The Obama Approved (Nazi)TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA

[Quantum Windbag]

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. The woman patted her down with the back of her hand until she met resistance in her crotch area. Up and down, front and back with the back of her hand as a matter of routine procedure. "That woman touched my vagina 4 times! wa!" It was not a sexual act and it is blatantly dishonest to describe it as such.

I hate to point out the obvious, but even if you are correct about using the back of the hands, that is not the part of the hand that meets resistance. Regardless, current law in Texas calls any contact with the genital area that is not consensual on the part of the person receiving it sexual assault. It might not have been intended to be sexual, but intent is irrelevant under the law, all that matters is results.

The "consent" to be pat-down is in the choice to take the flight while refusing the x-ray scanner.

That is not consent to sexual assault, no matter how you spin it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony

Read more: Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony - FoxNews.com

One of many States that have had enough of the abuses being defended by the Left

federal laws take precedence over the laws of any state.

good luck with that.

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

 

[Valerie]

I hate to point out the obvious, but even if you are correct about using the back of the hands, that is not the part of the hand that meets resistance. Regardless, current law in Texas calls any contact with the genital area that is not consensual on the part of the person receiving it sexual assault. It might not have been intended to be sexual, but intent is irrelevant under the law, all that matters is results.

The "consent" to be pat-down is in the choice to take the flight while refusing the x-ray scanner.

That is not consent to sexual assault, no matter how you spin it.

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

 

[TheBrain]

Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony

Read more: Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony - FoxNews.com

One of many States that have had enough of the abuses being defended by the Left

federal laws take precedence over the laws of any state.

good luck with that.

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

Federal law ALWAYS take precedence. Meaning if state law were to define these pat downs as sexual assault, while federal law specifically allowed them to happen, the state law would be meaningless.

 

[jillian]

Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony

Read more: Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs a Felony - FoxNews.com

One of many States that have had enough of the abuses being defended by the Left

federal laws take precedence over the laws of any state.

good luck with that.

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

No.. no STATE law gives a STATE the right to violate FEDERAL LAW. FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS. Stop making up trash. Sometimes it's just better to be quiet if you don't know. Feel free to just say you didn't know and made a mistake. I'd have far more respect for that than outright lies.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "consent" to be pat-down is in the choice to take the flight while refusing the x-ray scanner.

That is not consent to sexual assault, no matter how you spin it.

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

The evidence is her reaction to what happened. Since you dismiss the evidence as her being nothing more than a dram queen, nothing that she says will satisfy you.

Sexual assault is essentially a he said/she said type of crime. You used to have to provide medical proof of injury and torn clothing to prove sexual assault, now all you need to do is convince a jury that you are telling the truth. If people still had to provide evidence of sexual assault that would satisfy the standards you seem to have most date rapes would be legal, and quite a few stranger rapes. In fact, almost all child rape cases lack evidence that would meet whatever your criteria is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

federal laws take precedence over the laws of any state.

good luck with that.

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

Federal law ALWAYS take precedence. Meaning if state law were to define these pat downs as sexual assault, while federal law specifically allowed them to happen, the state law would be meaningless.

If federal law always took precedence federal law would make it illegal to go faster than 55 in every single state in the union. Some states have decided that they do not like that particular law, and choose to do without highway funds rather than allow the federal government to dictate their laws.

 

[TheBrain]

That is not consent to sexual assault, no matter how you spin it.

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

The evidence is her reaction to what happened. Since you dismiss the evidence as her being nothing more than a dram queen, nothing that she says will satisfy you.

Sexual assault is essentially a he said/she said type of crime. You used to have to provide medical proof of injury and torn clothing to prove sexual assault, now all you need to do is convince a jury that you are telling the truth. If people still had to provide evidence of sexual assault that would satisfy the standards you seem to have most date rapes would be legal, and quite a few stranger rapes. In fact, almost all child rape cases lack evidence that would meet whatever your criteria is.

You just insulted EVERY rape victim in the world by comparing what happened to them to TSA pat downs to attempt to score a point. Pathetic.


And what part of, you can avoid the pat down altogether by going through the scanners, don't you seem to get?

 

[jillian]

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

Federal law ALWAYS take precedence. Meaning if state law were to define these pat downs as sexual assault, while federal law specifically allowed them to happen, the state law would be meaningless.

If federal law always took precedence federal law would make it illegal to go faster than 55 in every single state in the union. Some states have decided that they do not like that particular law, and choose to do without highway funds rather than allow the federal government to dictate their laws.

because the feds haven't pre-empted on that issue.

please read and learn. you muddle things up in your head.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Stupid Goose Steppers will defend anything the Government does. I can't wait till the Republicans get back in power so i can watch these Socialist/Progressive Goose Steppers here begin pretending they oppose these kinds of Government abuses. Because we all know they're such dishonest hypocrites. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these weasels. Their beloved D's are in there now so anything goes. It works both ways though. Some Neocon Republicans are only pretending to oppose these abuses because they oppose the D's. All Americans should speak out against these terrible Government abuses. It shouldn't matter whether it's a 'D' or an 'R' doing it. Just stop being a loyal Government Goose Stepper and join the Human Race. It's about time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

federal laws take precedence over the laws of any state.

good luck with that.

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

No.. no STATE law gives a STATE the right to violate FEDERAL LAW. FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS. Stop making up trash. Sometimes it's just better to be quiet if you don't know. Feel free to just say you didn't know and made a mistake. I'd have far more respect for that than outright lies.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What did I make up? Do FBI agents have the right to ignore state laws simply because they work for the FBI? You need to get down off your moral faux horse and admit that I am simply stating facts. If a federal employee, which is what a TSO is, violates a law at any point they are subject to prosecution, even if they do so during the course of their employment. Honest people understand that illegal acts fall outside the scope of employment.

 

[TheBrain]

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

Federal law ALWAYS take precedence. Meaning if state law were to define these pat downs as sexual assault, while federal law specifically allowed them to happen, the state law would be meaningless.

If federal law always took precedence federal law would make it illegal to go faster than 55 in every single state in the union. Some states have decided that they do not like that particular law, and choose to do without highway funds rather than allow the federal government to dictate their laws.

You're not very smart. The very law which set the federal speed limit in fact gave states the choice of setting their own speed limits and not receiving federal funding. So by doing so, they were NOT violating the law. They were in full compliance.

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if that caveat had not been allowed under the law and states had done so anyway, they would have been violating the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

The evidence is her reaction to what happened. Since you dismiss the evidence as her being nothing more than a dram queen, nothing that she says will satisfy you.

Sexual assault is essentially a he said/she said type of crime. You used to have to provide medical proof of injury and torn clothing to prove sexual assault, now all you need to do is convince a jury that you are telling the truth. If people still had to provide evidence of sexual assault that would satisfy the standards you seem to have most date rapes would be legal, and quite a few stranger rapes. In fact, almost all child rape cases lack evidence that would meet whatever your criteria is.

You just insulted EVERY rape victim in the world by comparing what happened to them to TSA pat downs to attempt to score a point. Pathetic.


And what part of, you can avoid the pat down altogether by going through the scanners, don't you seem to get?

I insulted no one. Dismissing the claims of this woman without any consideration is the insult.

 

[jillian]

No federal law gives anyone the right to break state law.

No.. no STATE law gives a STATE the right to violate FEDERAL LAW. FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS. Stop making up trash. Sometimes it's just better to be quiet if you don't know. Feel free to just say you didn't know and made a mistake. I'd have far more respect for that than outright lies.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

What did I make up? Do FBI agents have the right to ignore state laws simply because they work for the FBI? You need to get down off your moral faux horse and admit that I am simply stating facts. If a federal employee, which is what a TSO is, violates a law at any point they are subject to prosecution, even if they do so during the course of their employment. Honest people understand that illegal acts fall outside the scope of employment.

i'm not going to get down off of anything. you're talking about things you know nothing about and we're supposed to take that seriously?

puleeze

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Neocons and Socialists/Progressives are the problem. They both just love Big Government domination. We need real change in this Nation. It's time to dump both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Federal law ALWAYS take precedence. Meaning if state law were to define these pat downs as sexual assault, while federal law specifically allowed them to happen, the state law would be meaningless.

If federal law always took precedence federal law would make it illegal to go faster than 55 in every single state in the union. Some states have decided that they do not like that particular law, and choose to do without highway funds rather than allow the federal government to dictate their laws.

because the feds haven't pre-empted on that issue.

please read and learn. you muddle things up in your head.

I do not muddle anything up. I do have a question for you though, since you are the self proclaimed expert. Was SCOTUS right in AT&F v Concepcion that federal law trumped state law, and that people do not have a right to sue companies that use adhesion contracts?

 

[TheBrain]

Stupid Goose Steppers will defend anything the Government does. I can't wait till the Republicans get back in power so i can watch these Socialist/Progressive Goose Steppers here begin pretending they oppose these kinds of Government abuses. Because we all know they're such dishonest hypocrites. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these weasels. Their beloved D's are in there now so anything goes. It works both ways though. Some Neocon Republicans are only pretending to oppose these abuses because they oppose the D's. All Americans should speak out against these terrible Government abuses. It shouldn't matter whether it's a 'D' or an 'R' doing it. Just stop being a loyal Government Goose Stepper and join the Human Race. It's about time.

I can't stand Obama or his policies, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I believe that those who are whining about pat downs which they could avoid are idiots.

 

[TheBrain]

If federal law always took precedence federal law would make it illegal to go faster than 55 in every single state in the union. Some states have decided that they do not like that particular law, and choose to do without highway funds rather than allow the federal government to dictate their laws.

because the feds haven't pre-empted on that issue.

please read and learn. you muddle things up in your head.

I do not muddle anything up. I do have a question for you though, since you are the self proclaimed expert. Was SCOTUS right in AT&F v Concepcion that federal law trumped state law, and that people do not have a right to sue companies that use adhesion contracts?

Please keep your wrong opinion on that matter in its own thread.

Why are you avoiding the post where I pointed out that states which declined federal funding and set their own speed limits were in fact complying with federal law?

 

[Valerie]

That is not consent to sexual assault, no matter how you spin it.

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

The evidence is her reaction to what happened. Since you dismiss the evidence as her being nothing more than a dram queen, nothing that she says will satisfy you.

Sexual assault is essentially a he said/she said type of crime. You used to have to provide medical proof of injury and torn clothing to prove sexual assault, now all you need to do is convince a jury that you are telling the truth. If people still had to provide evidence of sexual assault that would satisfy the standards you seem to have most date rapes would be legal, and quite a few stranger rapes. In fact, almost all child rape cases lack evidence that would meet whatever your criteria is.

Unbelievable you want to take a cursory security search down that road...


Did she press charges for sexual assault?


Did she not say the reason she was crying because she "didn't want to be radiated on" and FELT violated by having to do one or the other? She described the woman screener as patting her down left and right, back and front, with the back of her hand, just like every other passenger who refused the x-ray. You are deliberately mischaracterizing this routine search as if it was sexual, when in fact there is no evidence that is was...

 

[TheBrain]

Since there is no evidence of "sexual assault" that would be you who is spinning...

The evidence is her reaction to what happened. Since you dismiss the evidence as her being nothing more than a dram queen, nothing that she says will satisfy you.

Sexual assault is essentially a he said/she said type of crime. You used to have to provide medical proof of injury and torn clothing to prove sexual assault, now all you need to do is convince a jury that you are telling the truth. If people still had to provide evidence of sexual assault that would satisfy the standards you seem to have most date rapes would be legal, and quite a few stranger rapes. In fact, almost all child rape cases lack evidence that would meet whatever your criteria is.

Unbelievable you want to take a cursory security search down that road...


Did she press charges for sexual assault?


Did she not say the reason she was crying because she "didn't want to be radiated on" and FELT violated by having to do one or the other? She described the woman screener as patting her down left and right, back and front, with the back of her hand, just like every other passenger who refused the x-ray. You are deliberately mischaracterizing this routine search as if it was sexual, when in fact there is no evidence that is was...

If he has ANY sense he has left this thread. I just blew his entire argument about states violating federal law completely out of the water.

And I'm with you, I can't even believe he's comparing a TSA pat down to rape. Pathetic insult to real rape victims.