-increasing threat. We don’t always get it right - does anybody? But at least we are trying.

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 10:52 AM

What about Hatetank? Just sayin. Plus his wife is in the military according to his Newbies post. Men don't usually go and post all over the board anyway, they'd usually much rather keep it in the logical/nonemotional forums like the News/Debates.

Just thought I'd say that since I was thinking the same thing you were until I thought a little harder about it.

i was wondering the same thing as berkley because i never saw an introduction at all but it's quite possible i missed it.

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:00 AM

i was wondering the same thing as berkley because i never saw an introduction at all but it's quite possible i missed it.

Yea I never saw an intro either that's why I had no clue it was a dude. Either way I was like :puzz why is a newbie going all out in debates??

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:01 AM

God bless you for that attitude. :clap

Ghedi, I don't know you but having read your posts I suggest a couple of things:

1) Start taking the Greyhound bus because air travel is obviously too stressful and complicated for you and

2) Try living in a dictatorship where they “disappear” you and your family members for making statements far far less controversial than those items in your postings that you are able to make in this country without fear of reprisal of any sort. Perhaps that will give you a greater appreciation for our country and our constant attempts to balance constitutional rights against the need to protect ourselves from an ever-increasing threat. We don’t always get it right - does anybody? But at least we are trying.

Exactly!! I could hug you right now!!

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:01 AM

Yea I never saw an intro either that's why I had no clue it was a dude. Either way I was like :puzz why is a newbie going all out in debates??

agree. they are entitled to their opinions but i was wondering who this person was lol.

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:06 AM

agree. they are entitled to their opinions but i was wondering who this person was lol.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one...LOL

MIKOSWIFEY

08-10-2007, 11:21 AM

I'm glad I wasn't the only one...LOL

:lol I only looked at his post history to make sure he wasn't a :troll

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:23 AM

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:27 AM

He is my husband. Just so you know.

His intro is here:
http://forum.militarysos.com/showthread.php?t=85478

He doesn't get a chance to post on here often because *I* am always on here. I am not going to speak for him, but since you all are wondering who he is, I thought I would tell you.

He is a give me liberty or give me death kinda guy. Just the way he was raised, and the way he was trained when he was in army intel. If people are going to take away his freedoms and treat him like a possible terror suspect, he wants to know that it is REALLY making other people safer. Excuse him for questioning, I guess. Maybe I will tell him not to question so loudly on here? I didn't realize his opinions would be so offensive. LOL.

you know we've had troll issues on here before. we didn't realize that he was your husband or anything like that. sorry if it offended you that we were curious as to who this new person was. normally new people don't get involved in the debates so quickly

MIKOSWIFEY

08-10-2007, 11:29 AM

He is my husband. Just so you know.

His intro is here:
http://forum.militarysos.com/showthread.php?t=85478

He doesn't get a chance to post on here often because *I* am always on here. I am not going to speak for him, but since you all are wondering who he is, I thought I would tell you.

He is a give me liberty or give me death kinda guy. Just the way he was raised, and the way he was trained when he was in army intel. If people are going to take away his freedoms and treat him like a possible terror suspect, he wants to know that it is REALLY making other people safer. Excuse him for questioning, I guess. Maybe I will tell him not to question so loudly on here? I didn't realize his opinions would be so offensive. LOL.

I actually enjoyed reading his views. :) I wish Hatetank would chime in more often too, it keeps the estrogen levels down a little in debates.

Also, I didn't disagree with everything he said, and was never offended by him. I just wanted to debate certain points he brought up. :D

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:29 AM

He is my husband. Just so you know.

His intro is here:
http://forum.militarysos.com/showthread.php?t=85478

He doesn't get a chance to post on here often because *I* am always on here. I am not going to speak for him, but since you all are wondering who he is, I thought I would tell you.

He is a give me liberty or give me death kinda guy. Just the way he was raised, and the way he was trained when he was in army intel. If people are going to take away his freedoms and treat him like a possible terror suspect, he wants to know that it is REALLY making other people safer. Excuse him for questioning, I guess. Maybe I will tell him not to question so loudly on here? I didn't realize his opinions would be so offensive. LOL.

Had no idea he was you're dh. And nope didn't see the intro post so I had no idea who he was.
Noone is saying he can't question. And noone said he was being offensive. You know this is a debate and if you post on here you're opinions will be debated.
I just said it was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. People will always say that not enough is happening and then turn around and say ohhh my my rights were violated. So what the solution is I don't know.
Wicked you know very well I am not an evil mean person who would just attack him or anyone else for that matter so I really hope you arn't taking my debating him that way.

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:31 AM

you know we've had troll issues on here before. we didn't realize that he was your husband or anything like that. sorry if it offended you that we were curious as to who this new person was. normally new people don't get involved in the debates so quickly

Yes exactly. It wasn't personal it was just like huh who is this new person?!? Not saying it's bad it's just that well there have been issues and it can put you on edge.

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:34 AM

you know we've had troll issues on here before. we didn't realize that he was your husband or anything like that. sorry if it offended you that we were curious as to who this new person was. normally new people don't get involved in the debates so quickly

LOL, I'm not mad Jill. I didn't mind explaining. I am just surprised he got questioned as a troll like that. He wasn't posting spam or being rude. He wasn't name calling or anything. He was just disagreeing with a few of you and then trying to explain himself. I am not understanding why he was taken the way he was when he wasn't getting emotional or anything, he was just responding. I don't get what makes his opinions so radical I guess. LOL. He just thinks the liquid explosives thing is silly. I guess his style of debating isn't something you all are used to? I guess I just take for granted how he types. LOL.

I actually enjoyed reading his views. :) I wish Hatetank would chime in more often too, it keeps the estrogen levels down a little in debates.

Also, I didn't disagree with everything he said, and was never offended by him. I just wanted to debate certain points he brought up. :D

Oh I know, LOL. Believe me, I saw a few things that he will probably want to come back and respond to, so I'm sure you will get another chance. :giggle

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:36 AM

Had no idea he was you're dh. And nope didn't see the intro post so I had no idea who he was.
Noone is saying he can't question. And noone said he was being offensive. You know this is a debate and if you post on here you're opinions will be debated.
I just said it was a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. People will always say that not enough is happening and then turn around and say ohhh my my rights were violated. So what the solution is I don't know.
Wicked you know very well I am not an evil mean person who would just attack him or anyone else for that matter so I really hope you arn't taking my debating him that way.

LOL, Berk, I (L) you. :D Don't worry. It's just debate anyway. You know I don't take it personally. ;)

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:36 AM

I actually enjoyed reading his views. :) I wish Hatetank would chime in more often too, it keeps the estrogen levels down a little in debates.

Also, I didn't disagree with everything he said, and was never offended by him. I just wanted to debate certain points he brought up. :D

exactly.

Mommy2Bailey

08-10-2007, 11:36 AM

LOL, I'm not mad Jill. I didn't mind explaining. I am just surprised he got questioned as a troll like that. He wasn't posting spam or being rude. He wasn't name calling or anything. He was just disagreeing with a few of you and then trying to explain himself. I am not understanding why he was taken the way he was when he wasn't getting emotional or anything, he was just responding. I don't get what makes his opinions so radical I guess. LOL. He just thinks the liquid explosives thing is silly. I guess his style of debating isn't something you all are used to? I guess I just take for granted how he types. LOL.

Oh I know, LOL. Believe me, I saw a few things that he will probably want to come back and respond to, so I'm sure you will get another chance. :giggle

I think the reason he was questioned is because newbies dont jump into debates so soon. But he is a rare one. Glad your hubby is on here with us!

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:37 AM

He is JUST like me cuz I jumped into debate right away!

He is itching to come back already. He just walked up behind me like "hurry up". Haha. I think he likes debating with you all! Maybe more than I do! :P

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:38 AM

He is itching to come back already. He just walked up behind me like "hurry up". Haha. I think he likes debating with you all! Maybe more than I do! :P

uh-oh :lol

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:39 AM

LOL, Berk, I (L) you. :D Don't worry. It's just debate anyway. You know I don't take it personally. ;)

Ok good!! I really didn't want you to think I was jumping on him to jump on him..kwim. I would be so upset if you were mad at me!

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:39 AM

LMAO, he is harmless.

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:41 AM

LMAO, he is harmless.

guess i need to start getting my info before i debate lol. or i need to start phrasing my posts even more carefully lol. tell him to jump into all the debates, not just the political ones

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:41 AM

Ok good!! I really didn't want you to think I was jumping on him to jump on him..kwim. I would be so upset if you were mad at me!

LOL, never! I don't get mad at people in debate. I know everyone here is a good person that wants the best for their family and friends, we just all have different opinions on how to get there, that's all.

Besides, I have known you for a long time. I would never let a silly debate about a freakin monkey on an airplane get in the way. LOL.

monkeygirl

08-10-2007, 11:42 AM

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:43 AM

guess i need to start getting my info before i debate lol. or i need to start phrasing my posts even more carefully lol. tell him to jump into all the debates, not just the political ones

Oh don't worry, he will. LOL. He is hooked now.

I warn him all the time about how he speaks in debates to make sure that he doesn't come across as an ass. He is learning, and he is better than he used to be, but he is still not used to debating with women. It really is a whole different ball game than debating with men.

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:44 AM

Oh don't worry, he will. LOL. He is hooked now.

I warn him all the time about how he speaks in debates to make sure that he doesn't come across as an ass. He is learning, and he is better than he used to be, but he is still not used to debating with women. It really is a whole different ball game than debating with men.

oh yes it is a whole different ballgame. it is very difficult too because so many of us have been around for awhile and know our subtle nuances kwim?

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:45 AM

My dh joined and was going to post in debates and such. But then one day he was reading over my shoulder at the debate and he was like Okkkkk women are ruthless I think I'll just stay out k...ROFL

Berkley

08-10-2007, 11:46 AM

LOL, never! I don't get mad at people in debate. I know everyone here is a good person that wants the best for their family and friends, we just all have different opinions on how to get there, that's all.

Besides, I have known you for a long time. I would never let a silly debate about a freakin monkey on an airplane get in the way. LOL.

It better not!! :unlove LOL
btw I meant to ask you if I could jack that john stewart comment you have in you're sig. I LOVE it!!

Wicked

08-10-2007, 11:50 AM

It better not!! :unlove LOL
btw I meant to ask you if I could jack that john stewart comment you have in you're sig. I LOVE it!!

YES! Take it! I love it... LMAO. I think it's super hilarious.

My dh joined and was going to post in debates and such. But then one day he was reading over my shoulder at the debate and he was like Okkkkk women are ruthless I think I'll just stay out k...ROFL

Haha, we must be ruthless to scare off a military man. LMAO. I was surprised at how some of these debates turned out when I first joined too, but I appreciate the freedom Brandi gives everyone to say how they feel, even if it ends in fighting sometimes.

oh yes it is a whole different ballgame. it is very difficult too because so many of us have been around for awhile and know our subtle nuances kwim?

Yep, totally. And I think you will all learn his as well. ;)

harrisonsdream

08-10-2007, 11:56 AM

YES! Take it! I love it... LMAO. I think it's super hilarious.

Haha, we must be ruthless to scare off a military man. LMAO. I was surprised at how some of these debates turned out when I first joined too, but I appreciate the freedom Brandi gives everyone to say how they feel, even if it ends in fighting sometimes.

Yep, totally. And I think you will all learn his as well. ;)

yep i'm excited to get to know someone else's p.o.v.

Mommy2Bailey

08-10-2007, 12:00 PM

Wicked you are gonna have to get 2 pc's so you can both be on at the same time

Wicked

08-10-2007, 01:02 PM

Wicked you are gonna have to get 2 pc's so you can both be on at the same time

We actually have three in the house... Ours, his dad's and his step-moms. We both HATE typing on their computers cuz their keyboards are stupid. LOL. He is on our computer right now, and I am on his dads typing this, and it is driving me BATTY. :P

Ghedi

08-10-2007, 02:14 PM

God bless you for that attitude. :clap

Ghedi, I don't know you but having read your posts I suggest a couple of things:

1) Start taking the Greyhound bus [...]

2) Try living in a dictatorship where they “disappear” you and your family members for making statements far far less controversial than those items in your postings that you are able to make in this country without fear of reprisal of any sort. Perhaps that will give you a greater appreciation for our country and our constant attempts to balance constitutional rights against the need to protect ourselves from an ever-increasing threat. We don’t always get it right - does anybody? But at least we are trying.

Well, as for why I have ridden airplanes before... They are simply the fastest form of travel. I literally had two days to make my trip, and each direction would have been, if I had driven, one full day. So, if I made the trip by car, I would have had only enough time to arrive, go to sleep, then get in my car to drive back home.

I never said that I was unwilling to go through the security... I simply think that it is excessive and ineffective. I never said I was against metal detectors, chemical detectors, and X-Ray machines... although I did point out that they are most certainly not effective in every case. In my opinion, though, these machines are much more effective at actually increasing our security than taking away people's bottles of water. Searching the bottles is fine... Taking them is stealing.

And, for the underwear... well, for a one-day business trip, people usually don't get a chance to use a washing machine... Maybe I should have worn a kilt and gone regimental... That would have solved that whole underwear problem. :rofl

As for your second point... well, I have a nice long response to it. ;)

I joined the military so that I wouldn't have to live in a country that makes people "dissapear." I joined because I am willing to die for the rights and liberties of other people, and I still hold my oath of enlistment sacred to this day. I have the kind of appreciation for my country that makes me willing to give my own life to protect it.

I don't have to live in a dictatorship in order to understand what is bad about dictatorships. I have studied them in books, and I have studied them while having thousands of artillery pieces pointed my way. I understand the threat of sudden, violent war, because I have lived with that threat while serving my country, doing all that I could to prevent a dictatorship from marching down the 38'th parallel, when I watched North Korea daily and nightly for an entire year, as an intelligence soldier, with my weapon being information along with my rifle.

It is because I have seen exactly what the conditions are like under a dictatorship, I want to do everything in my power to keep the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship as well. This is why I think the way that I do:

Well, there are many different ways for a country to become a dictatorship. There is the good-old, take the country by military might tactic, which works quite well in the short term, but the people soon revolt. There is another well known tactic where a person starts out as a revolutionary leader, then becomes a dictator after overthrowing the old dictator... This is what Castro did, and he is loved by his nation. This second method seems to work extremely well, and is how most long-term dictatorships get their start.

The third method, though, seems to be the only method which works to turn a democracy into a dictatorship. This method is to increase security to the point where people don't have the ability to run their government any more... such as by outlawing protests in the streets (for instance, almost anywhere in Washington, D.C.), by preventing the lower class from taking part in politics (i.e., by requiring a dress code when entering public buildings), and by taking away people's basic rights to privacy.

I'm not saying that this third method is just a hypothetical situation... it has actually happened successfully before, with terrible results. After WWI, Hitler was elected to the executive branch of Germany's government. Shortly after Hitler came into power, their parliamentary building was burned down, and the fire was blamed on terrorists. (Personally, I think they actually were foreign terrorists, but I don't have objective evidence, so I can't say so for certain.)

After the fire, Hitler took emergency powers similar to our Patriot Act, where he formed his Secret Police (SS) and repealed people's rights to privacy, similar to our warrentless wire taps. He also made secret prisons, and took away citizen's rights to a fair and public trial if they were even hinted at being terrorists. All of this has happened already in the US.

Now, the stuff that hasn't happened in the US, which further pushed Hitler into power: Hitler used more of his emergency powers to say that, if there were ever another terrorist attack, he would dissolve the parliament so that he could act swiftly to retaliate against these terrorists... Well, so far, that matches up almost exactly with Bush's Defender of the Constitution title, including his executive order with a classified new constitution attached to it. The only difference here is that there hasn't been a major disaster that we can all hop on board with and say "Yep, that's really bad, and I'm willing to give up more freedom so that I can be more secure."

To see where Bush himself says that he would take dictatorial powers, just follow this link... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html Careful, it has a lot of lawyer speech. The last paragraph of his directive also worries me... Why should our future form of government be classified if it is going to affect all Americans? Shouldn't we be able to at least agree with it before we are forced to live it?

Anyways, that is what I'm trying to avoid, among other things. I'm not saying that throwing away people's water bottles and hair gel is a great and terrible act... I think that the consequences of it can be great and terrible. I am not saying that, by itself (other than its unconstitutionality) wiretapping international calls is a great and terrible act... The consequences of it can be great and terrible, though.

Jailing people without due process, though, is a great and terrible offense... even if those people are accused of being terrorists. This alone makes our nation a police state.

That's, right, I said that our nation is already a police state, just as Russia was when it was the USSR. Just as China and North Korea are now. The Patriot Act has stopped our nation from being a free country, because now, all that the government needs is to hint at the suspicion that a person is a terrorist, and they can be taken away to a secret court, tried without your constitutionally guaranteed lawyer... Convicted without a constitutionally guaranteed jury of your peers... and never able to use your constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal.

I hope this helps to show where I am coming from. Other people will of course interpret things differently, but I'm looking at it from a very specific definition of a patriot, among many different and sometimes conflicting definition of patriotism.

The type of patriotism that I identify with is the one which people like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington identified with: that dissent is essential to protecting our freedoms. There are many other types of patriotism out there, and not one is any less "patriotic" than the others. The patriotism which says to obey your leaders no matter what is no less valid than the patriotism which says to always question your leaders no matter what. The point of patriotism is a love for your country, and to do those things which you feel would best help it, so there is no right or wrong way to be a patriot.

I come from a very interesting family, which has protest organizers who also joined the military. I myself have a military intelligence background. It was my job to look at both the big picture and the details, and to report how each detail can have effects on the big picture. What can I say, the military trained me well. When I look at people taking water bottles from civilians at airports, I see two sides and two possible futures... the civilian who believes that an item was stolen from him, and the TSA agent who believes that he is protecting that person's life. The possible futures are, as more and more civilians get fed up, they will become more and more active in fighting against the government. From that, either we will have another civil war, leading to the destruction of our constitution, or the administration will enact their special plan, again leading to the destruction of our constitution.

It may sound dramatic, but it has happened before, and the perceived threat from terrorists has never been as high as it is today, even in pre-Nazi Germany. No, it won't just be the water bottles and hair gel that gets taken from people... No, it won't just be the wiretaps... It won't even just be the secret courts which already exist. It will be sparked by a protest getting violent and one or more civilians being killed... but I want to stop the trend before this ever happens... before the protest is even formed, so that our Constitution, which I swore to uphold and defend, and which I would gladly die for, can continue to be the guiding document for our government, and so that everybody can enjoy the freedoms which it guarantees. I know it sounds cliche, but give me liberty or give me death.

What about Hatetank? Just sayin. Plus his wife is in the military according to his Newbies post. Men don't usually go and post all over the board anyway, they'd usually much rather keep it in the logical/nonemotional forums like the News/Debates.

Just thought I'd say that since I was thinking the same thing you were until I thought a little harder about it.

Um, since when are men logical, especially when we communicate? All we ever do is react. As far as I can tell, women are the ones who plan the way they communicate. I'd go as far as to say that without women, honestly, diplomacy would be completely impossible.

By the way, I didn't know that this post would be quite this long when I started posting it... Sorry for everyone who had to read through it all, and I'm glad that you made it. ;)