http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28773212/detail.html As a reminder, the TSA was created by George W. Bush and is strongly supported by Barack Obama.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stillo-describes-sexually-assaulted-TSA.html? As a reminder, the TSA was created by George W. Bush and is strongly supported by Barack Obama.
Man, that's really terrible, isn't it. D'yer think they'd have film of the incident? Y'know, so we can see how shocking it is for ourselves.
I don't know what you might be trying to accomplish by continually calling out Obama's support of these TSA policies. I will vote for Obama in 2012 barring a primary challenger from the left, but I abhor the TSA, as I imagine most liberals do. Can't we focus on the policy itself by calling attention to the inherent problems with it, rather than using it simply as a means to attack the president?
Sure, you are welcome to post your thoughts on this topic. I do think that it is important to continually point out when a policy that is on its face awful is supported by people who have power over people's lives.
Yes, I do believe we can agree on this: the TSA is one example of a governmental institution that has grossly overextended its reach into the everyday lives of Americans. It causes embarrassment and inconvenience in a facet of life, travel, that affects millions of people across the country. Yet why, when we have conversations about government overreach, it is hardly ever mentioned? Why do so many of our politicians say that regulation of the financial services industry, for one example, or recycling mandates, for another, are cases in which the government goes too far, but rarely does one hear an advocate of limited government advocate the overhaul of the TSA? I think that this is one area where those who share the Tea Party's ideology should focus, if they want to find sympathy for their limited government philosophy.
Absolutely. Well, I started this thread to be mostly about the TSA (it's the gift that keeps on giving), so I certainly am. Other people do care about it. Why do we not hear about it more? Because the candidate you have pledged to vote for supports this (remember his passionate defense when the controversy happened earlier this year), and thus will not criticize the institution. Additionally, the people in the other party generally (Ron Paul being a notable exception) support it as well (though they may focus on the occasional overreach to score points). So the mainstream politicians won't talk about it, which generally means the media won't talk about it. The Tea Party (of which I do not consider myself a part of) doesn't really focus on civil rights much, and the one candidate who does, and who polls as well against Obama as the ones who don't, is largely ignored by the media because he "doesn't have a chance".
http://us.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/09/08/muslim.travel.experience/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 One of the legacies of the attacks of 9/11/2001 given to us by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
That high speed rail line in California? Not arriving any time soon: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/02/110211-news-bullet-train-1-3/
There have been some astonishingly poor alignment, unnecessary grade separations and technology decisions made on the Peninsula part of the HSR. Operations and cost have been second fiddle to handing out contracts and special city-specific requirements throughout this process. The process has been akin to a team of BigSoccer posters designing a soccer-specific stadium without Segroves there. If you are interested in the politics of the Bay Area with respect to the CAHSR line, this blog is a must read, btw: Caltrain-HSR Compatability. The linked article has a good breakdown of where the latest cost estimates all went wrong. The blog as a whole has been an indispensable chronicler of the follies of the Bay Area segment planning of the HSR. In hindsight, if they cut SF and the Peninsula out of the first planned phase and went to LA-Sacramento instead this thing might have had a chance to be built. Heck, the more difficult Bay Area segment would have a better chance of being built if the LA-Sacto was up and running first because the will to get things done and not fart around with these decisions would be there with an existing segment in operation.
On a brighter note. There is hope after all... (If im not mistaken, the frame is a hoppity-hop gymnastics ball...) http://www.e-volo.com/Home.html http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/03/8617095-manned-electric-multi-copter-takes-flight
Engineering marvel or future White Elephant? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-mountains-20121113,0,4082877.story?track=lanowpicks
Ever wonder why you have to turn off electronic devices on planes? Well, according to the FAA, um, ******** you. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/f-a-a-rules-make-electronic-devices-on-planes-dangerous/
The FAA is completely ********ed in the head on this issue. There is ZERO evidence that a cell phone or iPad will do a better job than Al Qaeda in bringing down an airliner. But you have to love flight attendants on a power trip who call the cops because some passenger who was sick of her BS attitude told her she had a fat ass.
So it's okay to turn on your "electrical devices" in flight, but somehow near/on the ground they are a mortal threat? BULLSH!T.
Is there any possibility than an electronic device could be created or modified, to interfere on-board with the operation of an aircraft, or with communications between cockpit & tower? Should this risk be ignored, so that we don't impede passengers from updating their Facebook status to "sitting on the runway". You have to love passengers who are on an ego trip and yell at some polite flight attendant that they're sick of her attitude, and that she has a fat ass. Being hauled off by the police, is the least of the punishment they should receive. Is this a subject to be debated on-board, with a flight attendant, along with standard directives to sit up straight, wear your lap belt, and don't smoke in the toilet?
I guess if such a device were available everyone on board would be toast. Just need to keep the phone out of sight...hit send (maybe "end" is more appropriate).
Resist the urge to maintain constant contact with your mommies. Also, if your hands aren't free, you can't provide the beat:
WTF are you talking about? Do you have proof that leaving your phone on while the plane is on the ground is more dangerous than turning it on at 20,000 feet? No, you don't. And sorry, I didn't know you were a stewardess.
Maybe you should buy your own plane and make your own rules. Or are you too poor? LOL! Don't tell me what to do! FREEDOM!
I, for one, am dismayed that this discussion has lasted this many posts without a Replacements reference.......you ain't nothin but a waitress in the sky.
And the sign says, "Turn off electronic devices until the pilot says ok" My own sign says, "I'm sorry, I'm Facebook checkin'."