Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Mutiny on Flight 613

  • Thread starter Thread starter FN FAL
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 30

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
V1cutsrfun said:
Kruschev said it best: "you will sell us the rope that we use to hang you."
Well we aren't selling rope right now, but the ACLU is paving the way for these individuals so they have a protected sanctuary in which they may commit acts of terror. all the while saying they are doing it for your own good....just to make you sleep better at night.

Congrats hook , line and sinker.....:uzi:

Show me some evidence, not some lame idea based on blind hatred of liberals, but actual evidence that the ACLU...to qoute you is creating a "protected sanctuary in which they may commit acts of terror". Please enlighten me. I really, really want to know where this is going on. Maybe then we could alert the authorities.
 
AirBadger said:
Show me some evidence, not some lame idea based on blind hatred of liberals, but actual evidence that the ACLU...to qoute you is creating a "protected sanctuary in which they may commit acts of terror". Please enlighten me. I really, really want to know where this is going on. Maybe then we could alert the authorities.

Apperently you missed the point....Just put your head back in the sand already.

BUT....Remember when your head is in the sand, your A$$ is still fully exposed, so dont be suprised when you get screwed, its your own dang fault. Unless thats of course how you like it.....but don't expect to get a reach around from an arab,,,just a guess

V1
 
Last edited:
V1cutsrfun said:
Apperently you missed the point....Just put your head back in the sand already.

BUT....Remember when your head is in the sand, your A$$ is still fully exposed, so dont be suprised when you get screwed, its your own dang fault. Unless thats of course how you like it.....

V1

No I pretty much grasped your point...you blame liberalism for terrorist attacks. Gotchya. If my head was in the sand and I didn't care, would I be here arguing the issues? And please don't bring up anymore homosexual references, I really couldn't care less what you do in your personal life.
 
V1cutsrfun said:
Apperently you missed the point....Just put your head back in the sand already.

BUT....Remember when your head is in the sand, your A$$ is still fully exposed, so dont be suprised when you get screwed, its your own dang fault. Unless thats of course how you like it.....but don't expect to get a reach around from an arab,,,just a guess

V1


You sound like someone that spends everyday living in fear. Fear of things you don't understand...which seems to be a great deal. I'd say the terrorists have already "screwed" you.
 
Hi!

ACLU's position on gun rights is interesting. It mirrors my personal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but I thought this interpretation was not in line with what the founding fathers meant in the Bill of Rights.

What are the arguement(s) that say the ACLU is wrong? I have 4 guns, and definitely don't want the government taking them away from me, but I have no problem with regulating guns.

cliff
YIP
 
V1cutsrfun said:
Apperently you missed the point....Just put your head back in the sand already.

BUT....Remember when your head is in the sand, your A$$ is still fully exposed, so dont be suprised when you get screwed, its your own dang fault. Unless thats of course how you like it.....but don't expect to get a reach around from an arab,,,just a guess

V1

You are just sounding paranoid now.

This country was founded in partly because people wanted to worship freely and not be oppressed for their beliefs. Yet here you are debating against the same principle that brought people to America.

How many people have Christians killed over the course of history? Plenty of atrocities have been commited by people of all races and creeds.

If it is such a problem for you, don't go fly on a commercial airplane. The muslim person sitting next to you paid for a ticket jsut like you did, that allows them the same privelages as you. You said it yourself flying is a not a right. So why do you feel it is your right to pick and choose who flys on the plane? If you ask someone to get off your airplane you better have a better reason than because they look like a terrorist, you better have proof that they are acting strange. It is a good way to open your company to a nice lawsuit. It is illegal to refuse service based on race, religion, age, gender, and sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
atpcliff said:
What are the arguement(s) that say the ACLU is wrong? I have 4 guns, and definitely don't want the government taking them away from me, but I have no problem with regulating guns.

cliff
YIP

Ah, but now you must define "regulate." Regulation can be made so onerous that the practical effect is an outright ban on ownership. Let's say you had to pay a $1,000 annual tax per weapon per year, had to take 5 written tests, had no speeding tickets in your lifetime, etc.

Most of the current laws I have no huge problem with, but it is not a big jump into new laws that effectively ban firearms while not explicitely doing so.

OTOH cities like Morton Grove IL have simply written into their city ordnances an outright ban.
 
vetteracer said:
SEE THIS IS THE PROBLEM, the government or the "officials" are spineless cowards cowtowing to the needs of the ACLU and the minority sector. WE THE PEOPLE THE MAJORITY, need to stand up and take charge. Tell our elected officials WHAT WE WANT, not just accept what they decide for us.

...and our president still breaks bread with Muslims in the White House...and we have a picture of him holding hands with a Saudi prince in Crawford,TX....how cute is that???

Tejas
 
skiandsurf said:
I flew out of DEN the other day ( post recent threat). The security lines were terrible. Here is my idea at the "bigger" airports.

Have seperate security lines...

1 line for airport employees.
1 line for wheel chair pax.
1 line for first class pax.
1 line for ALL Foreign looking people and those with foreign passports...(american indians, samoan, mexicans, terrorists)....


...I know it might be considered "profiling", but its time to get real about this problem.

No "MIGHT" about it. It's the way it should be.
 
atpcliff said:
...but I have no problem with regulating guns.

Regulate guns? You can regulate possession of guns and you can regulate importation of guns, but gun regulation is done though various buffer assemblies, fire control mechanisms, bolt and bolt carrier weight, bolt locking mechanisms and gas port settings.

Gun possession is already regulated under various state and federal laws, most of the federal ones can be found under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986.
 
FAA Considering Passenger Ban

WASHINGTON, DC—Seeking to address "the number-one threat to airline security," the Federal Aviation Administration announced Monday that it will consider banning passengers on all domestic and international commercial flights.

"In every single breach of security in recent years, whether it was an act of terrorism or some other form of crime, it was a passenger who subverted the safety systems on board the aircraft or in the terminal," FAA administrator Marion Blakey said. "Even threats that came in the form of explosives inside baggage were eventually traced back to a ticketed individual. As great a revenue source as they have been, passengers simply represent too great a risk to the airline industry."

Under the proposed reforms, the FAA would institute a strict ban on adult passengers, passengers 18 and under, international travelers, and domestic customers. A battery of questions and ID checks will be used to determine whether an individual is a pilot, flight attendant, or federal security officer—the only humans who will be allowed to board an aircraft flying within or headed for the U.S.


In addition, security sensors installed at all gates will sound an alarm if they detect the presence of a 98.6-degree body temperature, and airport-security workers will be trained to spot and positively identify humans in the boarding area.

"Frankly, we've tried everything else," Blakey said. "We've put up more metal detectors, searched carry-on luggage, and prohibited passengers from traveling with sharp objects. Yet passengers still somehow continue to find ways to breach security. Clearly, the passengers have to go."

If approved, the new restrictions would go into effect sometime around Thanksgiving, before the busy holiday travel season. Customers who have already purchased tickets for flights scheduled to take place after the ban's enactment will receive a voucher good for travel to their final destination by bus or train. Should such transportation prove unavailable or inadequate, passengers on most major airlines will receive either a portion of their airfare refunded or a coupon redeemable for a future flight, from which they will also be banned.


"We realize that these new regulations would, for many air travelers, be a major inconvenience," Blakey said. "But we feel strongly that it's a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our skies."


While the ban's primary purpose would be to improve security, FAA spokesman John Gemberling said it would help the airlines' economic future, as well. As evidence, he pointed to the $7.7 billion losses posted by major airlines in 2001—much of which came in the wake of Sept. 11—and the $6 billion increase in passenger-screening costs since the tragedy.


"We've been stretched as thin as we can go," Gemberling said. "New bag-tracking measures ensure that a passenger is on the same flight as his or her luggage, but do little to eliminate the threat of said passenger placing an explosive in the luggage. All bags are currently being screened with bomb-detection machines, but even these $1 million devices are only equipped to detect a limited range of the most conventional explosives."

Added Gemberling: "They're certainly not going to be much help stopping the next guy who wants to blow up a plane with something like a shoe."
Even the stiff measures included in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which President Bush recently signed into law, have proven inadequate.
"Improved explosive-detection systems, fortified cockpit doors, more plainclothes sky marshals aboard planes, and mandatory anti-hijacking training for flight crews—none of it could eliminate the possibility of another Sept. 11 with 100 percent certainty," Gemberling said. "This will."
"We've tried every possible alternative, but nothing has worked," Gemberling continued. "For all our efforts, we keep coming back to the same central problem: humans."


Courtesy of The Onion
 
AirBadger said:
While the NSA was found to have broken the FISA laws, our country still needs an organization dedicated to electronic surveillance of potential threats. However, I do believe that these operations should be conducted within the confines of the law. If the government wants to survey citizens without warrants, the citizens should be the ones who get to decide whether to allow that sort of thing or not. And the tracking money thing, everyone knew we were tracking the financial details of terrorists, it's nothing new. Back before 9/11 an article was written about how SWIFT worked with the CIA tracking finances of Bin Laden. Even the administration talked about how they track terrorist finances. If someone doesn't want information leaked, they need to tighten the leash on their employees, because the government knows by now that the media loves to get the big scoop first.

If you google the NYT article from late June you can see that the Bush administration asked the NYT not to publish the article , but they did anyway. The media does love big scoops, however some also love to damage our country given the chance. They have chosen sides on the war and will take every chance to harm this administration. Not all media but the NYT does.

CLAMBAKE
 
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The numbers don't lie folks.

I love how people love to dig up stuff from 1066 and say, "look at what the Christians did in the middle ages! See they are evil too." Islam was spread by the sword, often by small groups undermining the trust of others before turning on them. Read the history of how muhammed conquered mecca.
 
Icelandair said:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The numbers don't lie folks.

I love how people love to dig up stuff from 1066 and say, "look at what the Christians did in the middle ages! See they are evil too." Islam was spread by the sword, often by small groups undermining the trust of others before turning on them. Read the history of how muhammed conquered mecca.
This is where the peaceniks above are missing the boat. Its about the suitcase bomb in your towns, stupids.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom