Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) There's zero case where you guys will accept the existence of any sort of corporate responsibility for anything. That's what I take from this case. In this case I have no problem pointing the finger at the private company as well. The problem, of course, is that the private company is merely providing the product, not requiring people to us it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) In this case I have no problem pointing the finger at the private company as well. The problem, of course, is that the private company is merely providing the product, not requiring people to us it. Following that logic, if the scanners were up to specs, then you'd have no problem requiring their use, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) Following that logic, if the scanners were up to specs, then you'd have no problem requiring their use, right? Um, no. The logic is that the government shouldn't be requiring these things in the first place. Security theater has been my cry for a good long while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) Um, no. The logic is that the government shouldn't be requiring these things in the first place. Security theater has been my cry for a good long while now. That's a different argument and one we had earlier in this thread. If the systems can't work properly, then I do have to switch sides on that part of the argument. But you don't get to bash the government for using things that are unsafe if the manufacturer and the initial tests said that they were safe. That's on the people who built the things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) That's a different argument and one we had earlier in this thread. If the systems can't work properly, then I do have to switch sides on that part of the argument. But you don't get to bash the government for using things that are unsafe if the manufacturer and the initial tests said that they were safe. That's on the people who built the things. The distinction IMO is that the government justified the use of the machine, in part, on their safety. I think the government (TSA specifically) opened itself up to criticism for doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The machines were tested and advertised by the manufacturer as safe. Then they built and shipped shoddy units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 TSA security looks at people who complain about TSA security as elevated terrorist risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2011 -> 06:50 PM) TSA security looks at people who complain about TSA security as elevated terrorist risks. Seems like a reasonable thing. If I were a terrorist, I'd be trying to get security less strict. I'd be working to discredit the government's actions and attempts at providing some security. I'd point on the superiority of the private sector firms, like Blackwater, at providing security services. Hmmm, maybe some of the people in this thread are really terrorists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Guess who accidentally brought a knife through airport security? Midway didn't catch it, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Osama should've been captured alive and made to go through airport security for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 This'll at least create an interesting situation, the state of Texas arresting TSA officials for the performance of their jobs. The Texas House of Representatives late on Thursday approved a bill that would make invasive pat-downs at Texas airports a crime, after a former Miss USA said she felt "molested" at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport last month. Transportation Security Administration agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail under the measure. The proposal would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 14, 2011 -> 06:18 PM) This'll at least create an interesting situation, the state of Texas arresting TSA officials for the performance of their jobs. Unenforceable and unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 TSA warns of possible airline threat involving implanted bombs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 6, 2011 -> 11:18 AM) TSA warns of possible airline threat involving implanted bombs "I've got implants... The not so good kind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts