Travelers Complain About Lost Property

[BigDyl]

Do you like mine?

I see you're trying to fit in with the cool crowdmeow.

 

[min0 lee]

I see you're trying to fit in with the cool crowdmeow.

Aren't we taking the Dog down?


I chose this Avatar because it reminds me of the nights I mounted Godhand.

 

[BigDyl]

Aren't we taking the Dog down?

meah. your in.

 

[KelJu]

Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your blatent stupidity in these matters.

I'd pity you but you are too blind to know otherwise.

Props on the insult! I have to admit that, but you still never said where I am wrong.

I have been digging for an article from over two years ago by CBS which had done a poll regarding people's opinions about the, then current, airlines. Basically, more people were citing new security measures and longer checks and delays as a reason for why they didn't like to fly. Maybe somebody else can help me find that.
Its common knowledge that the airlines took a huge hit after 9/11, but why?
Are less people flying because they are scared to be flown into a building, or because the new security measures are such a pain in the ass that many people will avoid flying unless the absolutely have to.
I live 6 hours from Atlanta. It is almost fucking faster to drive then it is to fly because there is so much bullshit at the airport that I would have to go through.

The odds of being killed during a terrorist attack on a plane are less likely then being stuck by lighting while posting on IM. While I post on IM, I am risking my life more than flying on a plane.
But, I am not going to fly; because of the ridicules shit I would have to put up with at the airport. I believe that most other people feel the same way. So, adding more stupid shit to the security measures is going to help what? Its just going to drive away more people. Pretty soon everybody is going to find a way to do exactly what you said and "stay the fuck at home".

I would also love to hear your opinion of why so many carriers hit the shit? Its funny that so many airlines hit the shit, yet Southwest doubled their profits. If it were fear of another 9/11, don't you think all airlines would have gone bust?

Well, we both know that is absurd, so I am claiming that shitty customer service and bad business decisions are the cause of the airlines going to hell in a hand basket.

 

[kbm8795]

The recent turn of events is not so different in principle. A group of individuals have found a way to exploit a weakness in the security system and they have demonstrated a clear desire to inflict as much death and destruction as can possibly be achieved. As a result, the presiding authorities have placed additional restrictions on EVERYONE to intervene in the terrorist???s plot.

It should be noted???. You CAN still travel with your personal hygiene products and liquids. You just have to check them with the regular baggage. The reason for this is because the X-ray/Metal detectors at the security checkpoints cannot detect the myriad of explosive compositions that the checked-baggage machines are capable of.

The United States had the technology and the equipment to examine liquids - however, Homeland Security was dragging its feet on implementation and further testing. Meanwhile, the President is reported to have shifted money around for bomb detection equipment and left $200 million that had been designated for security unspent. Another brilliant example of our government working overtime to protect the American people.


If checked baggage was more reliable, most people wouldn't be packing these things in their carry-on luggage.

 

[kbm8795]

Wow.. I gave you more credit than that: Resort to name calling if you must, I'll stick to the topic.

..and I don't affiliate myself with a party either, I just particularly hate liberals. The democratic party has become a haven for ultra-liberals, so in turn I hate the democratic party. In the end, all politicians are self-serving assholes.. so no, I don't consider myself a "slave." I'm conservative.. Republicans pretend to be when it wins them votes. Same story for Bush: I liked him until he started being run by the polls. Now he's just another politician.

It's interesting to note that you don't seem to barf about being associated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Rev. "monarch of America" Moon, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and that host of clowns which head up the religiously correct movement. They call themselves "con-servatives" too - with emphasis on the "con."

What do I think should be done? I say we make all muslims empty out all of their shit. Muslims only. Don't like it? Tough shit, don't fly. All Muslims aren't terrorists, but all terrorists ARE Muslim. The minute we stop this bullshit political correctness the safer we are going to be.

"political correctness?" What about the "Christian" terrorists in this country? All right wingers...McVeigh...then the dude who set the bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Park. .. maybe you should memorize fewer cliches and start actually thinking about extremism in ALL its forms.
I say we should make all con-servatives empty out all their shit as well. All they talk about is war.

 

[Vieope]

Airports dumping toothpaste, lip gloss and wine

That would never happen to min0. He or she would drink all the wine, brush many times his teeth, put on some lip gloss and kiss the guards there. All in front of them.

 

[JohnMac]

Looks like another fascist intrusion into my life by the Bush Administration for no good reason.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sdrobny_060812_airport_insecurity.htm

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_060811_rob_kall_3a_terrorist_.htm

Looks like socialism to me. I figured you would love that idea kbm. Instead of taking people's money and giving it to the trash of the country, they skip a step and take people's belongings and give it to the trash of the country.

 

[fufu]

My friend of mine said they won't allow any carry-ons whatsoever on planes. The ignorance and blatant exageration of some people!

 

[JohnMac]

Bush Administration Cut Funding For Explosives Detection
by Hunter
Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 02:38:10 PM PDT
This story from the AP's John Solomon has been rightly making the rounds, and deserves a highlight here too:


WASHINGTON -- While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology. [...]

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.


Even the congress was baffled by the requests to divert money away from explosives detection, which were rejected by lawmakers. Solomon's report also points out delays in deploying cheap, effective trace explosive detectors to key foreign airports.

Inexplicably, the Bush administration has been and continues to actively fight against some of the most effective measures around for preempting potential terrorism -- more effective security, explosives detection R&D and deployment. As the report said, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars of funding went unused, and even then the administration was still making cuts.

One of the most dangerous qualities of this administration is incompetence in the fight against terrorism. They have been so focused on expanding presidential powers, selling Iraq, re-selling Iraq, demonizing opponents of Iraq, and trying to use other regional chaos as excuses for broadening the failures of Iraq that they seemingly have no actual time in their day to fight the real battle -- real, bona fide terrorism of the sort that the world can expect to face.

But just think about this for a minute, if your head can stand it. The Bush administration and Republican congress has been dishing out homeland security funds as basically a pork racket, with little actual relationship to real-world targets or needs. At the same time, a mere six million dollar program to detect the kinds of explosives planned for use in the alleged U.K. terrorism plot, as well as past known terrorist plots, was cut by the Bush administration.

The cost of the Iraq War is currently over three hundred billion dollars. The cost of ongoing Bush administration and Republican tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans is in the hundreds of billions. The cost of researching tools to better detect explosives known to be used by terrorists in the cut program was six million dollars.

Six million dollars for explosives detection is roughly two thousandths of one percent of the current cost of the Iraq War. The Bush administration wanted to cut it.

And then they have the audacity to paint their political opponents as "weak on terror".

I've got an idea: maybe President Bush can hold a $750,000 Crawford dinner and fundraiser to help finance homeland security efforts that the administration wants to otherwise cut. Six million dollars is a drop in the bucket for a typical Republican campaign season: maybe some of the wealthy donors that have profited so handsomely from the GOP obsession with tax cuts could kick a little of that newfound money back our way to help fund proper security at our airports.

 

[GFR]

another glittering example of how scary it would be for a lib to be in the white house. way too weak on defense when we can't afford to be. You're living in the clouds & obviously have no concept of the evil we are dealing with.

Well a "lib" as you call them would not be invading every country on the planet like the Republicans do so we would not be as hated then son.

You reap what you sew......live by the sword, die by the sword...ect...ect.....

 

[Witmaster]

Props on the insult! I have to admit that, but you still never said where I am wrong.

I have been digging for an article from over two years ago by CBS which had done a poll regarding people's opinions about the, then current, airlines. Basically, more people were citing new security measures and longer checks and delays as a reason for why they didn't like to fly. Maybe somebody else can help me find that.
Its common knowledge that the airlines took a huge hit after 9/11, but why?
Are less people flying because they are scared to be flown into a building, or because the new security measures are such a pain in the ass that many people will avoid flying unless the absolutely have to.
I live 6 hours from Atlanta. It is almost fucking faster to drive then it is to fly because there is so much bullshit at the airport that I would have to go through.

The odds of being killed during a terrorist attack on a plane are less likely then being stuck by lighting while posting on IM. While I post on IM, I am risking my life more than flying on a plane.
But, I am not going to fly; because of the ridicules shit I would have to put up with at the airport. I believe that most other people feel the same way. So, adding more stupid shit to the security measures is going to help what? Its just going to drive away more people. Pretty soon everybody is going to find a way to do exactly what you said and "stay the fuck at home".

I would also love to hear your opinion of why so many carriers hit the shit? Its funny that so many airlines hit the shit, yet Southwest doubled their profits. If it were fear of another 9/11, don't you think all airlines would have gone bust?

Well, we both know that is absurd, so I am claiming that shitty customer service and bad business decisions are the cause of the airlines going to hell in a hand basket.

Ok well... Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I was out to dinner.

Look, It's really not my intention or motive to insult you. Still, you continue to digress into areas that only serve to further illustrate your ignorance in this matter.

You're trying to turn this duscussion into a "Carrier bashing" session (as if the carriers had anything to do with these new security measures) after YOU YOURSELF said...

Btw, its homeland security that is advising the airports when and what to do. Now has the airports EVER not followed homeland security's advisories?
The answer is no. Tell me I'm lying.

Make up your mind... is your disatisfaction with the new security standards set by DHS or are you just pissed at the airlines? You're not being consistant.

You mentioned Southwest Airlines. Well... here's a newsflash for you. You cannot take liquids on their airplanes (as carry ons) either. Maybe you should call their hotline and voice your dissaproval so someone else can tell you how misdirected your complaints really are.

 

[Witmaster]

The United States had the technology and the equipment to examine liquids - however, Homeland Security was dragging its feet on implementation and further testing. Meanwhile, the President is reported to have shifted money around for bomb detection equipment and left $200 million that had been designated for security unspent. Another brilliant example of our government working overtime to protect the American people.


If checked baggage was more reliable, most people wouldn't be packing these things in their carry-on luggage.

Yea, and as a Monday-Morning quarterback you make an All-Star player too.

It's quite simple. Check your precious toothpast in checked baggage or stay the fuck at home.

 

[squanto]

Why do you need to bring liquids on the plane, in carry-on luggage?

If you need to bring liquids or gels in carry-on luggage, is it acceptable to test them before the flight? You will be using them on the flight, otherwise it would not be important to take them as a carry-on.

If you have other circumstances, pleace consult the flight operators, and they may be able to help meet your needs.

Otherwise, you are not allowed to fly. Sorry. We wish we could help you, but you are just too fucking weird for our standards.

Are the people running this country concerned in the well-being of the citizens in this country?

Or is everyone a greedy piece of shit?

Or is everyone scared?

Else if;

I really have no opinion in the matter. It doesn't affect me, except that in theory I will be safer from a "terrorist" attack. In theory it could fuck some people over. In theory it could save some lives. Which theory do you believe, so strongly that the other theory is wrong? Are you right?

Discuss.

 

[busyLivin]

It's interesting to note that you don't seem to barf about being associated with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Rev. "monarch of America" Moon, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and that host of clowns which head up the religiously correct movement. They call themselves "con-servatives" too - with emphasis on the "con."

What's interesting to note about that? Am I obligated to mention every "con-servative" I don't agree with? The point I was making was in regards to the White House, thus I mentioned Bush. You're fishing...

 

[busyLivin]

Well a "lib" as you call them would not be invading every country on the planet like the Republicans do so we would not be as hated then son.

You reap what you sew......live by the sword, die by the sword...ect...ect.....

You're foolish to believe that many Arab countries wouldn't hate us if we hadn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[GFR]

You're foolish to believe that many Arab countries wouldn't hate us if we hadn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

We did much more than that son, we have close to 100 years of mingling that they hate us for. Read a history book some time.

 

[busyLivin]

We did much more than that son, we have close to 100 years of mingling that they hate us for. Read a history book some time.

but only by the Republicans, right?

 

[GFR]

but only by the Republicans, right?

No, unlike you I blame both parties for the problems in America. I have bashed both many times....you should try it some time.

 

[busyLivin]

I have bashed both many times....you should try it some time.

I think I did in post 21 of this thread.

 

[GFR]

I think I did in my first post of this thread.

Nope.

 

[busyLivin]

Nope.

edited

 

[busyLivin]

No, unlike you I blame both parties for the problems in America. .

you just got done saying libs wouldn't invade everyone like Republicans do & make them all hate us. Make up your mind

 

[GFR]

you just got done saying libs wouldn't invade everyone like Republicans do & make them all hate us. Make up your mind

Yes and I never listed all the fucked up things both parties do other than start wars.