SandySandfort on December 09, 2009, 11:26:58 am
Yea, I agree.  I was thinking about that last night before I dropped off to sleep and concluded that as a whole they're just not that bright.  My guess is that some american tourists have gone to the american embassy in say Panama and told the officials there that they spend more money than they intended to (probably hitting the push buttons, but that's a whole nother story) and now they don't have enough money to buy a ticket and return home.  Some State Dept. whiz kid said to himself "Get a law passed that any tourist leaving America has to have a return trip ticket back here so they don't inconvienence any more of our people."  That's probably the origin of it.   ;D

Could be, your guess is as good as mind. I have quarried the airline that pulled this stunt on me to get chapter and verse on the reg. Will share if they do.

quadibloc on December 10, 2009, 12:05:05 am
Could be, your guess is as good as mind. I have quarried the airline that pulled this stunt on me to get chapter and verse on the reg. Will share if they do.

My guess is that it has something to do with terrorism. After all, one reason for not purchasing a return ticket is because you plan to hijack the airplane into a building on your way out. As for emigrants, I think that in their sweet innocence, they never even considered the possibility.

SandySandfort on December 10, 2009, 10:24:51 am
[My guess is that it has something to do with terrorism. After all, one reason for not purchasing a return ticket is because you plan to hijack the airplane into a building on your way out.

You may be right in so far as that is the cover story given by the government, but it is obviously utter bullshit. A terrorist is generous enough to give his life for the cause, but too cheap to buy a round trip ticket? Give me a break. No, there is definitely more at work here.

Rocketman on December 10, 2009, 10:30:47 am
I agree Sandy.  It's kind of like that if someone is thinking about hijacking an airline and wants to learn how to fly it, he's smart enough not to go to any flightschool and say to them "Just teach me how to fly it, I don't need to take off or land."

Sean Roach on December 11, 2009, 12:17:52 am
I've been meaning to ask.  WHERE were to flying TO?
I know Japan won't allow visitors to enter the country without a return ticket away.  Could it have been the airline fronting for the destination, as opposed to the origin?

Personally, I'd have to be pretty desperate to emigrate on a 747.  Too little room for luggage.  The QM2 would be a better choice, or perhaps better yet, a cargo craft as my own supercargo.

I couldn't pack a quarter of my library in a rolling bag, and I'd have to leave my guns behind too.

dough560 on December 11, 2009, 06:42:51 am
That's the crux of the problem.  Government suppression of civil liberties.  Government control of individuals through taxes and  money supply.  One money guy I was listening to on the radio last week stated today's dollar was only worth $.67 of a dollar 10 years ago.  Additionally today's dollar was only worth a few cents of a gold based dollar from the 1930's.  Factor in increased regulation and I can see our standard of living and technological development gong down hill fast. 

Today's paper currency has an embedded magnetic strip.  With proper scanning equipment, the government can tell how much money you are carrying.  Add this to property seizure laws and you get cases like the green house owner in Florida.  He was carrying cash during a buying trip.  Many greenhouse suppliers discount for cash sales.  Stopped for speeding, local police seized his funds without probable cause.  He did not have the money to post bond (the required bond was the same amount as the seized funds) .  Result.  The police and the feds got a large chunk of cash.  The greenhouse owner was never charged with a crime but did not get his money back,  Since he could not post bond, he did not get his day in court.  In court he would have been required to prove the funds were not going to be used in a crime.  The police have no requirement to prove the funds would be used in a crime.  By the way, ever try to prove a negative?  This incident is the result of  laws directed at the war on drugs.  There are many more just like it.

The original income tax bill was four pages and was intended to help pay for WWI.  Current federal tax code is over 10,000 pages.  This does not include local and state tax codes.  Today's tax laws are exercises in social engineering and government domination.  You own your property, Right?  Wrong!  See how long you get to keep it, if you don't pay property taxes.   All tax codes reward and punish behavior.  Many taxes and fees are intended to protect companies and industries from competition.   Companies who "follow the rules" are rewarded with government contracts, a-la rotary socialism.  If the government's goal was raising revenue, and not domination.... we would have a flat tax and no property taxes.







SandySandfort on December 11, 2009, 07:59:22 am
I've been meaning to ask.  WHERE were to flying TO?
I know Japan won't allow visitors to enter the country without a return ticket away.  Could it have been the airline fronting for the destination, as opposed to the origin?

I was returning to Panama where I live. Panama is very flexible about such things. To the extent they ask, you can show them expired credit cards and they are happy. No, the airline staff made it clear it was a US federal requirement. I didn't really care which TLA (three letter agency) it was, though I think it was the FAA in this case, but it could have TSA or "Homeland Security." (Incidentally don't you just love that name? It sounds like something from the NAZIs. Next they will be calling the "Defense" Department the Wehrmacht. and it will be protecting the vaterland.)

quadibloc on December 12, 2009, 12:09:21 am
It's kind of like that if someone is thinking about hijacking an airline and wants to learn how to fly it, he's smart enough not to go to any flightschool and say to them "Just teach me how to fly it, I don't need to take off or land."

NOW they are. Remember the initial news stories after 9/11? Some of those hijackers did ask to skip the landing lessons.

SandySandfort on December 12, 2009, 07:26:02 am
Remember the initial news stories after 9/11? Some of those hijackers did ask to skip the landing lessons.

I don't believe those stories. The are just disinformation to imply intent. Have any of you ever taken flying lessons? I have. Just how would those lessons have been given if I had expressed no interest in learning to take off and land? I certainly would never have told my instructor something as crazy as that. If these men existed, they certainly would have been evil, but I seriously doubt they would have been that stupid.

Rocketman on December 12, 2009, 11:07:36 pm
Sandy:  Going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I'm a pilot too.  Soloed at 17 and got my private pilot's license at 19 which is more than a few years ago.  I really do think that the terrorists were that stupid.  Even given the fact that this was before 9/11 and things were a lot more relaxed than they are now, the flight instructor down in Clearwater (I think I remember reading) contacted the local police and the FBI and told them about it.  The police as I remember shrugged it off and the FBI told the instructor that the terrorist was already under surveillance (which is an incredibly stupid thing to tell a non law enforcement person but that's another story) so the instructor went ahead and taught him.  What should have been a red flag was ignored.  The FBI prior to 9/11 were watching Atta who was the pilot of one of the planes but they weren't watching him that closely.  Poor intel, missed opportunities and a failure of the intelligence departments of the U.S. to put all the pieces together in time.

SandySandfort on December 13, 2009, 08:45:21 am
Sandy:  Going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I'm a pilot too.  Soloed at 17 and got my private pilot's license at 19 which is more than a few years ago.  I really do think that the terrorists were that stupid.  Even given the fact that this was before 9/11 and things were a lot more relaxed than they are now, the flight instructor down in Clearwater (I think I remember reading) contacted the local police and the FBI and told them about it.  The police as I remember shrugged it off and the FBI told the instructor that the terrorist was already under surveillance (which is an incredibly stupid thing to tell a non law enforcement person but that's another story) so the instructor went ahead and taught him.  What should have been a red flag was ignored.  The FBI prior to 9/11 were watching Atta who was the pilot of one of the planes but they weren't watching him that closely.  Poor intel, missed opportunities and a failure of the intelligence departments of the U.S. to put all the pieces together in time.

I'm sorry, the story stinks. It sounds like something made up after the fact to fit circumstances. Ditto for Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" which has become a phrase in Afghanistan. Same with finding the terrorists passport in the rubble (but being unable to find any of the black boxes). Give me a break. For whatever reason, we have not be told the truth. The official story is a transparent lie.
 

Rocketman on December 13, 2009, 11:06:29 am
Sandy:
One thing that I always consider when looking at any story is how does the story make the people telling the story look.  The better they look as they tell the story the less I am to totally believe it.  The story that I remember hearing from somewhere makes the FBI look bad and unprofessional.  If the story had been changed to make the flight instructor the one who totally was responsible for not warning the authorities in time then I wouldn't have believed a word of it.  The truth is usually found somewhere in the middle and normally governments and individuals who work in it don't want the public know just what kind of mistakes they make on a daily basis.
  Doubts lead to questions which leads to loss of confidence in the government.

Brugle on December 13, 2009, 02:01:02 pm
The better they look as they tell the story the less I am to totally believe it.
Most people feel the same as you.  I first learned that (and a great deal else) from RAH.  From "If This Goes On--":
Quote
Get this, John: if you are ever suspected of something, try to make the evidence point to a lesser offense.  Never try to prove lily-white innocence.  Human nature being what it is, your chances are better.
I expect that many government officials are aware of this, since those in certain positions will be selected for (and have incentives to learn) skill with lies and propaganda.  While any given bit of the official story might be true, from past performance it's safe to conclude that a significant part of it is false.
The story that I remember hearing from somewhere makes the FBI look bad and unprofessional.
From that, my conclusion is that the truth would make them look a lot worse (in some way).

KBCraig on December 14, 2009, 01:36:39 am
(re: requirements for round-trip tickets)

No, the airline staff made it clear it was a US federal requirement.

And bank branch managers insist that it's a violation of federal law to carry a gun in a bank. They never seem to be able to cite that law, but they "know it's there somewhere!"

It's easy to blame everything on fed.gov, because there's nothing so stupid that we won't believe it's a federal law.

I think you just got rooked out of a worthless return ticket..

SandySandfort on December 14, 2009, 06:26:10 am
(re: requirements for round-trip tickets)
It's easy to blame everything on fed.gov, because there's nothing so stupid that we won't believe it's a federal law.

I think you just got rooked out of a worthless return ticket..

Well, no. My mother didn't raise any stupid children (with the possible exception of my brother). As I wrote before, I finessed my way around the requirement.  ;)