More TSA fun and excitement

[WabiSabi]

bump....

 

[AWACoff]

Profiling isn't based just on what you look like. It can't be very difficult, El Al has done it for years and everybody wants to kill them. It just costs money.

 

[neflier]

They already took my lighter for cigarettes away long ago. I don't mind seeing the health-nut, bottled water freaks suffer now.

Granted, it may not have the detracting health consequences, but constantly swigging on bottled water in public like you're hydo-obsessed is as bad a form of etiquette as blowing smoke in someone's face. It's really irritating.

When you smoke, you exhale. Drinking water all day would only be bad etiquette if I urinated on your face when I finished the bottle.

 

[Guitar rocker]

here we go again:

I see you take after the great lier himself, ever hear of Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, etc etc, get your facts straight.

I dont think this waka kid has heard of any of the above mentioned places. He's just your basic dumba$$.

 

[ReverseSensing]

There is so much excellent shiznit going down in this thread, I peed a little with excitement.

Carry on!

 

[Ty Webb]

Can't be any worse than what the TSA screeners see in your bag as it goes through the X-ray machine. They probably get so embarassed they can't even look you in the eye. The thought of what you carry in there is disgusting.

You are one very weird and very queer dude. No wonder you got turned down by AirTran. Remind me to thank the interviewers next time I'm in World HQ.


.

 

[Uppercrust]

You are one very weird and very queer dude. No wonder you got turned down by AirTran. Remind me to thank the interviewers next time I'm in World HQ.


.

World HQ??:laugh: The link below has a picture of world HQ:laugh:

http://www.missouritrailertrash.com/non-mo.htm

 

[waka]

Benhuntn is right. Profiling involves taking people aside....those who look like the type. Hate to say it, but a few bad guys ruin it for everyone else. We know that there are good A-rabs out there, but just think what would have happened if the A-rabs in London got their wish and blew our airliners up? I am thinking that your tone would be somewhat different. Not to mention that you might be in the unemployment line along with everyone else.

I love the nobody died when slick lied. Take that crap to some political forum and leave it behind when yah come here.

the galactically ignorant strikes again. you telling me to take my posts to a political forum because of my :smash: SIGNATURE :smash: is like someone telling you to keep your posts on a music forum because of your name.....idiot

 

[AC560]

I urinated on your face when I finished the bottle.

What do you charge for something like that, PM me.

 

[MalteseX]

the galactically ignorant strikes again. you telling me to take my posts to a political forum because of my :smash: SIGNATURE :smash: is like someone telling you to keep your posts on a music forum because of your name.....idiot

So, your NAME is "No One Died When Clinton Lied"?

Take it to the political forum-- I'll second that! (glady joining the ranks of what WAKA terms the 'galactically ignorant')

Signed, "Legalize Prostitution"

PS... Back to the original topic; Made it through screening with all carry-ons, including liquids--at DTW. Asked the policy of the screening supervisor. He stated that "aircrew in uniform and with proper ID, can proceed with the newly prohibited items in their carry-on baggage". If not in uniform, it will not apply and you must check the bags or give up the liquids/gels. Doesn't matter if you are operating, jumpseating, or have a ticket."

 

[CatYaaak]

When you smoke, you exhale. Drinking water all day would only be bad etiquette if I urinated on your face when I finished the bottle.

So not only is your reading comprehension well below substandard, so is your threshold for good etiquette.

P.S.

Save your face-urinating for your boyfriend.

 

[Guitar rocker]

the galactically ignorant strikes again. you telling me to take my posts to a political forum because of my :smash: SIGNATURE :smash: is like someone telling you to keep your posts on a music forum because of your name.....idiot

Your name is fine. Names have nothing to do with it. Why are you letting politics make you such an angry young kid? Why cant you have something cool like:

"After Clinton lied and bit it, he never got to hit it."

You need a sense of humor kid.

 

[Napoleon TNT]

...next time I'm in World HQ.

Citrus has WORLD Haedquarters???

When did you open your Paris or Tokyo base?

 

[Ty Webb]

Citrus has WORLD Haedquarters???

When did you open your Paris or Tokyo base?

It's a joke . . . . . you must be wound a little too tight to get it.




/

 

[waka]

So, your NAME is "No One Died When Clinton Lied"?

no but, the analogy is that the name is in every post as is the signature. what matters is that the content of my posts fit the forum, not the name, not the signature. further, i don't need someone else to dictate what is in my signature.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

No one died when Clinton lied???

When you serve as President for two terms prior to 9/11 and handcuff your intelligence agencies during that time, you are more than a little responsible for what happens after the new guy shows up.

You should recall Somalia, the cole bombing and half-hearted cruise missile strikes against Bin Laden.

Having Clinton in office during that time was like having Johnson pick targets over lunch during Vietnam. Both Brilliant politicians who did great things, but colossally stupid (More likely knowing and not caring) about the War facing the country. Clinton has no excuse, he is far more intelligent than George Bush.

Whether or not Bush lied has nothing to do with Clinton's dereliction of duty and the harm HE caused.

 

[Guitar rocker]

no but, the analogy is that the name is in every post as is the signature. what matters is that the content of my posts fit the forum, not the name, not the signature. further, i don't need someone else to dictate what is in my signature.

Name, signature, content...bla bla bla. Take your Clinton politcal jargon and move on. It's getting really old. Everytime you make a post with that signature, are you not able to see that you are getting some rather negative responses just based on your worthless signature alone? Your have to be really thick headed to be unable to make that simple correlation.

 

[waka]

When you serve as President for two terms prior to 9/11 and handcuff your intelligence agencies during that time, you are more than a little responsible for what happens after the new guy shows up.

You should recall Somalia, the cole bombing and half-hearted cruise missile strikes against Bin Laden.

Having Clinton in office during that time was like having Johnson pick targets over lunch during Vietnam. Both Brilliant politicians who did great things, but colossally stupid (More likely knowing and not caring) about the War facing the country. Clinton has no excuse, he is far more intelligent than George Bush.

Whether or not Bush lied has nothing to do with Clinton's dereliction of duty and the harm HE caused.

I'll spell it out for you. Bush BLATANTLY lied about Iraq's ties to 9-11 and WMD's. HE is responsible for over 2600 deaths of US soldiers and countless more Iraqis. It is HIS dereliction of duty, more like high treason and he should be convicted and appropriately sentenced. You conservanazis love to pay lip service to Clinton's lying about a BJ. Nobody died from his lie about a BJ. Get it now?

Clinton actually increased the intelligence budget and his administration's passdown about intelligence suggesting that terroists were planning to use airliners as missles to Bush was ignored because Bushy boy was more concerned with cutting taxes for his contributors and shedding his cocaine snorting drunk college boy image. Clinton didn't lie about the reasons for our involvement in Somalia. He had nothing to do with the attack USS Cole.

Now stop letting Rush Limbaugh spoonfeed your politics to you and think for yourself.

 

[Guitar rocker]

I'll spell it out for you. Bush BLATANTLY lied about Iraq's ties to 9-11 and WMD's. HE is responsible for over 2600 deaths of US soldiers and countless more Iraqis. It is HIS dereliction of duty, more like high treason and he should be convicted and appropriately sentenced. You conservanazis love to pay lip service to Clinton's lying about a BJ. Nobody died from his lie about a BJ. Get it now?

Clinton actually increased the intelligence budget and his administration's passdown about intelligence suggesting that terroists were planning to use airliners as missles to Bush was ignored because Bushy boy was more concerned with cutting taxes for his contributors and shedding his cocaine snorting drunk college boy image. Clinton didn't lie about the reasons for our involvement in Somalia. He had nothing to do with the attack USS Cole.

Now stop letting Rush Limbaugh spoonfeed your politics to you and think for yourself.

I am sure that good ole Vince Foster would roll in his grave if he saw this bull $hit you just wrote. He was the man that was gonna air out some serious dirty laundry that Slick had. But, amazingly it didnt happen. Gun shot to the head.....remember?

So now your saying that nobody died about Slicks lie as it relates to a BJ? Mmmmm, yah, there were plenty of other lies but those dont count for the number of dead, right? All you are concerned about is anyone who may have died when Slick lied about his BJ.

Funny how you speak of derelction of duty....man, we had Osama in our crosshairs on Slicks time.....wasnt it Baker that was trying to hunt him down for hours but Slick was MIA as he didnt want to make a command decision and blow that A-rab to hell? Slick really blew that one. Oh yah, Slick also blew the invite from Sudan who actually HAD Osama in custody.....Slick just said no thanks to a wanted terrorist. Talk about dereliction of duty!

So W did some smack uh? Remember, Slick smoked the weed....oh but wait, he didnt inhale!

 

[pilot141]

Let's see.....I MedEvaced several USAF folks out of Saudi Arabia after the Khobar Towers were hit by a truck bomb.

19 Airmen died, and more than that were wounded.

This attack on Americans by Muslims was dealt with... how exactly?

Oh, that's right.....with NOTHING AT ALL.

I guess we'd rather feel good about some meaningless slogans than actuall WIN a war on terror.

BTW, I've got a new signature. I hope you all like it!

 

[jdec141]

waka is a liberal whack-job who believes that Clinton can do NO wrong.


well said!:beer:

 

[Thedude]

I vote waka in a the leader of the hug brigade. Since hugs is all the liberals seem to think that all the terrorist need.

Mayabe the para-hug brigade

 

[Sluggo_63]

I'll spell it out for you. Bush BLATANTLY lied about Iraq's ties to 9-11 and WMD's.

A cut and paste, but:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Book Antiqua,Bookman Old Style,Arial] "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
_______________________________________________________________
Although, I'm not happy with everything the current administration is doing, I know the difference between blatant lying and bad intelligence. The quotes above show that both sides knew/assumed the Iraqi government had WMDs (they had used them) and that they were probably a threat. A few of these quotes predate the Dec 1998 lobbing of some cruise missiles into Iraq. Most don't. Maybe Clinton thought that those missiles were enough to destroy Saddam's WMD supply, but probably not.

You sound like my 16 year old parading around in his Che Guevara t-shirt. Applauding the revolutionist who was also a mass murderer. Spouting vitriol culled from various websites, but not really thinking about the real world.

Just my opinion. It may be wrong.
[/FONT]

 

[SkiFishFly]

A cut and paste, but:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Book Antiqua,Bookman Old Style,Arial]"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
_______________________________________________________________
Although, I'm not happy with everything the current administration is doing, I know the difference between blatant lying and bad intelligence. The quotes above show that both sides knew/assumed the Iraqi government had WMDs (they had used them) and that they were probably a threat. A few of these quotes predate the Dec 1998 lobbing of some cruise missiles into Iraq. Most don't. Maybe Clinton thought that those missiles were enough to destroy Saddam's WMD supply, but probably not.

You sound like my 16 year old parading around in his Che Guevara t-shirt. Applauding the revolutionist who was also a mass murderer. Spouting vitriol culled from various websites, but not really thinking about the real world.

Just my opinion. It may be wrong.
[/FONT]

Excellent post!
Thank you for saving me a lot of work (I was thinking of doing something very similar).

Unfortunately the likes of Waka will refuse/fail to see reality.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Excellent post sluggo. And pilot141, I wanted that signature! I'll think of another one though.

Waka, take your lousy politics somewhere else. I think that you must live in Vermont and do some serious tree huggn and bark eating. Even Stevie Wonder could see this type of reality, but this nutcase liberal waka will never see it as such.

 

[waka]

A cut and paste, but:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Book Antiqua,Bookman Old Style,Arial]

You sound like my 16 year old parading around in his Che Guevara t-shirt. Applauding the revolutionist who was also a mass murderer. Spouting vitriol culled from various websites, but not really thinking about the real world.

Just my opinion. It may be wrong.
[/FONT]

You do your cut and paste (obviously from one site with an agenda) and you talk about spouting vitriol from selected sites? I'm not going to get into a cut and paste war because I could find whacky liberal sites that do the same. Random sound byte quotes are not what I'd call "thinking about the real world". It doesn't surprise me as the conservative agenda generally relies on one line sound bytes due to lack of substance.

Also, you refer to Guevera as a mass murderer. One's mass murderer is another's revolutionary hero. The Brits looked at American revolutionaries as murderers.

Okay Mister "Real World Thinker"?

 

[waka]

I am sure that good ole Vince Foster would roll in his grave if he saw this bull $hit you just wrote. He was the man that was gonna air out some serious dirty laundry that Slick had. But, amazingly it didnt happen. Gun shot to the head.....remember?

guitar rocker, i think that you're listening to too much Coast to Coast am. watch out for those black helicopters distributing chemtrails piloted by gay communist atheist aliens trained by Janet Reno!!!

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Today, 19:37

waka This message is hidden because waka is on your ignore list.



1 entry found for waka.

wa·ka n. A cross between wackjob and caca.

 

[Benhuntn]

Hey Waka the president is sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States. So tell me....When Clinton sent Ron Brown to China with leaders from a company in Atl. named Alstar, to sell them missle guidance systems was he fulfilling his legal duties? I could care less about his hummers but now that technology has been sold to Pakistan and N. Korea. Seems there should be more anger about that bone head legacy than his inability to control his predatory sex life....

 

[K-Mart]

Hey Waka the president is sworn to support and defend the constitution of the United States. So tell me....When Clinton sent Ron Brown to China with leaders from a company in Atl. named Alstar, to sell them missle guidance systems was he fulfilling his legal duties? I could care less about his hummers but now that technology has been sold to Pakistan and N. Korea. Seems there should be more anger about that bone head legacy than his inability to control his predatory sex life....

How do you know the guidance system technology was accurate? Maybe a ploy, maybe not.