Airplane Security/Am I profiling?
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:24:45 -0500, Jim wrote:

RLM wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:28:34 -0500, John H wrote:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:23:03 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

Is it me, or what? Am I profiling?

This is JUST for the people who've actually been to an airport on a trip
in the last year. Others, please STFU.

Okay. This is just me.

I have noticed that A LOT of airport workers, particularly TSA
employees, are of a minority group. (there's that profiling I warned
you about) All look like they are either in a trance, or they want to
rip the lining out of your baggage in search of some elusive contraband.
They're either over the top or sleep walking. No in between. All
watching their watch to see when their next break is.

Flying back from Hawaii, I had a bottle of EXPENSIVE cologne
confiscated, yet they left a FULL SIZED PAIR OF HAIR SCISSORS in the
same shave kit.

Are all these people steered to these jobs from ACORN? Are they SEIU
members?

I mean, it COULD be me, but I see a pattern here. The term Airport
Security makes me feel very unsecure. And actual PROFILING isn't used
enough, IMHO.

Rant off

Steve


I got called off to the side where a big lady reached into my bag and
asked, "Is this yours?"

To which I replied, "Yes Ma'am."

She said, "What is it? You know you can't take this on the airplane?"

I said, "It's a jar of homemade blueberry jam I was going to give my
brother. You're welcome to open it and taste it."

But, she wouldn't give it back. Those were some careful people. They
definitely fit your profile. My ballpoint pen was in my pocket. Shoved
up the nose of a stewardess, there'd be a dead stewardess. But,
ballpoints are OK. I don't understand it either.



Think for a moment. After 911 thousands of people were hired off the
street from the hard core unemployed and homeless ranks. They were given
an opportunity to boss others around without boundaries. They pictured
themselves as officers of the federal government. The testing was quick
and easy. The not so bright slipped through the ranks and if they weren't
high on something that particular day they got their pictures taken for a
badge and a job. They are then part of homeland security over night.

At that point they could order the general public around as if they were
just peons. They had become officers of the law of the land.

We didn't hire any unemployed brain surgeons to ask for ID's or look
through a list of the forbidden.


I'll bet that bluberry jam ended up on the TSA's kitchen table.

That was what I said when I left. Told her to please take it home and
give it to the kids.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Airplane Security
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:54:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:26:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Clinton had no reason to take OBL in Sudan. Bush had a
similar problem prior to 9-11 if he wanted to use the same probable
cause logic. After 9-11 it was simply "kill the *******", as it should
have been after the 1993 WTC bombing.

The football game screwed up my recording of 60 minutes


I didn't say that. I said that he had no legal authority to do so.
Bush's
problem was that he didn't follow through on what he should have, and
went
cowboy on Iraq, which was totally unjustified.

No argument on Iraq but I blame that on GHWB and Clinton for not
getting the hell out of there when Powell told them to.
Without the aerial occupation of Iraq for 10 years and the
infrastructure we built up around that, the invasion would not be
possible.


?? We needed to contain Saddam, which we were doing. We could have done
that
for another 20 years with very little loss of life.

No we couldn't. Saddam was slipping his "containment" by the time
Clinton left. We had lost most of western Europe as allies in that
fight. The embargo was a joke by then and we were getting a lot of bad
press for killing civilians in our effort to stop Iraqi radar sites
from lighting up our planes. Most of these sites were in residential
areas so we killed civilians almost every time we fired a HARM.
Every sortie over that country was an act of war in itself and there
were dozens every day.
Go look at some of stories coming out of the foreign press in
1999-2000. It was clear the Kurds were not going to rise up and kill
Saddam for us, not that we would be better off with running Iraq. It
was also clear the policy needed to change. That moron Bush jr just
went the wrong way.


There's no strong evidence that he was "slipping his containment." The
no-fly zone was working. The Kurds were pretty much autonomous at that
point. True, they weren't going to overthrow him, but he was powerless
against them having their own territory
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone).

There were civilian deaths, but no where near as many as what happened after
Bush invaded. Not sure what you mean by him going "the wrong way."


--
Nom=de=Plume

Airplane Security
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:19:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..


No argument on Iraq but I blame that on GHWB and Clinton for not
getting the hell out of there when Powell told them to.
Without the aerial occupation of Iraq for 10 years and the
infrastructure we built up around that, the invasion would not be
possible.


?? We needed to contain Saddam, which we were doing. We could have done
that
for another 20 years with very little loss of life.

No we couldn't. Saddam was slipping his "containment" by the time
Clinton left. We had lost most of western Europe as allies in that
fight. The embargo was a joke by then and we were getting a lot of bad
press for killing civilians in our effort to stop Iraqi radar sites
from lighting up our planes. Most of these sites were in residential
areas so we killed civilians almost every time we fired a HARM.
Every sortie over that country was an act of war in itself and there
were dozens every day.
Go look at some of stories coming out of the foreign press in
1999-2000. It was clear the Kurds were not going to rise up and kill
Saddam for us, not that we would be better off with running Iraq. It
was also clear the policy needed to change. That moron Bush jr just
went the wrong way.


There's no strong evidence that he was "slipping his containment." The
no-fly zone was working. The Kurds were pretty much autonomous at that
point. True, they weren't going to overthrow him, but he was powerless
against them having their own territory
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone).

There were civilian deaths, but no where near as many as what happened
after
Bush invaded. Not sure what you mean by him going "the wrong way."


The embargo was becoming ineffective since there was so much fraud in
the oil for food program and the number of countries that were simply
ignoring it.
Eventually there was going to be a showdown if we wanted to perpetuate
this sham. It is certainly a fact that most of western Europe were
criticizing the US and UK for their actions and Saddam was actually
gaining support, not losing it. People were questioning our need to
bomb these people virtually every day. We were finding the status quo
hard to justify.
Bush had 2 choices, declare victory or declare war, he went the wrong
way.


He didn't go the wrong way. He lied and went to war when no war was
justified. The embargo was still working, and there was no reason to do more
than what we were doing.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Airplane Security
 

nom=de=plume wrote:


He didn't go the wrong way. He lied and went to war when no war was
justified. The embargo was still working, and there was no reason to do more
than what we were doing.


You make 4 strong statements.
Just so we know you aren't blowing smoke up our collective asses, how
about elaborating on each of them, citing as necessary.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Airplane Security/Am I profiling?
 

"Jim" wrote


I'll bet that bluberry jam ended up on the TSA's kitchen table.

I'm damn sure that my cologne is wafting around the halls at Lihuie Airport

Steve

Airplane Security
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:37:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The embargo was becoming ineffective since there was so much fraud in
the oil for food program and the number of countries that were simply
ignoring it.
Eventually there was going to be a showdown if we wanted to perpetuate
this sham. It is certainly a fact that most of western Europe were
criticizing the US and UK for their actions and Saddam was actually
gaining support, not losing it. People were questioning our need to
bomb these people virtually every day. We were finding the status quo
hard to justify.
Bush had 2 choices, declare victory or declare war, he went the wrong
way.


He didn't go the wrong way. He lied and went to war when no war was
justified. The embargo was still working, and there was no reason to do
more
than what we were doing.


Wasn't that the wrong way to go?

You really need to read up on how "well" the embargo was working.
Start with "oil for food fraud" and then go look at the number of
countries that simply ignored it.
We had accomplished about we were going to by 2000 and we should have
come home.


The embargo was having problems, but it wasn't ineffective. We could have
maintained it for quite a while longer, especially if we actually had a
statesman in the White House. Bush screwed the pooch on so many levels and
with so many things. We won't recover for years from his mishandling.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Airplane Security
 

Airplane Security