MFFY at the Airport
in [Drive]
|
Prev: IF PRESIDENT REV. WRIGHT WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE MURDERING BABIES MOST BLACKS WITH STILL SUPPORT HIM
Next: If you can't miss a dump truck sitting in the road...
From: Brent on 8 Apr 2010 19:44 On 2010-04-08, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Both were definitely MFFY-tinged incidents even if that isn't the > whole story. You can express a problem with a security policy or > procedure without causing huge inconvenience for literally thousands > of others. What if it's the system that is the problem? That the system breeds MFFY behavior? We know it's the oppressive system of underposted speed limits that breeds LLBs and the like. I believe it's much more universal. It's the systems that breed the behavior. We see it all the time. Some new stupid law gets passed and we have a new form of MFFYism to go with it. The 55mph NMSL is probably the most obvious of them.
From: gpsman on 9 Apr 2010 01:39 On Apr 9, 1:12 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent > <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> said: > > >We know it's the oppressive system of underposted speed limits that > >breeds LLBs and the like. > > We know no such thing. Rut roh, k00k fight a'brewin'. ----- - gpsman
From: Brent on 9 Apr 2010 09:53 On 2010-04-09, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>On 2010-04-08, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Right now 3 terminals at LAX are shut down and hudreds of passengers >>> are standing outside because of a security breach. This was because >>> some MFFY ditched the secondary screening; the TSA selected him for a >>> wanding, but instead he grabbed his bags and ran. As a result they >>> completely evacuated 3 terminals, delayd hundreds of people for >>> several hours, and fucked up connecting flights all over the country. >>> All because one MFFY was [too important | in too much of a hurry] for >>> a pat-down. >> >>Um, do you feel the same about avoiding police check points when >>driving? Is that MFFY to you as well? > > Your analogy is pure fail. No, the fail is your inability to see the point. > If I avoid a police check point, will the cops roust everybody out of > their houses and screen them? If the system gets as controlling and police state like as the airports, that's pretty much what will happen. It's what things will be like if the airport security mentality is allowed to spread. > Unlike the airport scenario, nobody else gets fucked over if I ditch a > checkpoint on a public road. Until road checkpoints are done in the same paranoid police state collectivist government-school manner as the airports. When they aren't just for revenue and lazy police work any more but for our 'security'. The point you missed is that the problem doesn't sit with the guy who avoided a checkpoint, it sits with the system that treats people like it's some sort of POW camp where if one person gets out of line everyone must suffer.
From: John David Galt on 10 Apr 2010 20:23 On 2010-04-08 06:08, Scott in SoCal wrote: > Right now 3 terminals at LAX are shut down and hudreds of passengers > are standing outside because of a security breach. This was because > some MFFY ditched the secondary screening; the TSA selected him for a > wanding, but instead he grabbed his bags and ran. As a result they > completely evacuated 3 terminals, delayd hundreds of people for > several hours, and fucked up connecting flights all over the country. > All because one MFFY was [too important | in too much of a hurry] for > a pat-down. I hope he gets a decent lawyer and wins. The Constitution is supposed to apply throughout the country, including airports. 9/11 could not have succeeded if authorities hadn't already been "screening" the passengers at airports, thus making sure the law-abiding ones were all unarmed. A plane-load of average people will almost certainly include 5 or 10 who normally carry concealed (probably with permits you can now get in 41 states), and they would have done what was necessary. Certainly they wouldn't have been scared of five guys with box cutters.
From: Brent on 10 Apr 2010 22:03
On 2010-04-11, John David Galt <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > On 2010-04-08 06:08, Scott in SoCal wrote: >> Right now 3 terminals at LAX are shut down and hudreds of passengers >> are standing outside because of a security breach. This was because >> some MFFY ditched the secondary screening; the TSA selected him for a >> wanding, but instead he grabbed his bags and ran. As a result they >> completely evacuated 3 terminals, delayd hundreds of people for >> several hours, and fucked up connecting flights all over the country. >> All because one MFFY was [too important | in too much of a hurry] for >> a pat-down. > > I hope he gets a decent lawyer and wins. The Constitution is supposed to > apply throughout the country, including airports. > > 9/11 could not have succeeded if authorities hadn't already been "screening" > the passengers at airports, thus making sure the law-abiding ones were all > unarmed. A plane-load of average people will almost certainly include 5 or > 10 who normally carry concealed (probably with permits you can now get in 41 > states), and they would have done what was necessary. Certainly they > wouldn't have been scared of five guys with box cutters. Not to mention all the intelligence failures and failures of immigration policy. It's like DUI and everything else. Government's failure to use more than enough power to solve an issue results in less freedom for all of us. |