Janet Napolitano by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Janet Napolitano

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5013
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:09 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
its fundemental... and its maddening that privatizing security is not part of this whole debate. we've accepted the premise that government decides what the conditions of flight are.
Good point, antimason. Definitely something to consider.

Airline 1: "We cut costs in security so we can pass those savings, AND conveniences, to YOU. (Waiver of indemnity in event of terrorist attack required before purchase."

Airline 2: "We crawl up everyone's ass, including yours, to look for bombs. But you can't get a higher terrorist-free guarantee anywhere else. Children get a free book, 'My First Cavity Search' with purchase."

I would love to see who gets more business. LOL

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

Airline 1 will get the bulk of the business, right up until the next 9/11 attack, at which point they'll be out of business under a deluge of lawsuits avalanching down on them from the families of the victims of the next WTC...

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I wonder if some kind of insurance could be purchased by the airlines to cover the cost of lawsuits and repair in the event of an attack? If there was a cap on damages, it might work. Say, each passenger insured to 100,000 dollars, assume 5,000 victims of any plane crash, and assume 100 million in damages to structures. That'd be less than 200 million in insurance, yes? If a 1 million dollar policy costs about 700 bucks, then a 650 million policy would cost 455,000 dollars per year per crash that they want to be insured against. I believe that many airlines could afford such an insurance. Moreover, they might get discounts to the insurance for doing things like putting a security guard on every flight, or taking other security steps. Each airline could then establish its cost/risk basis with their insurer. And the insurer would only have incentive to give discounts for security measures that are actually deemed effective.

It's actually not a crazy idea.

--Anthony

EDITED FOR BAD MATH SKILLS

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...they'll be out of business under a deluge of lawsuits avalanching down on them from the families of the victims of the next WTC...

That's why everyone who uses them has to sign a waiver. It's like a "Use-at-your-own-risk Airline."

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:01 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...they'll be out of business under a deluge of lawsuits avalanching down on them from the families of the victims of the next WTC...
That's why everyone who uses them has to sign a waiver. It's like a "Use-at-your-own-risk Airline."

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

You're missing my point though: I'm not talking about the families of those on the plane; they signed a waiver (which a good attorney could get thrown out anyway...). I'm talking about the folks in the buildings and on the ground, who never got a say in whether or not some nutter decided to go kamikaze on their asses. THOSE are the people who will bury the airline under a fusillade of lawsuits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 5:02 PM

ANTIMASON

im telling you guys, its fundemental- no one has a greater incentive to protect ones property, then the actual property owners(in this case the individual airlines). removing the liabilities for safety from the airlines, and placing that responsibilty on a removed, impersonal third party-ie the government- is very likely counterproductive. the reality is, government is incapable of protecting us. we're talking about beauracracy- which does nothing as effeciently as the private sector. the government was in charge of security before 9.11, and even WITH the intelligence, were still incapable of acting swiftly and accurately. just as the saying goes, you cannot sacrifice liberty for security without losing both(or deserving neither).

if one truly wants to live in a free society, we have to accept some risk in life- that unpredictable things can and do happen. the odds of dying in a terrorist/plane strike is mathematically nill. in fact, its likely the next attack will happen somewhere else; in that case, will we resort to this type of government harrassment at bus stops, trainstations and subways? nevermind that the government has no authority, or rights, that we as individual citizens do not. if we cannot grope and fondle people, neither can a TSA worker. to allow this kind of blanket intrusiviness is to allow a horrible precedent to be set. instead, we would be much better off in trusting the individual property owners to secure their planes in a way they see fit. if a customer chooses to accept heavy screening, it is by mutual consent, as an agreement of flight- which is entirely acceptable. right now we have a situation of forced screening as a condition of flight, which in my mind has got to be unconstitutional. private planes arent screened by government workers, and yet they could just as easily be hijacked and crashed into buildings. yet, we trust them with their own security. this is no different. its just a matter of philosophy- do we believe government can protect us from cradle to grave, or are we responsible for our lives(and liberties)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:30 PM

PERFESSERGEE

_________________________________________________

From Canttakesky:

From Michael Roberts, the first one to refuse to be scanned or pat-down, a working link to the video where a 3 year old screamed "Stop touching me!"

http://fedupflyers.org/

He brings up some very good points in his article, I think, including:

Quote:
Watching it again, notice the TSA official’s comment that screeners should “come up with some kind of game” to entice children to be inappropriately touched by strangers. Such deceptive tactics come right out of the child abduction/pedophile handbook, no?

Makes me shudder.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.
________________________________________________

I looked at this video, and speaking as the father of a 4-year-old, I was utterly enraged and appalled, but at 2 things. One was the TSA pervert molesting a little girl. She and all of her supervisors should be fired. But I was equally appalled that her dad just stood there and filmed the assault on his child. Not that there's much he could actually do, but he should have at least protested. Steam is still coming out of my ears..............

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:24 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Oh, I get it. I'm only posting this because she's a Democrat. If this were Chertoff, and Bush or some GOP were President, I'd be defending the move as an regrettable but prudent move, blaming the war on terror and bad mouthing certain Muslims.

Seriously, who's totally o.k. with any of this ?

Think, before you post.

Apparently some posts have been deleted.

I was chagrined to note you made no mention of the fact that if you decline to be scanned or stroked, or decide to not fly and want to go home, TSA can fine you $11,000 for no credible reason.
THAT is an indefensible policy, Janet Incompetanto should be fired.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE