[ctt1wbw]

So how can Ivana Trump be kicked off an airplane for doing what every human being wants to do (yell at brats running up and down the aisle) but someone with a chemical bomb in their underpants can get on a plane and stay there?

[The Final Dakar]

Yes, how does someone hiding something where no one checks get on an airplane. Truly, this question ranks up there with Fermat's Last Theorem.

[ctt1wbw]

Anyone ever tell you that you are a horse's ass?

[besson3c]

I did one time, but he just continued to sass me.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Anyone ever tell you that you are a horse's ass?

No one whose opinion mattered.

[SpaceMonkey]

If we had only asked Batman about this earlier, I bet he could have stopped it.

[Doofy]

Doof has chemical bomb in his underpants, baby!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Doof has chemical bomb in his underpants, baby!

Have you ever recorded your farts?

[Dork.]

No, I think he just ate too much curry.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you ever recorded your farts?

No. Iz much too sophisticated for that kind of thing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Iz much too sophisticated for that kind of thing.

My ass you are. The better question should have been "how many different effects have you applied to your farts"? I'm sure you've at *least* applied some reverb, huh?

[Uncle Skeleton]

All my farts need is more lens flare. Can anyone tell me how to add that?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My ass you are. The better question should have been "how many different effects have you applied to your farts"? I'm sure you've at *least* applied some reverb, huh?

Well you see, my dear fellow, when I was talking about possessing a chemical bomb in my underpants I was talking about my plums and the associated delivery mechanism. This is because I'm all European and sophisticated and stuff. But then you colonials come along and assuming that I was talking about my bottom, which shows a supreme lack of sophistication on your part. I cannot help that, since it is within the colonial nature to talk of such things - and even make televisual entertainment regarding such (see Terence and Philip show on Canuckistani television as perfect example).

I may, on the other hand, have sampled and effected noises relating to the former chemical bomb. Maybe.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well you see, my dear fellow, when I was talking about possessing a chemical bomb in my underpants I was talking about my plums and the associated delivery mechanism. This is because I'm all European and sophisticated and stuff. But then you colonials come along and assuming that I was talking about my bottom, which shows a supreme lack of sophistication on your part. I cannot help that, since it is within the colonial nature to talk of such things - and even make televisual entertainment regarding such (see Terence and Philip show on Canuckistani television as perfect example).

I may, on the other hand, have sampled and effected noises relating to the former chemical bomb. Maybe.

Like you peeing?

You are no more sophisticated than my ass can make muffins and do my taxes, hippy.

[macforray]

Plums???

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All my farts need is more lens flare. Can anyone tell me how to add that?

Careful, or JJ Abrams will draft you for his next film.

[lpkmckenna]

Since the shoe-bomber lead to up removing our shoes, with the undie-bomber lead to removing our gitch? Or will Americans waste their dollars on hi-tech strip search machines?

[andi*pandi]

We're this close to wearing paper hospital gowns on airplanes. This >< close.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

New restrictions are terrible... can't have a carry-on when flying to the States? No liquids at all? Must stay seated in the last hour of flight?! The typical knee-jerk reaction to an isolated act of incompetence I suppose... wreaking havoc with air travelers at the minute though.

greg

[The Final Dakar]

Air travel could desperately use suspended animation.

[smacintush]

What is the problem? This is what we get when government "takes care of us". Just wait until TSA unionizes so performance can go down even more and costs can go up.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, how does someone hiding something where no one checks get on an airplane. Truly, this question ranks up there with Fermat's Last Theorem.

He may be an ass, sometimes, but bringing in Fermat Last Theorem with your question is pure genius.

And yes I do realise that I am feeding him ammo, but this sort of retort just has to be congratulated.

But anyway, back to your question (from a person who has had too much to drink at lunch) : Who the f**k cares about Ivana Trump?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What is the problem? This is what we get when government "takes care of us". Just wait until TSA unionizes so performance can go down even more and costs can go up.

But haven't small-government advocates on this very board exhibited a willingness for the government to "take care of us" and "infringe our personal freedoms" in order to combat potential terrorist (or otherwise) threats against America?

I have a hard time logically differentiating these arguments sometimes.

greg

[The Final Dakar]

They aren't "true" conservatives.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

So how can Ivana Trump be kicked off an airplane for doing what every human being wants to do (yell at brats running up and down the aisle) but someone with a chemical bomb in their underpants can get on a plane and stay there?

Umm, because you are basing your argument on a comparison of things that are acceptable (yelling at screaming kids, carrying explosives on a plane) instead of a comparison of things that are detectable.

What both Trump and the Nigerian did are NOT acceptable on airplanes. Ivan Trump's actions were detectable, and detected, and she was bounced off the plane. The Nigerian bombers actions were NOT detectable, and thus not detected, thus he could not be removed from the plane.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What is the problem? This is what we get when government "takes care of us". Just wait until TSA unionizes so performance can go down even more and costs can go up.

So, I take it then that you are in favor of removing all the extra security measures performed by TSA by doing away with the TSA altogether.

(For me, I would love to see the TSA--and the entire Department of Homeland Security--done away with. No matter how much money our government spends it will never be able to keep us free from all possible terrorist attacks, either foreign or domestic. Therefore, I would rather our government spend a whole lot less money on terrorist prevention because I see much of the money we spend now as completely wasted.)

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, I take it then that you are in favor of removing all the extra security measures performed by TSA by doing away with the TSA altogether.

(For me, I would love to see the TSA--and the entire Department of Homeland Security--done away with. No matter how much money our government spends it will never be able to keep us free from all possible terrorist attacks, either foreign or domestic. Therefore, I would rather our government spend a whole lot less money on terrorist prevention because I see much of the money we spend now as completely wasted.)

There have only been two things that have improved security since 9/11: the securing of the cockpit doors and the fact that passengers know now to try and stop a hijacking.

All the other bullshit that happens before you board a plane is pointless security theater. So I'd agree - getting rid of the TSA would be a very good thing.

[subego]

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But haven't small-government advocates on this very board exhibited a willingness for the government to "take care of us" and "infringe our personal freedoms" in order to combat potential terrorist (or otherwise) threats against America?

I have a hard time logically differentiating these arguments sometimes.

greg

Maybe it's because you don't understand the distinction between wanting a small government serving its proper roll and wanting anarchy.

Keeping the country secure is the government's roll, enforcing laws that help secure our personal safety is the government's roll, taking 70% of our money and giving it to the poor, and to bailing out corporations is not its roll. Neither is taking our money and using it to control healthcare and provide insurance for everyone, or micromanaging private business and industry. These things create or exacerbate the problems we see today, not solve them or improve them.

That being said, the TSA and the DHS is a misguided idea implemented under the banner of "good intentions" just like nearly all of the projects, programs and departments that our government undertakes. They rarely have anything close to the desired results and when they do, they come at a far greater cost than would have been had in the private sector.

As jokell82 said, securing the cockpit and vigilant citizens have really been what has kept airline flight as safe as they have been, and it didn't require a huge, expensive government program to do it. Shocking.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As jokell82 said, securing the cockpit and vigilant citizens have really been what has kept airline flight as safe as they have been, and it didn't require a huge, expensive government program to do it. Shocking.

Do you think the private sector would have stopped at cockpit-locks, and not gone overboard with security theater?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

the government's roll

perhaps if we could get some government cheese to go with that roll, we could make a sandwich.