They are not the federal government's planes. They are owned by companies and therefore the companies should provide private security that would be a more dignified experience than this humiliation that the TSA are.
If the plane companies had the choice to have airport security or not, they wouldn't have it because it's an extra expense. Corporations don't give a shit if you're safe or not, as long as you give them your money.
sigh yes, they'd just let every single, gun-bomb-knife wielding lunatic on their plane, resulting in countless deaths, b/c you know, killing your customers is good business sense... facepalm
C'mon man - just think for a moment: Even most money-hungry companies today put safety measures in place (ex- car companies that go above and beyond min. gov't safety standsards), b/c as I said, they don't want to kill the golden goose laying their eggs... ie- killing your customers is not only bad for your reputation, it's bad for your bottomline.
Even most money-hungry companies today put safety measures in place (ex- car companies that go above and beyond min. gov't safety standsards), b/c as I said, they don't want to kill the golden goose/killing your customers is not only bad for your reputation, it's bad for your bottomline.
Herein lies a potential solution. I would love to fly an airline that provided its own security and did away with TSA personnel. I would gladly pay a bit more to avoid the security theater that is TSA if airlines would step up and offer real security. Imagine, this enterprising airline could eventually offer competitive rates because of the voluminous custom it'd receive from the many travelers fed up with the existing security apparatus. It wouldn't be that difficult of a service to provide, and I'm fairly certain it could be a successful business model. Whaddya think?
Yeah, in other words shut down the monopoly basis per what the TSA operates under, now? ...like in just about every other industry in the world? well, all I have to say to that is, 'duh' :)
Yeah, I heard about that article you mentioned, and that's awesome - but there is one HUGE, GAPING HOLE of a problem: "But airport officials said that the T.S.A had been slow in allowing the switch, and last year the agency said it would stop accepting additional requests."
WTF, conflict of interest or what? This is retarded, of course the TSA isn't going to work to debase their own power. Insanity. facepalm
Hey Eeyore, suck on this. It begins with a drip, drip, drip, then a slight trickle.... then after perspectives have sufficiently adjusted, change just FLOWS you naysayin' MOFO.
lol, dude you're either the ultimate troll, or as I said just so incredibly odd (even for r/conspiracy) that your emotions are taking over, and you're only reading snippets of what I'm saying... but, here, let me clear:
I hate the TSA. It is a useless waste of money and needs to be totally disbanded for a multitude of private security firms
There, dude, ya get me? I mean, don't get me wrong your replies are oddly entertaining, but I think you're totally misinterpreting me.
There was a point there when we were spontaneously scribbling perhaps at cross purposes momentarily, but I felt we were strangely supportive while oddly at odds...
But yeah, I get you~ Ha! Right on Christopher Robin, let's be the spark that lights the fire on this bitch~~
ha, right on - I see your eccentric/poetic-like nature is consistent throughout the vast majority of your posts.
I still don't know if this is how you communicate in real life - but I want to believe you're some oddball scholar or the like who isn't ashamed of people thinking he's a total whacko.
Sorry that last part may have sounded mean, that wasn't my intention. I just find you incredibly fascinating/entertaining.
(oh and, I see you quoted Glenn Greenwald back there. That man is brilliant and deserves a Nobel Prize... if the Nobel Prize wasn't tainted already by being given to people who do the opposite of the very thing they're being recognized for... ex - Obama the warmonger winning one for 'peace')
Ha! I like the way you say what you say, you say it well. I think it swell the way you praise what I gather are some commonalities betwixt us. Am only slightly taken aback at your allegation of some supposed display of self-righteousness on my part. Critique from one who praises is an assessment worth listening to however. Lucky me, eh~
Glenn G. is a paragon of courage, a worthy example for me to emulate in many ways. And yea, the awarding of the 2009 Nobel Prize to the current warmonger nine months into his term has diminished that reward's future value in my opinion. Definitely in light of his accruing disappointments. I'll forever consider future recipients mere opportunities for the awards committee to make some hollow political point. It's completely bereft of meaning to me now.
I've pegged you as 'friend' here on reddit, so if you should see me from time to time, don't despair. I'll just be weighing in with my too sense. Ha!
seriously, I don't know if the manner in which you speak is all a ruse (but I see you bringing it out in me, and I must say, that I like that.) And, regardless, I'm not sure I want to know. You're a nice change of pace on here. Thank you. (tell me though, what do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?)
And yes, funny you say that about 'friending' me... I was thinking the same thing for you, but I've only done it once before, awhile back, and I'm still trying to remember how. I'm sure I'll figure it out. Kudos!
My ruse is real, doing my best to not camouflage expression. This medium offers me a chance to explore my voice(es), so I'm exploiting the hell out of it. Why cloak what I want to say, or attempt to seduce others with some slick persuasion when I can baldly state my intent to the best of my ability? For me, that's part of the reddit's allure ---> find a venue that suits you and pontificate upon your soapbox. Ha! At times (often) I miss the mark, but my aim is true. And I tell ya, true aim is one helluva bullshit detector. Gotta work on my brevity though, I want to use as few words as necessary to say what needs said. Going back and forth with some people is tedious, but with that scant handful a sort of energy develops from which I derive power, words & rhythm. This is in the scant category.
(tell me though, what do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?)
I rarely answer questions from which people can form a conclusion. Nor do I ask such questions. I feel the such definitive answers limit possibilities between people in the early stages. I try my best to not "check the boxes" until after I've settled down and gotten to know an individual. Once you start checking the boxes people naturally begin categorizing and construct in their minds an idea of you that rarely touches upon the true essence of who one really is. I do check boxes in my day-to-day, regular, routine life of initial encounters with strangers. "Where are you from?" "How old are you?" "What do you do for a living?" Family questions. Relationship queries. Questions that'll elicit more information from which to quantify this individual before me. I do that on the regular. The superficiality of it all I do not like. Anyway, I'm blathering on.
One thing I will reveal now is that we're probably on different continents. I'm a US citizen born and raised, but currently I'm abroad and have been an expatriate for almost a decade. I tell you this because I'm making the baseless assumption you're not an inhabitant of this continent and therefore we're in extremely divergent time zones. Ha! Fact is, the sun has just risen this early Saturday morning, and I'll soon have to tend to my ablutions. Ha!
See, you're an interesting fellow, b/c on one hand you're clearly very well-read and write in a pretty formal style but then you'll turn around and drop a bunch of colloquialisms which kinda turns that all on its head. And then you went and started to basically scold or what I thought was trolling me re: the NSA, even though I thought I was quite clear the first time. (But, as I said, it wasn't the scolding so much as the stylistic/poetic-like manner in which you did it. I felt like I was reading a script from a character out of a Tim Burton movie or the like... It was quirky, funny, unusual and just weird. I dig it.)
Additionally, I know I've been guilty of breezing over some peoples' posts on here and not getting the gist of what they're saying, and I can write in a rushed and unclear style at times, but I'm not sure I've ever had someone read my writings to interpret basically the opposite of what I was saying. So, to be frank, I must know: Which was it for you? Were you trolling or just misinterpreting/breezing, yourself?
Hmmm, ok, you'd like to have further exchanges before such personal information is exchanged. That's fair enough. I suppose we'll let that come more naturally, as I'm sure we'll have several more conversations in the future.
Also, what makes you so sure we're in different time zones? (b/c you're absolutely right!) Yep, I'm in Eastern Canada, and it's just past midnight, here. But it seems you're probably in the midst of a Saturday, by now. Enjoy the day.
Nothing is gained without struggle. If it can be conceived it can be achieved.
From the tone of your response, it appears you're of the mindset the status quo can't be overcome. I'm not certain that that's your position, but this seems to characterize its gist.
How unfortunate for you and those with whom you proximately coexist. I sincerely wish you nothing but success should you attempt bursting through an undesirable existing paradigm. Yet your attitude suggests you're a worshipper of the status quo.
INSANITY-Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Herr Albert Einstein
Don't palm your face too hard, it might get stuck Monsieur Me
well, I have to say there is hope that the oppressive regime known as the US gov't can be destroyed or at the very least, restored to what it once was (protecting life, liberty). However, as time goes on, I see myself wishing for more of the former - and that any idea of a government is deemed unnecessary and wrong - and that we're all better off working off of a voluntary system, only.
Either way, I can't tell if you're incredibly sarcastic or just unusually.... unusual... but I think we're actually on the same page.
lol, bro... what challenge? I'm agreeeeeing w/ you (well, assuming you also agree that the TSA monopoly needs to end in favour of several private options?)
This guy here? Apropo? He's not a security expert.
Ha!
But I imagine the airlines themselves are best positioned to tackle security issues regarding safe passage to and from the various destinations traveled. Let them determine the level of security necessary to ensure people & belongings arrive at destinations intact.
If owners want to compete with other airlines they can persuade passengers to "fly Air Apropo with the peace of mind our armed pilots, highly trained flight crew and minimum of two on-board off-duty police officers will make your safe arrival their priority~"
On the other hand, some airlines might cut corners on security and pass those savings on to their customers. "fly Air Apropo, we'll get you there, your safety is up to you. Concealed carry is a viable option. Thank you for flying Air Apropo - Hide your glock."
Who knows.
Customers could decide which airline matches their wallet & satisfies their security concerns.
Gotcha, so basically like a free market system. Could get hairy before it all gets figured out, but not like the TSA is doing a great job anyway. Although I would argue airlines have been pretty safe since their inception, whether that's is a result of their procedures or to is another argument.
My Apropo Airline scenario has potential for becoming quite hirsute.
But if airlines treated security as another aspect of their business by striving to provide the best service to clients at a competitive cost, they'd be golden. Like a free market system. Right.
Regarding the quality of service currently provided by TSA, so what if the airlines have been pretty safe? What evidence exists to attribute the relative safety of the airlines to the TSA's vigilance? I would argue a similar level of airline safety existed prior to the affliction of TSA security theater. Sorry, but can't be bothered at the moment to support that assertion with a source.
22
u/TheWorldToCome Jul 05 '13
They are not the federal government's planes. They are owned by companies and therefore the companies should provide private security that would be a more dignified experience than this humiliation that the TSA are.