Comments on: Aircraft ban on liquids, gels ignored http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/ Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: david jackson http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11189 david jackson Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:24:55 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11189 The stupidity is continuing a year later. Rules asy 100ml sized liquids only . e.g. NOT a litre. But 10 100ml are allowed ! Stupidity. Worse is that a terrorist aware as we all of the restriction, would simply place the quantity he required into a zip`lok bag and hang it in his trousers. Putting expensive perfumes and deodorants in checked luggage is a risk. I personally have had many items stolen out of checked luggage, which promotes the inevitable question " If baggage handlers can steal and remove items from secure areas, it MUST be simplicity for the same persons to place item s IN the luggage" . There's a BIG loophole and security risk that nobody ever mentions. Stop these ludicrous ineffectual rules, and fire most of the passenger security people. Reduce waiting times,and airport running costs . I don't believe it would allow terrorists into aircraft any more than now. The stupidity is continuing a year later. Rules asy 100ml sized liquids only . e.g. NOT a litre. But 10 100ml are allowed ! Stupidity.
Worse is that a terrorist aware as we all of the restriction, would simply place the quantity he required into a zip`lok bag and hang it in his trousers.
Putting expensive perfumes and deodorants in checked luggage is a risk. I personally have had many items stolen out of checked luggage, which promotes the inevitable question ” If baggage handlers can steal and remove items from secure areas, it MUST be simplicity for the same persons to place item s IN the luggage” . There’s a BIG loophole and security risk that nobody ever mentions.
Stop these ludicrous ineffectual rules, and fire most of the passenger security people. Reduce waiting times,and airport running costs . I don’t believe it would allow terrorists into aircraft any more than now.

]]> By: Michael Hampton http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11188 Michael Hampton Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:09:30 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11188 Actually it's more like one in a hundred million. You're more likely to die from a lightning strike on a clear, sunny day. Is all this "security" worth it? It MIGHT be, if it were actually security, rather than a sick dog-and-pony show put on by incompetent morons who wouldn't know security from their own asses. As for the Democrat thing, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no Democrat, and you'll get a lot farther by engaging in actual thought, rather than blindly obeying the propaganda you've been fed. Actually it’s more like one in a hundred million. You’re more likely to die from a lightning strike on a clear, sunny day. Is all this “security” worth it?

It MIGHT be, if it were actually security, rather than a sick dog-and-pony show put on by incompetent morons who wouldn’t know security from their own asses.

As for the Democrat thing, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m no Democrat, and you’ll get a lot farther by engaging in actual thought, rather than blindly obeying the propaganda you’ve been fed.

]]> By: Billy bob http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11187 Billy bob Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:27:29 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11187 You all must be democrats... blind to the idea that our gov't is actually trying to protect us. You wouldn't be complaining if one of your relatives died on a hijacked plane... even if 99.9999% of people had no ill-intentions with a bottled water, that still leaves one out of a million, or many times a year in the USA that we would have problems. I bet most of you that are complaining also avoid paying your dutifull taxes. Simma down and say thank you every once in awhile and be grateful for living in the best country in the world :) You all must be democrats… blind to the idea that our gov’t is actually trying to protect us. You wouldn’t be complaining if one of your relatives died on a hijacked plane… even if 99.9999% of people had no ill-intentions with a bottled water, that still leaves one out of a million, or many times a year in the USA that we would have problems. I bet most of you that are complaining also avoid paying your dutifull taxes. Simma down and say thank you every once in awhile and be grateful for living in the best country in the world :)

]]> By: TSA allows small amounts of liquids, gels - Homeland Stupidity http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11186 TSA allows small amounts of liquids, gels - Homeland Stupidity Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:51:35 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11186 [...] After the plot was disrupted, Homeland Security officials announced a nearly total ban on liquids and gels in carry-on baggage, and adjusted the rules slightly three days later, a ban which air passengers grudgingly accepted at first, but later came to despise and openly flout. [...] [...] After the plot was disrupted, Homeland Security officials announced a nearly total ban on liquids and gels in carry-on baggage, and adjusted the rules slightly three days later, a ban which air passengers grudgingly accepted at first, but later came to despise and openly flout. [...]

]]> By: Bugs 'n' Gas Gal's Lair http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11185 Bugs 'n' Gas Gal's Lair Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:09:00 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11185 <strong>travelers luggage at mercy of crooked TSA employees...</strong> I just noticed this post, Aircraft ban on liquids, gels ignored, on the Homeland Stupidity blog. Some good comments that I can relate to but probably should not comment on, but here’s the one that got me because I was traveling last week and wil... travelers luggage at mercy of crooked TSA employees…

I just noticed this post, Aircraft ban on liquids, gels ignored, on the Homeland Stupidity blog. Some good comments that I can relate to but probably should not comment on, but here’s the one that got me because I was traveling last week and wil…

]]> By: Brian http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11184 Brian Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:20:49 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11184 Oops. I meant to say "this is all about reaction and NOT being proactive." sorry :( Oops. I meant to say “this is all about reaction and NOT being proactive.” sorry :(

]]> By: Bbrian http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11183 Bbrian Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:19:58 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11183 <blockquote cite="Todd Tyrtle">My question regarding this whole thing is why does it take a “near catastrophe” (if you believe the news) before the TSA actually does something. If the possibility is out there, why did they wait until a big scary threat popped up before checking for it? Likewise, why are the terror alerts only going up after something happens, never before? Okay, perhaps they do go up before elections.</blockquote> Because this is all about reaction and being proactive. If he TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, USA, ABC, 123,.... were completely focused on protecting citizens, they would not wait around for something to happen. However, since the ultimate goal is to create an Orwellian nation of mindless sheep, generating endless tax dollars, reaction is what is desired. By only reacting, the government can create a desired reaction in the populous - fear. This can be used to control us and strip us of our rights. By reacting to incidents, the governement can say "See we told you something bad was going to happen. Now give us all your rights and we'll keep you safe. We promise. We're the governement. We'd never hurt you. Oh but you can't take your wallet full of money on the plane. Money is flammable and therefore a travel and safety hazard. Give us $20 and we'll let you mail to yourself in this envelope. After we take all the cash out of course. ANd oh hey, thats a nice watch..."

My question regarding this whole thing is why does it take a “near catastrophe” (if you believe the news) before the TSA actually does something. If the possibility is out there, why did they wait until a big scary threat popped up before checking for it? Likewise, why are the terror alerts only going up after something happens, never before? Okay, perhaps they do go up before elections.

Because this is all about reaction and being proactive. If he TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, USA, ABC, 123,…. were completely focused on protecting citizens, they would not wait around for something to happen.

However, since the ultimate goal is to create an Orwellian nation of mindless sheep, generating endless tax dollars, reaction is what is desired.

By only reacting, the government can create a desired reaction in the populous – fear. This can be used to control us and strip us of our rights. By reacting to incidents, the governement can say “See we told you something bad was going to happen. Now give us all your rights and we’ll keep you safe. We promise. We’re the governement. We’d never hurt you. Oh but you can’t take your wallet full of money on the plane. Money is flammable and therefore a travel and safety hazard. Give us $20 and we’ll let you mail to yourself in this envelope. After we take all the cash out of course. ANd oh hey, thats a nice watch…”

]]> By: Johnny America http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11182 Johnny America Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:46:07 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11182 It is prophet your moron, not profit. And as for the citizen-detective 'Redmond James' shouldn't he have the intelligence to make coherent statements before he comes to the 'test-run' conclusion based upon his (paranoid) perceptions? It is prophet your moron, not profit. And as for the citizen-detective
‘Redmond James’ shouldn’t he have the intelligence to make coherent
statements before he comes to the ‘test-run’ conclusion based upon his
(paranoid) perceptions?

]]> By: Dave http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11180 Dave Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:42:21 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11180 If you think this country is secure, take a drive from San Diego over to, say, the middle of Texas. Mile after mile after mile after mile (some 1200 miles) of wide-open, unprotected border. Anybody could march right in any time they want, and they have, by the milllions in recent years. The government is full of shit. If you think this country is secure, take a drive from San Diego over to, say, the middle of Texas. Mile after mile after mile after mile (some 1200 miles) of wide-open, unprotected border. Anybody could march right in any time they want, and they have, by the milllions in recent years. The government is full of shit.

]]> By: Donna http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11181 Donna Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:36:00 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/15/aircraft-ban-on-liquids-gels-ignored/#comment-11181 Dave-I think you are right. Since the Government refuses to secure the border the border we have to assume they want it wide open. You can guess why. Dave-I think you are right. Since the Government refuses to secure the border the border we have to assume they want it wide open. You can guess why.

]]>