OT: TSA (again)

Back to post

Comments

apit34356 wrote on 6/7/2006, 4:20 PM
The middle East, Saudi Arabia, they were executed by the kingdom. A lot of Isreal citizens have dual citizenship with the USA. These suicide missions have killed a lot of US citizens and the openly threaten Americans in the mid-east. Sadam openly brag about the funding and "other" things. I see that you put no value on American lifes if they visit or live in Israel. Gee, the dems sure wanted their vote during the election. Israel has become very interweave in the tech(design,light manufacturing, right up Japan) business with US companies. China big on general manufacturing.

apit34356 wrote on 6/7/2006, 5:31 PM
Rv6tc, I was waiting for someone to bring LAX, but LA is really landlock and small aircraft is a status symbol. Check with Chicago's O'hare or Detroit''s Metro, but yes LAX and SFO is totally different from Metro or Attanta, but as stated early, states and local authories run the daily airport operations, while the FAA controls taxing/landing/takeoff/ routing. The FAA tries to manage flights and permit reasonable access.
I should have explained "banned" better.
My point was that local authories at the real big airports have slowly, if not totally stop the basing of small private planes like Pipers,cenassa 150s,172s,180s, etc. when there is small airport nearby. Nobody that I know, talked to, serve on the steering boards with, believes that mixing cenessa 150s with 757s, dc10s, 747s, on taxi ways or takeoff airspace is a safe thing too do,(ie.,large aircraft turbulence can be deadly for light small aircraft), but if you have only one "real" airport, airport management is expected to develop a workable solution. In the FAA guidelines for "classes" of airport operations, they have created classes of operational aircraft that states clearly what airports can and can not support. This was one approach to remove small aircraft from commericial airport handling, but the apoa has been very agressive fighting this goal. So, don't be surprise if you vectored to a close but smaller airport at any of the big airports.




busterkeaton wrote on 6/7/2006, 5:45 PM
Apit, you can try and change the subject all you want. You can claim I don't value American or Israeli lives. Whatever.

I would really have loved to see how your arguement played out after 9/11: "We need to invade and occupy Iraq because Saddam supports the families of Palestinian suicdie bombers."** That would have gone over real well while Bin Ladin still on the loose. It would have been more refreshing than the lies about Saddam being a threat to us, Saddam being best buddies with Bin Ladin, etc. It still wouldn't have justified what generals and national security folks are calling the "worst strategic mistake in US history."
apit34356 wrote on 6/7/2006, 6:45 PM
Busterkeaton, you stated that the funding of suicide bombers did not have an impact on Americans.

I have been a hawk concerning Sadam before the Gulf War because of his stated goals. His using chemical weapons against Iran and his own people never set well with me. His launching Scubs towards Israel during the 91 gulf war only reflected his goal of starting a regional war. I'm not a fan of Iran or North Korea either.

The make-believe story line". It still wouldn't have justified what generals and national security folks are calling the "worst strategic mistake in US history." is nonsense. The worst strategic mistake in the last 40 years was by Jimmy Carter and his advisers, letting Iran collapse into a reglious nightmare, second is Clinton's nuclear deal with North Korea and failure to stop the pakinsan nuclear development. Today, Clinton's people are too busy rewriting history to cover their willfull blindness to world problems. (ie. the massive deaths in Afica countryside by death squads)

Why Jimmy Carter; If Iran did not collapse, Iraq would not have developed into the problems that exist today. That would have slow the extremist Islam movement, how much is truly hard to determined, but Iran gave the extremist the belief that they could have countries under their control.
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:27 PM
api:

No one is saying Saddam is not a bad man, but I can name you a handful of equally bad rulers who do terrible things to their people who the administration supports.

We have never gone to war for high moral reasons only for commercial gain and national security. The Iraq thing gives neither. The administration has tried to deceive us that national security is an issue but their lies have been long been exposed. If this war secured us oil, and cheap oil to as we deserve for our fighting I would support this war, but only a few individuals and corporations have got wealthy here while America gets further into debt. The true patriots, t hoses with American ideals are the ones you have been deceived into seeing as subversives. Wake up man.

craftech wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:37 PM
Buster,
You see what I mean? Apit is proving the points I made above. How can anyone who takes the time to investigate the truth compete with wholesale media misinformation? People just don't have the time to dig for the correct information. They pick their favorite media outlet/s and scorn the others taking false comfort in the same misinformation presented under their favorite cloak.

John
busterkeaton wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:59 PM
My point was the Israeli sucide bombings don't justify this war and its costs and how it limits American options. We have expended Amercia power and we have not gotten the result we wanted. Now we are stuck in the current dilemna where the best chance for stability seems to be with the Shiite majority who are aligned with Iran.

Whether or not Saddam was a bad guy is not the point. This is the false choice that Bush offered up. The point was what is the best decision for the USA? Yes, he used chemical weapons against Iran, and, more importantly, the Kurds. His launching of Scuds against Israel was an impotent tactic of dictator whose army was being smashed. I have no doubt that Saddam would love to take over the Middle East, the point is he couldn't achive his goals. Hell, I would like to direct the highest grossing movie of 2006, but time is running out on that one. Saddam was much, much weaker in 2003 than he was in 1991 but Bush and others presented him a direct threat to the US which he was not.


The decision to invade Iraq was 100% up to us. That is to say, it is a crisis of our own creation.
Is that really comparable to when the Shah fell which was not fully under our control. The Shah had virtually no popular support left, what could we have done to prevent the revolution? The Shah saw the monarchy was going to fall before we did. What were the chances of success?
Coursedesign wrote on 6/7/2006, 7:59 PM
If this war secured us oil, and cheap oil too as we deserve for our fighting I would support this war...

The way it has gone so far is that Iraq now produces only half as much oil as before our assault, and it looks like the production trend is down.

This has contributed to oil prices going up.

Amazing how our "commie pinko media" has totally missed this point. They must be serious Bush bigots to brush off this gigantic mistake.

From what I heard on the radio this week, there now seems to be a movement building up rapidly to impeach you-know-who.

Would be sad to see an innocent hurt, but somebody has to take responsibility for the coming 20 years of taxpayer suffering to pay for this massive booboo, and the value of lost goodwill internationally which won't exactly help our exports (there are still a few people making stuff in the U.S., we're not totally a burger flipper economy yet).

I can imagine also countries worldwide updating their military manuals to delete all references to the Geneva convention ("why should we care when the U.S. doesn't?"). Really a fine example, and a nice addition to "we reserve the right to use our nuclear weapons preemptively, no different from what the U.S. does."

The remaining sociopath dictators of the world will now feel morally superior when torturing foreigners and their own citizens.

All they have to do to disable U.S. criticism is to designate them "unlawful combatants," and they immediately get a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card.

"Hey, we are just following the example of God's anointed representative on Earth. How can that be wrong? {snicker, bwah-hah-hah-ha!}"

Now is definitely the time for a few good men to come to the aid of their party.

busterkeaton wrote on 6/8/2006, 1:45 AM
Link

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida-linked militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said Thursday.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a house 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala.

''Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated,'' al-Maliki told a news conference, drawing loud applause from reporters as he was flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
apit34356 wrote on 6/8/2006, 2:19 AM
Thanks busterkeaton for the news flash. Lets hope the DNA confirms this and some of brutal killings stop. Maybe some of the troops can come home a little sooner and the spending will see better returns. Zarqawi seen to enjoy killing for intertainment as well as for his causes. Again, thanks for the news flash...... and I was just reviewing the Times website!
craftech wrote on 6/8/2006, 5:19 AM
Crafttech, your looking at the world thru "Moore Vision".
=========
Despite your claim that your rhetoric comes from first hand experience, you just proved my point again with that statement. Those who know better than to believe the misinformation spewed by our (R) party, this administration, and the media that avidly supports them both at the expense of the public created the "Michael Moore supporter" label during the last election campaign in 2004. Detractors = Michael Moore supporter = "liberal". All nonsense spewed by those easily led by the same media that ensured the re-election of George Bush and is now actively discrediting Democrats to make sure our (R) party retains it's power to abuse the public without media attention in 2006.

John

Wonderful news regarding the death of al-Zarqawi. Best news I have heard in a long time. It is also worth noting however that the total number of Iraqi suicide bombers BEFORE we stuck our nose into Iraq was ZERO.
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/8/2006, 8:46 AM
I wish I had "Moore Vision" - he was four years ahead of the average American Joe.

apit34356 wrote on 6/8/2006, 11:45 AM
"Despite your claim that your rhetoric comes from first hand experience", Crafttech,
are we in denial of anything that doesn't fit your picture of the world.

Another un-important real fact, I known Micheal Moore( a real boring story) for a long time, and he does what you claim the media does for the "R" party for the "L"s. Moore has made a lot of money being the "bomb" thrower for the "L" and loves he the limelight,( thats ok, too). Micheal has a great sense of humor, but its usually at some else expense. He doesn't do well when he is the focus of "the Moore" style of interview

The problem is that Moore just re-edits, re-edits, and re-edits until the content states what he wants, not what the person actually stated. For films that are make-believe, thats great, but claiming something is a docu about real events is really over the top, ie, claiming real Iraq news reporting( when the SW free lance reporter was paid by Moore to stage those reports for this movie).

Micheal has been sued many times over his "creative editing" and he has lost the cases. He now claims that the movie was his creative interpetion of events and does not claim to be a factual docu. But if really you think Micheal's spin is true, ok, if you believe his interviews are the real thing, check out these people, most are willing to talk. You claim to do research on political topics, if you like to talk with one or two, I'll help you meet them in person ( will try to ), or you just look at the raw footage in the "public domain".


Coursedesign wrote on 6/8/2006, 12:31 PM
When it comes to the issue at hand, whether a third of the troop number recommended by the Army Chief was sufficient, we don't need an academic analysis to see that it wasn't close to being enough.

The country is out of control, it is NOW crawling with terrorists (who stayed away before due to a life expectancy rated in hours if they got into the country), Iraqi oil production is half of what it was, we are getting deeper and deeper into this quagmire, and the country could have been restored to being net productive in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, if we had sent more troops.

Of course, another alternative would have been to send a thank-you card to Saddam for keeping terrorists out of Iraq at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

That would have cost, what, 60 cents for a stamp, and would have done a lot more for U.S. interests than the current mess.

apit34356 wrote on 6/8/2006, 1:03 PM
Coursedesign, not to change subjects, but let us know how your medical review goes.
My favorite brother-in-law then thru a 5 year wait for his medical waiver to clear, but the paperwork followup I think was the problem. He did not have a real problem, but the dr noted a concerned about his recent ck-ckbm's (this around 1996). The trouble was he never had any ck-enzymes done. So, lets us know.
Coursedesign wrote on 6/8/2006, 1:33 PM
My favorite brother-in-law then thru a 5 year wait for his medical waiver to clear, but the paperwork followup I think was the problem.

That's why I want help from AOPA's medical department, they have looong experience with what actually works (which may not necessarily follow FAA's simplistic instructions).
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/8/2006, 1:52 PM
In his film making I think Michael Moore is like the cop who knows you are guilty but can't prove it so he puts some dope in your pocket. Very wrong in law but maybe OK in politics when you are fighting such enormous wealth and corrupt influence.

apit34356 wrote on 6/8/2006, 2:21 PM
My brother-in-law was just about to give-up, but I think the 10,000 questions about why he wasn't flying at the holiday dinners and the questions about his flying club fees by the kids pushed him to proceed.

Someone should do a short docu about flyers who have to fight the system to enjoy a great hobby. My B.i.L. is really happy that he did get re-stated. On his last trip to the Islands, he rented a small plane and he & wife shot some good/great pictures from the air.

In the old days, you could take friends on a small flight to a remote airport with a nice restaurant or go to Metro with no hassle. You still can do it9small airports), but it just doesn't seem as interesting.
jwcarney wrote on 6/8/2006, 2:51 PM
I"ve been waiting to see if this was brought up, but with so may posts I got bleary eyed trying to go through them

I understand you can request TSA inspect your luggage at check in, then lock it before it gets out of your sight. To hell with the people behind you in line, hehehe.
craftech wrote on 6/9/2006, 4:16 AM
But if really you think Micheal's spin is true, ok, if you believe his interviews are the real thing, check out these people, most are willing to talk.
==============
????????? Didn't you read my response ? YOU brought up Michael Moore because you apparently like cliche's. I could care less about Michael Moore. Media people and right wing pundits like equating a two-bit filmmaker with those in the mainstream media who are entrusted with and expected to tell the truth. I am amazed that ANYONE of average intelligence buys the equation.
Read my response again.
And (not that I really care either way) this statement:
"Micheal has been sued many times over his "creative editing" and he has lost the cases" I believe to be FALSE. Show us the proof.
I know he was just sued by a vet last week (I know because the media is playing it up), but to my knowledge he has never been successfully sued to date.

John
Steve Mann wrote on 6/10/2006, 12:07 AM
"So, don't be surprise if you vectored to a close but smaller airport at any of the big airports"

Not true at all. If you have a slot in the computer (I.E., you're on an IFR flight plan), there's no legal way for the controllers to divert you to another airport. None.

Also, as mentioned previously, the problem is the mix of different speed aircraft - I stipulate that it's the inexperienced light airplane pilot that causes the problems.

If I am flying into a Class-B airport, I plan an approach speed of 120 KTS. I fly the approach at 75% power and I cross the fence at 120-130 knots in my single-engine Cessna Cardinal. Often faster than 727's and 737's landing on the parallel runway.

At SFO the touchdown point is "anywhere past the intersection of the cross-runway", which still leaves me a mile to slow to landing speed and exit the runway. Much more than enough.

It's fun to hear a controller ask me to slow my approach - "you're overtaking a Lear on final". As happened on our last flight into Palomar airport near San Diego.

It's all in the technique.
Edward wrote on 6/10/2006, 8:52 PM
coming back to hawaii from vegas, the TSA clan stopped my wife and i. they called us the 'special' passengers, literally. gave us the whole tour of the 'take off the shoes' chair, and the metal detector dance dance revolution. (arms up, arms down. leg up, leg down - do this to the macarena song) out of 10 couples that passed, we were the only ones singled out.

Sheesh, i didn't know there were such things as Samoan terrorists. Don't they know I look like the Rock? WE ALL LOOK ALIKE! Maybe that's why i got all the attention. wow. i do feel special.

Thanks TSA.
Logan5 wrote on 6/10/2006, 9:52 PM
bigsole,
You must have had the look of freedom on your faces.

Next time, don’t smile; look downward so as to not have your head too high.
And as I’ve found out the hard way – never roll your eyes or show body language that you don’t like the TSA search.

You must comply with the police state, or they will demonstrate their power.
Edward wrote on 6/12/2006, 2:10 AM
it's funny you said that, my wife and i, you would figure they would understand, we being very cooperative, sorta like showing the 'aloha' spirit. i guess they mistook it as 'jihad'.

i'm over it tho. no biggy. just thought i'd add to the fray.