Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
TSA Could Ban Flights From Texas If State Passes Anti-Patdown Law
Airline is not a monopoly, but airport IS a government monopoly. We have no choice. If you have a sick parent that is in a critical condition and living few thousands miles away, you will have no choice buy fly. Sure you can drive, it will only take you days, and very well put yourself and people on the way in danger. What if this parent of yours is living at another continent?
Your logic is flaw. You are saying, if no TSA, then no security. If no TSA, everyone will carry bomb to plane.
You have to understand, there is nothing wrong with the security before TSA. If you don't think the security was not good enough, then hand the airports back to the private sector so they can decide what is the best measure that can generate the most revenue. After all, a non-secure flight is a no-flight.
When TSA move to train (which they are pushing now), then bus, then to public school. You will come back and argument, you have choice. You can drive and walk? You can go private school or home school?
As someone who have served this country, I do not appreciate the TSA.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
At the end of the day, what are you concerned about? Someone 'touching' you, someone seeing you 'naked'? Just curious because I really really really don't get it....
I will stand naked in front of the rest of the world laughing at me if it means my kids are safe... Maybe I will have to do that someday.
Whoa ... thank you for that &^%$#@ visual... what has been seen cannot be unseen... I need some serious mind bleach ... and for Gawd's Sake man... puleaseeee do not do that in front of the children....
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." --- "Therefore, I Believe it and I will see it. And every day and in every way, I am healthier, wealthier, and wiser."
the goverment has no right even to be at the airport,airports are privately owned and all airlines are privately owned so why is the goverment there,its a proven fact that private security is cheaper and can do a better job if trained properly.and some of you are comfortable giving up your privacy for security isnt that what all our founding fathers warned us about?...sharky
ps. when you start letting the goverment take they keep on taking and guess what they never give back what they took
But in this instance. The government has a vested interest in 2 respects.
1. Interstate commerce. This is a slam dunk. Flights that operate INTRA-state, could be considered outside the government's pervue with respect to the commerce clause. For any flights that are INTER-state or international, the Feds have sufficient power under the commerce clause. This regulates everything from standardization of procedures, dimensions, runway lengths, qualifications for pilots, etc, etc, etc. The Feds basically play judge and referee between the states to ensure fair and orderly commerce.
2. National security. Obviously for international flights, this is an easy concept. But even for domestic inter-state flights, as we saw in 9-11, aircraft can not only be weaponized and pose a threat to people and property, but also used as a direct weapon against the military. The list here goes on and on....customs issues (drugs, money laundering, human trafficking, etc, etc).
The other issue that's at play is the economic impact that an "attack" like 9-11 had on our nation. Just because one person decides "i don't care, I'll take the risk in order to skip the security hassle" there's a common and significant interest from all citizens to ensure flight safety.
Additionally, we're all scrutinizing and criticising policies without the full picture. The TSA gets their information from the DHS, NSA, CIA, etc, for credible and upcoming threats. This is exactly why the TSA puts policies in place for stuff like liquid restrictions, restrictions on nail clippers, knives, restrictions on electronic devices, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sure that everyone would love to do WHATEVER the hell they want. Some people want to smoke on planes. Some people want to get up and walk around on the plane whenever it suits them. Some people would love to talk on cell phones during the flight. Some people would love to stand up and get their overhead luggage while the plane is taxi'ing. Some people would love to take as much cologne, lotion, toothpaste, etc on board as they like.
some people would love to not have to turn on their laptops everytime they go through security. Some people would love to not have to take their shoes, watches, belts, rings, keys, etc off.
The bottom line is that when you ELECT to fly COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC transportation, you set aside your individual wants and desires and follow the rules. Some rules are there for personal safety, some are for orderly execution, some are for national security.
I think the TSA could do a BETTER job. But at the same time, I respect the job they're doing and I respect the FACT that flights are safer WITH their policies, than without them. I respect and acknowledge the fact that I'm risking my life and placing it into others hands when I fly (the pilot, the mechanic, the air traffic controller, the person who screens passengers to ensure they're not on the international watch list, etc, etc, etc.
This isn't a situation where the government is coming into your home and saying "grab your things, you MUST go fly and you MUST do it our way."
You elect to fly. You can live your life without flying. And if you must fly, then suck it up.
Now, in the interim, you can debate the effectiveness of the pat downs and whether or not they actually make things safer, but to argue that the government has no right or precedent to intrude in the affairs of air travel is just incorrect.
TSA More Likely to Focus Attention on Passengers Who Complain… About the TSA
CNN reports having obtained a list of some 70 “behavioral indicators” that TSA “behavior detection officers” (an actual term!) use to pinpoint potentially “high risk” passengers. Many of these are telltale signs of stress, fear, and the like. But one that stands out is (in the precise wording used by the TSA):
Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures.
Ya gotta luv the TSA....
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"
2 huh, always wanting to make things complicated...simplify, simplify, simplify... 2 word to that... El Al!
You don't have to give up your Freedom & Liberty for Security...just use Common Sense over PC.
This Memorial Day, remember the reason what/why these BRAVE Men and Women died for...
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." --- "Therefore, I Believe it and I will see it. And every day and in every way, I am healthier, wealthier, and wiser."
I would agree with you if you had responsible human beings 'responsible for the actions' at the end of the day. But in a world of "I'm a victim and it isn't my fault" and where making another buck over the validity of proper security, then I have to disagree.
Private companies don't always do it better, well, maybe more efficient, but not always more effective. I would not fly if each airport had its own independent security. I would charter.
No offence, but what an unfortunate portrayal of the American man to give an international audience, particularly on Memorial Day.
Something tells be you aren't Samoan.
If the fear of having to protect your children on a statistically proven safe trip is so acute that you would traumatize them with willingness to participate the past examples of dignity shedding behavior - here is a great site to look at.
I've had some instruction time from John Perkins only because I happened to meet him locally. Aside from having a great heart - he is one of the best at what he does period - no baloney.
After 9/11 he was hired to train the Federal Air Marshals.
After Pope John Paul was shot he was hired to train his personal bodyguards.
He's trained some of the most highly trained soldiers America produces.
He was Malcolm Forbes personal bodyguard way back. I'll stop with the sales pitch (all true).
Just please don't start accusing other of being untrustworthy, manipulative saboteurs for not pandering to your most particular of emotionally driven delusions. I don't dislike you but it had to be said by someone.
oh, please say it aint so...naked, blue...really? 
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." --- "Therefore, I Believe it and I will see it. And every day and in every way, I am healthier, wealthier, and wiser."
