Exactly. Over at Propaganda Village, someone called Happy2Help said Oh. :rolleyes: Please. :rolleyes: There is just No Way that 67 countries did any "research" (the real science kind or even the TSA kind :rolleyes:) on combining liquid explosives. The fact is that 67 countries caved to the TSA's threats for international flights :td: but many of them refuse to play the game at home. ^ It's really deceitful (but what else is new?) for TSA to keep chanting "everyone agrees with us."

(And stupid claims like H2H's above always seem to come in the dying days of a post that's about to drop off the front page, so there's little point in replying... :( )

Here’s some more food for thought for the folks that don’t think the TSA is a dangerous mission creep entity. With LASP, the TSA has shown that they desire to regulate the travel of citizens in privately owned vehicles within our own border.

Now what if someone gets it in their mind that the next big threat will be Timothy McVeigh v2.0? Background checks and GPS transceivers for anyone that wants to rent a U-Haul? What about those big Winnebago campers?

Among personal friends (known >5 years) alone, I can think of at least five families who formerly enjoyed visiting the U.S. regularly, and have stopped solely because of post-9/11 security hassles. All are well-off, spent generously while here, and kept coming back because they enjoy aspects of our land and culture. One is the widow of an American. All are sufficiently fluent in English to comfortably travel unassisted. The pointless shoe-and-liquid hassles (which they do not suffer at home) become more difficult with the infirmities of increasing age, but their main objections are TSA/CBP hostility and stupidity. Insulting and complicated new visa requirements add salt to the wounds. They loved this country but now feel more welcome elsewhere. (This doesn't include dozens of conversations with casual acquaintances on long train rides, in museum shops, or businesses my expat relatives patronize.)

Among those under 30, the damage is worse. They believe untrue things about American life that are even more draconian than reality, and that all Americans who don't leave home are hostile to foreigners. They explore the whole world with backpacks and hostel passes, plan to continue traveling when they are older and more established, but fear entering the U.S.—including allied military vets!

Do you talk with anyone but tourism personnel when you travel? Do you stay with coworkers or friends and meet their neighbours, or only in hotels? Do you have expat friends or colleagues in the U.S. whose families live abroad, and hear their experiences coming here to visit? If not, try it, listen as well as talk, and see if your opinion remains the same.

I've gotten a taxi ride home with someone who literally thought that the CIA was trying to kill him with RF rays. Did I agree or disagree with him? Take a wild guess. There are people in this forum that are so polite that won't even use the term gate lice. Do you think that they would disagree with you on something you brought or or just vaguely nod their head? The subset of people who come in here is a small subset of the people on flyertalk. Not many rational, sensible people would think to make a post saying that they should be able to board a flight with their library card. People do in here. Plenty of people in life will agree with you on the things you say even if they don't. Sadly, not everyone is honest and up front like me.

I've traveled almost every week of this year and I haven't found anyone at the TSA to be hostile. While I haven't spent time debating astrophysics with any of them, none of them came across as stupid. Oddly, I found no difference in the screening I had this year in Europe shoes included.

I think you're just lumping TSA (they have to deal with the same procedures in Europe) in together with CBP. Given the huge difference that they face in traveling inside of Europe (basically none) and the visa issue with the US, that's not a valid comparison. It does suit your viewpoint quite well, but you're simply trying to find some way to justify your argument instead of taking the information available and coming up with a point of view.

The people under 30 are far more alienated from the United States due to the red states then they are with the TSA. They've seen the political process whereby people get put into power almost without having to answer an unscripted question and they see how much religious fundamentalism plays into the political process in the US. Warmongering leaders who barely got a C in college even though they had a trust fund and didn't want to work are why young Europeans have come to distrust the US. The screeners at the airports really don't get the same headlines as say invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses.

I'm not sure I follow you in terms of tourism personnel. I'd address your question, but I have no idea of who you might be talking about. I stay with everyone and do everything. Perhaps you might want to focus more on the content of my arguments rather than trying to use demographic factors to avoid addressing them. I certainly hope you're not so ignorant as to assume that you're the only person around with non-US relatives.

availability of anonymous travel is essential to our freedom
 

By "with their library card" did you mean without presenting a government-issued identification document? I think people should be able to board flights if they have contracted for an airline to transport them, do not violate the airline's general rules, and are not carrying weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.

Thegeneral: Of what use, other than to restrict people's freedom of movement using blacklists, is identifying someone before he boards a commercial flight?

Not only is requiring proof of identity unnecessary, it is dangerous to our freedom. Paraphrasing the words of The Identity Project on their "What's Wrong with Showing ID" page:

No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.

You have the data to back that up? I think the same could be said for almost all the forums, so I am unsure as to how this promotes your point.

How can a "rational, sensible" person think that it is okay to check an ID when it is not matched by the TSO against anything except a BP? And that doesn't even take into account about whether one should be required to have and carry an ID to travel domestically.

Was that intra-Europe or trans-Atlantic? I have found those to be different standards.

There are so many falsehoods and jumping to illogical conclusions in that. But to further discuss that OT paragraph would push us into Omni-land.

I don't believe that thegeneral has ever been known to answer a direct question.

TheGeneral identifies why all those poorly trained, barky TSOs hurt the image of TSA
 

Pmocheck,

Why is your ID required? Talk to the airlines. They're the ones requiring it. You certainly are free to fly without ID and really should you be posting here if you didn't know that? You're simply subjected to secondary screening. Of course, for international travel you'll need a passport. Another way that the man is keeping you down.

The last time I checked, the government isn't restricting travel to any types of rallies. You're still free to hit the gun shows and scream about baby killers or picket the gun shows and scream that abortion should be legal. The latter might be a tad dangerous though.

Doober,

I commonly answer them. Perhaps you can look at my previous thread. Don't get your panties in a bunch because I don't blindly go along with the general, 'whine about the TSA regardless of your argument' on here. With that said, I'll address ND Sol's questions when he's able to put them into a cohesive, readable format instead of quoting various parts of my post and adding a one line quip after each one. They have these things called paragraphs these days....

No, they are not. That is an incorrect statement. The federal government requires ID to travel, not the airlines.

It should be up to the airlines and only the airlines whether one is required/requested to show ID for revenue protection purposes only. Currently, that is not the case, so please don't make such incorrect assertions.

No, you are not "free to fly without ID". That is also an incorrect statement. One is not only subjected to haraSSSSment, but one is also interrogated and must prove who they are or they will not be permitted to fly. That is definitely not "free to fly without ID".

June, 2008, ID policy is TSA's, not airlines'
 

This is no longer the case. As of June 21, 2008, a passenger must either show ID, state that his was misplaced or stolen, or participate in an interrogation intended to establish his identity. This requirement is placed by TSA, not the airlines.

Thegeneral, of what use, other than to restrict people's freedom of movement using blacklists, is a policy whereby our government requires us to identify ourselves to government agents and wait for permission to proceed past a government checkpoint en route to a domestic flight?

I can fly domestically without the airline ever seeing my ID, so no, the airline is not requiring it, but thanks for playing.

Oh please, stop trying to deflect answering questions with that pathetic excuse. :rolleyes: And no, I don't believe that you do commonly answer questions posed.

Oops, there I go again using this quote and respond format. Perhaps someday, you will even learn how to quote the posts you are responding to so the rest of us do not have to refer back. :D (Others have asked you to do that in the past.)

Phil has asked you this question twice now, "general." We are all awaiting your ANSWER.

inline quoting is good netiquette
 

ND Sol's inline replies are a considerate and effective way of conducting a conversation in an online forum. It has been commonplace since Usenet discussions began about a quarter-century ago. Without this, it would be difficult for readers to know to which parts of your post ND Sol replied. It is courteous to provide context in this manner. Please don't encourage bad habits by complaining about this.

From my perspective, people definitely do avoid the US due to the combination of TSA and CBP. It's just not a pleasant experience, and I have several friends and coworkers who go to almost comical extremes to avoid traveling to or through the US these days.

Last week, I was in the US (LAX & SFO) for the first time in a year. The arrival immigration officer and customs in LAX were actually pleasant (and joked around with me). The TSA for the LAX-SFO-LAX flights on the other hand were a bunch of .... Effectively paying for the privilege of being insulted and the largely farcical security procedures is not my idea of fun.