Who cares, they aren't above us "regular" people and no, I can guarantee you they don't get searched.
Its not that they're above us, its that Kanye West is more well known than you are. Being that he's well known, there is no reason to give him a background check. He is not a stranger. If he does something, everyone on the planet knows how to find kanye west. If someone is on the president's cabinet, i am sure they have had extensive background checks, beyond those of a regular JOB, seeing how they work directly with the leader of the free world. Sans a bout of insanity, i dont see too many celebrities nor athletes nor president's cabinet members who will be hijacking/blowing up airplanes.
I cant stop posting in quotes.
It doesn't say it. The government intrudes on a contract between airline and individual. The government shouldn't be dictating who gets on a plane or not, they don't own that plane. Let the airline company figure that out.
, YES, LET THE CORPORATIONS, WHO GET INSURANCE FOR THE PLANES DICTATE WHO CAN AND CANT FLY BWHAHAHAHAH HAVE PRIVATE SECURITY TAKE CARE OF THE DEFENSE OF AMERICA, YES!
you're so serious, too!
Come on, guy. The guys invaded the +%!$ pit with practically nothing.
True, but that's only because they didn't have guns....if they had guns, who's to say they wouldnt have snuck something more serious on? they picked an avenue on the account of what we LET TAKE PLACE....a pilot rocking a gun wouldnt stop terrorism on airplanes. It was the underwear bomber next...next itll be whatever they can come up with within the constructs in which we allow to be weak due to "comfort". Look, i share some of your views, but youre just so extreme with them like the theory and ideas are absolute....and they arent. If im taking a plane, make sure i dont have a bomb...and everyone else, too....(i mean, i think im okay if the chief of staff is on the plane, not searched, tho). YOU said they had practically nothing...woah, how'd they even take the plane over then? everyone must have been completely defenseless against "practically nothing" huh?
There is a very big difference. A nightclub provides security by people who are experience in searches, it is part of the contract you have with the night club. You pay to go into the nightclub, but you have to be searched.
okay, bro, you think bouncers are more "experienced" in "providing security" than TSA agents?, you're winning. You pay to live in a country where the government is responsible for national defense. Screening potential terrorists on airplanes is definitely a security issue....due to the amount of damage a plane crash or bomb can cause, its very high on the list. IF you're like dirty and arguing against some SPECIFIC security measure that is ineffective, by all means, we can stop arguing. IF you're suggesting any sort of government security checkpoints at airports, or would rather it be ran by a PRIVATE CORPORATION (which, would just be going in some politician friend's pockets) then i'm going toyou over and over
The you pay the airline company to ride on a plane, it is not in the terms to purchase to be molested by a government official who has no experience before boarding the plane. With a third party stooge, who has nothing to do with the contract you have with the airline being an inconvenience. There is no contractual obligation to be searched by the TSA.
You have no concept of free and open contracts.
ahhhhh, there she is. the idea that TSA officials are inexperienced, whereas nightclub staff are. that's quite-able. then, you tell me i have no concept of free and open contracts, while, at the very same time, showing you have no concept of reality. it's okay. you keep on living in the 1780s, where i'm sure noone would pat you down to get on an airplane.
Its not that they're above us, its that Kanye West is more well known than you are. Being that he's well known, there is no reason to give him a background check. He is not a stranger. If he does something, everyone on the planet knows how to find kanye west. If someone is on the president's cabinet, i am sure they have had extensive background checks, beyond those of a regular JOB, seeing how they work directly with the leader of the free world. Sans a bout of insanity, i dont see too many celebrities nor athletes nor president's cabinet members who will be hijacking/blowing up airplanes.
�
HOW MANY KIDS DO YOU SEE HIJACKING AND BLOWING UP PLANES?
Tell me, pervert!
, YES, LET THE CORPORATIONS, WHO GET INSURANCE FOR THE PLANES DICTATE WHO CAN AND CANT FLY BWHAHAHAHAH HAVE PRIVATE SECURITY TAKE CARE OF THE DEFENSE OF AMERICA, YES!you're so serious, too!
You're an idiot. Clearly, you are a simpleton. If planes are blowing up from Delta every other week, who the hell is going to fly Delta? Nobody is talking about the actual plane. I'm talking about the people who pay to use the plane. If planes are being blown up because of lack of security, nobody flies = COMPANY GOES OUT OF BUSINESS
I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your rant. You're oblivious and a PERVERT for advocating the molestation of children.
people in this country love to cite 300 year old decrees.....
same thing i say
people acting like we're still riding around in horses and #%%$
this shirt isOriginally Posted by supa vegetto
he should've worn this:
source: http://www.aolnews.com/20...sa-of-the-4th-amendment/
Nice, should be a good read for the mouth breathers on hereOriginally Posted by SunDOOBIE
You are late man.
On August 10, 2006, authorities in Great Britain announced that they had arrested several people in connection with a plot to attack airplanes with liquid explosives. The attackers planned to disguise the explosives as ordinary liquids and smuggle them aboard. For this reason, authorities in both the United States and Great Britain warned all passengers that liquids would not be allowed in carry-on luggage until the crisis passed. The ban on liquids included hair spray, shampoo and beverages -- items people travel with all the time.[table][tr][td][font=arial,helvetica][/font][size=-2][/size][/td][/tr][/table]
[size=-2]AP Photo/Kevin Wolf
[size=-1]A trash container overflows with water bottles and other liquid items near the security checkpoint at Dulles Airport on August 10, 2006, in Chantilly, Va.[/size][/size]
So what exactly are liquid explosives, and what do they do? Most explosives work in basically the same way. They burn or decompose very quickly, producing lots of heat and gas, which rapidly expands and can tear things apart. Usually, an explosive material requires some kind of stimulus, like heat or shock energy, to get the process started. You can learn more about different types of explosives in How Bombs Work.
Many people don't think of explosives as liquids, though. Most of us imagine them as solids, like gunpowder or C-4. But you've probably heard of one liquid explosive already -- nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin was invented in 1847, and it's made by adding acids to glycerin. Since exposure to it dilates people'sblood vessels, it's used as a medical treatment for angina pectoris, or heart pain.
Nitroglycerin is made of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. A physical shock can start a chain reaction that breaks its molecules down into carbon dioxide, water and oxygen. The breaking of the bonds between the atoms releases an enormous amount of energy in a very short amount of time.
Nitroglycerin is a component in some relatively stable solid explosives, like dynamite. But as a liquid, it's extremely dangerous and volatile. You typically have to use a blasting cap to detonate a stick ofdynamite, but you can accidentally trigger a nitroglycerin explosion with a physical shock. It doesn't blow up at the slightest movement as depicted in some movies and TV shows, but you can detonate it by hitting it.
Nitroglycerin is oily and clear, so if you poured some into an opaque lotion bottle, no one but you would know what was really inside. However, nitroglycerin's inherent instability would make this bottle very dangerous for you to carry around.
[table][tr][td][font=arial,helvetica][/font][size=-2][/size][/td][/tr][/table]
[size=-2]Ronnie Bergeron/MorgueFile
[size=-1]Because it's clear and oily, nitroglycerin would be easy to conceal in lotion or shampoo bottles.[/size][/size]
The attackers most likely did not plan to use nitroglycerin, but the liquid explosives they chose probably had similar chemical properties. Like nitroglycerin, most liquid explosives are made of unstable molecules. These complex molecules break down into ordinary, stable molecules when exposed to the right stimulus. Even a very minor shock can start the process, and since it involves the breaking of atomic bonds, it releases enormous amounts of energy.
The terrorists most likely intended to remove the explosives from their carry-on luggage and detonate them while the planes were over the Atlantic Ocean. They may have planned to use explosives that require the mixing of two different liquids in order to start the reaction. Unnamed sources have stated that the attackers planned to mix a liquid dyed to resemble a sports drink with a peroxide gel to create an explosive substance.
According to other sources, the attackers intended to use triacetone triperoxide, which can be made from readily available substances like hydrogen peroxide, acetone and acid. Like nitroglycerin, triacetone triperoxide molecules are made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. When it explodes, it breaks down into large amounts of ozone and acetone.
Regardless of which exact substance the attackers planned to use, the liquid nature of the explosives would have been central to the plot for two reasons:
- Liquid explosives are very volatile, so the attackers would not necessarily need elaborate or powerful detonators to start the explosion. Without as much material to smuggle on board, the attackers would be less likely to attract the attention of airport security. In the case of the August 2006 plot, unnamed officials speculated that the attackers planned to use cell phones or MP3 players as detonators.
- Smuggling a liquid onto an airplane would not be very difficult. The attackers may have planned to use ordinary bottles made for hair gel, shampoo, lotion or other liquids and gels. Under typical circumstances, airport security probably would not question items like these.
Flying is not a right. You pay for a ticket, therefor you play by the rules. I mean, if you go to a nightclub, do you complain about getting patted down or the metal detector wand? No. If you do, they tell you to get lost. Same principle.
you must not have read the post. i said the exact same thing and dude told me the difference between open contracts and closed contracts...
THESE PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED THEY ARE BEING PATTED DOWN LIKE A, *GASP* BLACK CRIMINAL!
