• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

Kandahar, you are a dreamer:

Passengers aren't going to allow planes to be hijacked anymore. Any terrorists on airplanes are only a danger to the people on board the plane.

On 9/11, 246 passengers died. 2,600 died on the ground. As to passengers now allowing planes to be hijacked anymore, ever hear of altitude setting off an explosive? What makes you think anyone is going to jump up and down and try to commandeer an airplane? They know they can't get in the cockpit.
 
On 9/11, 246 passengers died. 2,600 died on the ground.

Umm OK. Thanks for the info.

MaggieD said:
As to passengers now allowing planes to be hijacked anymore, ever hear of altitude setting off an explosive?

What? :confused:
If an explosive is set off, then the plane can't be hijacked, now can it? On account of everyone on board being dead. :confused:
I really have no idea where you're going with this.

MaggieD said:
What makes you think anyone is going to jump up and down and try to commandeer an airplane? They know they can't get in the cockpit.

That was my point. No one is going to hijack an aircraft in the United States again for a very very long time. Ergo, any terrorists on board the plane are only a danger to the other passengers on board the plane. Hence, bringing up the specter of another 9/11 to justify draconian security procedures is incredibly stupid. Nothing like that is going to happen again. The worst case scenario for air terrorism would be something like Lockerbie...which A) didn't occur in the US, and B) was caused by explosives in the cargo hold, not explosives on a passenger.
 
Last edited:
I wish Obama had given her an official TSA goose. :mrgreen:

He thought about it but figured he'd get his finger soiled.

Seriously I consider her incompetent. When she made the statement that the underwear bomber proved we were doing a good job I lost all respect for her competence.
 
That was my point. No one is going to hijack an aircraft in the United States again for a very very long time.

Yeah right. I love it when people say never.

We we told in economics class years ago there was no way the U.S. would ever have another depression. Seems to me we came very close, and to millions in this country it is a depression.
 
Yeah right. I love it when people say never.

...except I didn't. I said for a very very long time. But way to throw a red herring out there to distract from the actual topic.

EnigmaO01 said:
We we told in economics class years ago there was no way the U.S. would ever have another depression. Seems to me we came very close, and to millions in this country it is a depression.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Passengers aren't going to sit idly by while a terrorist hijacks the plane anymore. What incentive do they have to cooperate if they think they're going to be flown into a building, instead of rerouted to Cuba?

Not to mention, of course, that it's much more physically difficult to hijack a plane now that the doors to the cockpit are basically sealed.
 
Last edited:
What? :confused:
If an explosive is set off, then the plane can't be hijacked, now can it? On account of everyone on board being dead. :confused:
I really have no idea where you're going with this. No one is going to hijack an aircraft in the United States again for a very very long time. Ergo, any terrorists on board the plane are only a danger to the other passengers on board the plane. Hence, bringing up the specter of another 9/11 to justify draconian security procedures is incredibly stupid. Nothing like that is going to happen again. The worst case scenario for air terrorism would be something like Lockerbie...which A) didn't occur in the US, and B) was caused by explosives in the cargo hold, not explosives on a passenger.

Passengers aren't going to sit idly by while a terrorist hijacks the plane anymore. What incentive do they have to cooperate if they think they're going to be flown into a building, instead of rerouted to Cuba? Not to mention, of course, that it's much more physically difficult to hijack a plane now that the doors to the cockpit are basically sealed.

El Al subjects every single piece of luggage, both checked and carry-on, to decompression before it's put on an airplane. Why? Because this rules out the possibility of an altitude detonation. Hijackers won't be hijackers anymore because you're right. They'd have little chance of effecting a take-over of an airplane -- both because of cockpit security and passenger reaction.

They will be suicide bombers.

They will hide their explosives under their burqas...they'll wrap them in baby blankets...they'll wear them between their legs. If they are given free rein at airport checkpoints, they will succeed.
 
The fundamental problem here for you, Boo, is that I didn't. The closest I came, at all, was to say that there are those who have gone through it who thought so.

So, all this "hyperbole" bull**** is exactly that. You simply dismiss any argument as such.

Well, you certainly seem to be defending those who use that hyperbole, so I really don't see the difference. Perhaps you could articlate your actual views?
 
We are told that these measures have to be in place because of the underwear bomber, when that man boarded the plane in Amsterdam in the first place NOT here, and Dutch authorities ignored warning signs and red flags including his own father pleading with them to watch out.

This is the "crisis going to waste" theory. And it might interest people to know that not only does former HS Sec Chertoff have a stake in these machines, but up until two days ago so did a company Called OSI, owned and funded by Geo. Soros.

j-mac

So, if it happened somewhere else, we should not be concerned about it? What else other than safety do you really believe can be gained by the "crisis"?
 
Well, you certainly seem to be defending those who use that hyperbole, so I really don't see the difference.

The difference is in being honest or not. You choose not.


Perhaps you could articlate your actual views?

I have, numerous times.
 
You've glossed over it at least twice now.


Please, rationalize the above. Where else do you think overly invasive, yet unnecessary security should be implemented?

To be honest I'm not following you at all. I think I've been quite clear. I"ve explained the problem with lsitening to too many people. I've noted that a person coming to a place is different than simply living your life. No one said airports were the only place we're vulnable. That's a strawman you've invented for yourself. We can't protect every place. But we can take reasonable places where we've seen a problem and there is a reasonable way to help protect people.

And you might also note we have metal detectors at schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few students in those places got a pat down once or twice.

Now, unless you can more clearly articulate your point, I believe you have been fully answered.
 
The difference is in being honest or not. You choose not.




I have, numerous times.

Well, what I recall is you defending the hyperbolic exaggerations. If I'm wrong, please point out your actual position.
 
Well, what I recall is you defending the hyperbolic exaggerations. If I'm wrong, please point out your actual position.

You made your own mistakes; that isn't my problem. Go back and read.
 
You made your own mistakes; that isn't my problem. Go back and read.

I have. I first ran across killing the industry in post 251. That is hyperbolic.

Then there is you calling refering to people who disagree with you as having a Napoleon complex in post 255.

And let's not forget, you start with me defending those who called it molestation and feeling up? Do you deny that?

So, you call it unreasonable to place you with those who use hyperbolic language and over exaggerate? Seriously?
 
So which is it, Boo? Are you "not following me at all," or have you figured out exactly what my position is? What I find unreasonable is the obvious contradiction, which belies any good faith you're trying to present here.

And also your shifting goalposts; what you claimed is that I said specific things which I did not. And now to make it seem like you didn't pooch it, you're claiming you simply said I "over-exaggerate." Which, of course, further torpedoes the tone of good faith you're trying to present.

You're being exceptionally dishonest. And I've lost count of how many times of I've asked you this now, but if you're right, why do you have to make things up?
 
Last edited:
So, if it happened somewhere else, we should not be concerned about it?

Wow, how did you possibly glean THAT from the statement you quoted?

He is saying that the places where we step up security are the wrong places. Intelligence / information sharing is one example that proves in constant need of fixing.
 
El Al subjects every single piece of luggage, both checked and carry-on, to decompression before it's put on an airplane.

I don't care what El Al does.

If they are given free rein at airport checkpoints, they will succeed.

Who said anything about "free rein"? That's about as false a dichotomy as they come.
 
So which is it, Boo? Are you "not following me at all," or have you figured out exactly what my position is? What I find unreasonable is the obvious contradiction, which belies any good faith you're trying to present here.

And also your shifting goalposts; what you claimed is that I said specific things which I did not. And now to make it seem like you didn't pooch it, you're claiming you simply said I was "unreasonable." Which, of course, further torpedoes the tone of good faith you're trying to present.

You're being exceptionally dishonest. And I've lost count of how many times of I've asked you this now, but if you're right, why do you have to make things up?

I do not know exactly what your position is if you don't think people are being felt up or molested as you defended those people. I do understand your comment about killing the business, and find it hyperbolic and an exaggeration, though not of the level those saying people are being felt up are at. And I do find the Napoleon complex silliness to also be partisan and unhelpful as well over the top.

As for being dishonest, when you defend something, and they say, "but I never said those words, so you're being dishonest," I would argue the reverse. I would argue that you're the one being dishonest here. There is no goal post change, when you defend words, you own those words. You're saying me too, unless you clarify. And I have offered you an opportunity to clarify. Instead, you've been indignated, and dare I say just a tad dishonest.
 
No, Boo. You claimed specifically that I said something I didn't.

And what I did say -- my sum total of comment on the matter -- was that there are those who have gone through the process who think they were felt up or even "molested."

So, I think you should seek those people out and tell them they're wrong. Let us know what they say back.
 
No, Boo. You claimed specifically that I said something I didn't.

And what I did say -- my sum total of comment on the matter -- was that there are those who have gone through the process who think they were felt up or even "molested."

So, I think you should seek those people out and tell them they're wrong. Let us know what they say back.

Again, in defense of them. No reasonable person would see this as feeling up. And I have told anyone who says it that they are worng. And that includes those who defend them. Hyperbolic overexaggeration is just that.
 
Again, in defense of them. No reasonable person would see this as feeling up. And I have told anyone who says it that they are worng. And that includes those who defend them. Hyperbolic overexaggeration is just that.


You know, I'm probably more inclined to take seriously the view of someone who's actually been through the process than I am some dishonest Internet poster who hasn't and has an obvious agenda in defending a liberal adminstration's actions.

THAT, I consider ENTIRELY reasonable. And no matter how you try to spin, no, I never said what you claimed I did.
 
I don't care what El Al does.

I included that as a useful bit of information for those people on this website who are actually here to learn something rather than simply pontificate. Oh! I just noticed. I wasn't talking to you.

Who said anything about "free rein"? That's about as false a dichotomy as they come.

Know what's funny? I can't even find a post where you put forth an opinion on current security measures and what you think they should be. You're just slamming what we've got. How about stating your actual opinion instead of sniping at those who do. I'll wait.
 
You know, I'm probably more inclined to take seriously the view of someone who's actually been through the process than I am some dishonest Internet poster who hasn't and has an obvious agenda in defending a liberal adminstration's actions.

THAT, I consider ENTIRELY reasonable. And no matter how you try to spin, no, I never said what you claimed I did.

Why? How about those who went through it and didn't complain? Should you consider them? and what about looking at what was filmed and making a judgment? Seruioulsy.
 
I included that as a useful bit of information for those people on this website who are actually here to learn something rather than simply pontificate.

No, you're using it in order to "pontificate" your own point.

Know what's funny? I can't even find a post where you put forth an opinion on current security measures and what you think they should be. You're just slamming what we've got. How about stating your actual opinion instead of sniping at those who do. I'll wait.

I don't need to state what kind of car I prefer in order to articulate why I don't want a Hummer.
 
Why? How about those who went through it and didn't complain? Should you consider them? and what about looking at what was filmed and making a judgment? Seruioulsy.

What makes you think I didn't? You're the one who's making sweeping declarations about what's reasonable to conclude about this and what isn't. I pointed out that 1) some who have gone through it disagree and 2) I find THEM more credible than YOU.

I didn't dismiss anyone BUT you.
 
What makes you think I didn't? You're the one who's making sweeping declarations about what's reasonable to conclude about this and what isn't. I pointed out that 1) some who have gone through it disagree and 2) I find THEM more credible than YOU.

I didn't dismiss anyone BUT you.

Feeling up has an actual definition. Watching them pat people down, it's clear that it isn't feeling up. You giving credence to hyperbolic exaggeration again brings me back to you owning that view.
 
Back
Top Bottom