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

[Quantum Windbag]

There are no victims here. They are voluntarily electing to fly and must comply with federal regulations. Your options are to go through the scanner, submit to a pat down or choose not to fly.

So by choosing to fly you are compelled to void your 4th amendment rights?

Tell me what other rights do you want to abandon?

Now if one particularly motivated terrorist successfully blows up a plane with a C4 suppository would you condone cavity searches for all?

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[28] Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable.

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court once ruled that "Separate but Equal" was Constitutional. I am pointing out that, since they are obviously capable of being wrong at least occasionally, they are wrong now. The Constitution clearly requires a warrant for all searches, not just searches people think are unreasonable. That means that what the TSA is doing violates the Constitution, just like segregation did.

Can you argue that it doesn't without resorting to a logical fallacy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[28] Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable.

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have the right to be secure in my person.

There is no compelling reason to grope everyone at an airport. How many people does the Israeli airport security grope and what is their safety record compared to ours?

It's a slippery slope which we should avoid at all costs. With your attitude, cavity searches are certainly in our future.

Again, stop comparing us to El Al. You know why they don't search everyone? Because they profile. IF you are a Muslim flying into or out of any Isrealie airport, your ass is getting strip searched. Some pussies in our country won't allow us to focus on the actual suspects, so everyone gets the same treatment. You don't like that, then look to YOUR "side" and tell them to stop being dipshits.

By the way, do you know WHO provides security as Isreali airports? Mossad, that's who, and if you don't think they scrutinize passengers more than the TSA does here in the US , well you are just lying to yourself, or uneducated.

El Al does not profile based on religion.

 

[TheBrain]

So by choosing to fly you are compelled to void your 4th amendment rights?

Tell me what other rights do you want to abandon?

Now if one particularly motivated terrorist successfully blows up a plane with a C4 suppository would you condone cavity searches for all?

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[28] Further, in Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that, absent articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable.

Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.

The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court once ruled that "Separate but Equal" was Constitutional. I am pointing out that, since they are obviously capable of being wrong at least occasionally, they are wrong now. The Constitution clearly requires a warrant for all searches, not just searches people think are unreasonable. That means that what the TSA is doing violates the Constitution, just like segregation did.

Can you argue that it doesn't without resorting to a logical fallacy?

What a shock that you are once again WRONG. In THIS country a law is in fact Constitutional unless and until the SCOTUS rules that it is not. That means that in your silly argument separate but equal was in fact not unconstitutional until the SCOTUS said it was. Neither are these searches. The ONLY way they will EVER become so is if someone files a suit, and the SCOTUS agrees that they are. Until then, neither your opinion nor mine really matters. The law is the law.

 

[TheBrain]

I have the right to be secure in my person.

There is no compelling reason to grope everyone at an airport. How many people does the Israeli airport security grope and what is their safety record compared to ours?

It's a slippery slope which we should avoid at all costs. With your attitude, cavity searches are certainly in our future.

Again, stop comparing us to El Al. You know why they don't search everyone? Because they profile. IF you are a Muslim flying into or out of any Isrealie airport, your ass is getting strip searched. Some pussies in our country won't allow us to focus on the actual suspects, so everyone gets the same treatment. You don't like that, then look to YOUR "side" and tell them to stop being dipshits.

By the way, do you know WHO provides security as Isreali airports? Mossad, that's who, and if you don't think they scrutinize passengers more than the TSA does here in the US , well you are just lying to yourself, or uneducated.

El Al does not profile based on religion.

You are correct, but Mossad does. You can bet your ass on that.

 

[Contumacious]

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Bullshit.

The above excerpt clearly shows that the Court is no longer the bulwark of Liberty. That it has been transformed into a useless bureaucracy - they have become apologists for the federal bureaucracy. They are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is narcotized:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal"

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)

.

 

[TheBrain]

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Bullshit.

The above excerpt clearly shows that the Court is no longer the bulwark of Liberty. That it has been transformed into a useless bureaucracy - they have become apologists for the federal bureaucracy. They are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is narcotized:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal"

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)

.

If you don't like living in a country where a high Court by law decides what is legal and what is not, then haul ass.

 

[rightwinger]

Yea i see the Goose Steppers are in 'Blame the Victim' Mode. It's pretty disgraceful. Most of these 'Blame the Victim' assholes will be back to pretending they oppose these abuses when the Republicans get back in power. You can bet on that. They're not only stupid Goose Steppers,but they're also dishonest partisan assholes. No one should defend this stuff. It doesn't matter whether it's a 'D' or an 'R' doing it. I will never be a loyal Government Goose Stepper. But hey,that's just me.

There are no victims here. They are voluntarily electing to fly and must comply with federal regulations. Your options are to go through the scanner, submit to a pat down or choose not to fly.

So by choosing to fly you are compelled to void your 4th amendment rights?

Tell me what other rights do you want to abandon?

Now if one particularly motivated terrorist successfully blows up a plane with a C4 suppository would you condone cavity searches for all?

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

 

[TheBrain]

There are no victims here. They are voluntarily electing to fly and must comply with federal regulations. Your options are to go through the scanner, submit to a pat down or choose not to fly.

So by choosing to fly you are compelled to void your 4th amendment rights?

Tell me what other rights do you want to abandon?

Now if one particularly motivated terrorist successfully blows up a plane with a C4 suppository would you condone cavity searches for all?

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

What they are not acknowledging is that by flying you are AGREEING that the pat downs are reasonable. Now certainly it would not be reasonable if TSA were pulling people off the streets and performing the same exact pat down; but by saying hey I want to fly, knowing full well what the cost of admission is , you are agreeing that you find that to be a reasonable price, so complaining after the fact means SHIT.

 

[Contumacious]

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. The above excerpts clearly show that the Court has ruled that these types of searches do NOT violate your 4th Amendment rights.

Bullshit.

The above excerpt clearly shows that the Court is no longer the bulwark of Liberty. That it has been transformed into a useless bureaucracy - they have become apologists for the federal bureaucracy. They are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is narcotized:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal"

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)

.

If you don't like living in a country where a high Court by law decides what is legal and what is not, then haul ass.

If you like living in a country where rights depend upon bureaucratic discretion then haul ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...

Benito Mussolini
1932http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

.

 

[TheBrain]

Bullshit.

The above excerpt clearly shows that the Court is no longer the bulwark of Liberty. That it has been transformed into a useless bureaucracy - they have become apologists for the federal bureaucracy. They are taking advantage of the fact that the populace is narcotized:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man's property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal"

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)

.

If you don't like living in a country where a high Court by law decides what is legal and what is not, then haul ass.

If you like living in a country where rights depend upon bureaucratic discretion then haul ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...

Benito Mussolini
1932http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

.

Luckily we live in a nation where laws are determined to be constitutional by a judicial process, which I love. Apparently you do not.

 

[Contumacious]

So by choosing to fly you are compelled to void your 4th amendment rights?

Tell me what other rights do you want to abandon?

Now if one particularly motivated terrorist successfully blows up a plane with a C4 suppository would you condone cavity searches for all?

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

What they are not acknowledging is that by flying you are AGREEING that the pat downs are reasonable. Now certainly it would not be reasonable if TSA were pulling people off the streets and performing the same exact pat down; but by saying hey I want to fly, knowing full well what the cost of admission is , you are agreeing that you find that to be a reasonable price, so complaining after the fact means SHIT.

Bullshit.

I merely want to exercise my NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL .

The goddamned bureaucrats want to pat my junk in order to create the illusion that air travel is safe and in order to continue their goddamned interventionist foreign policy.

wake the fuck up.

.

 

[TheBrain]

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

What they are not acknowledging is that by flying you are AGREEING that the pat downs are reasonable. Now certainly it would not be reasonable if TSA were pulling people off the streets and performing the same exact pat down; but by saying hey I want to fly, knowing full well what the cost of admission is , you are agreeing that you find that to be a reasonable price, so complaining after the fact means SHIT.

Bullshit.

I merely want to exercise my NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL .

The goddamned bureaucrats want to pat my junk in order to create the illusion that air travel is safe and in order to continue their goddamned interventionist foreign policy.

wake the fuck up.

.

You have no right to air travel fool.

In fact it can be argued that the airlines are private property and they have EVERY right to allow the federal government to search their customers before allowing them on their airplanes.

You can travel without getting on an airplane.

 

[Contumacious]

If you don't like living in a country where a high Court by law decides what is legal and what is not, then haul ass.

If you like living in a country where rights depend upon bureaucratic discretion then haul ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...

Benito Mussolini
1932http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

.

Luckily we live in a nation where laws are determined to be constitutional by a judicial process, which I love. Apparently you do not.

Mr. Fucktard, sir.

Please identify the Founding Father who argued that the 4 and 5 Amendments only applied in those instances where:

1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

Jesus Fucking Christ, can you people get any dumber?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

.

 

[Contumacious]

What they are not acknowledging is that by flying you are AGREEING that the pat downs are reasonable. Now certainly it would not be reasonable if TSA were pulling people off the streets and performing the same exact pat down; but by saying hey I want to fly, knowing full well what the cost of admission is , you are agreeing that you find that to be a reasonable price, so complaining after the fact means SHIT.

Bullshit.

I merely want to exercise my NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL .

The goddamned bureaucrats want to pat my junk in order to create the illusion that air travel is safe and in order to continue their goddamned interventionist foreign policy.

wake the fuck up.

.

You have no right to air travel fool.

In fact it can be argued that the airlines are private property and they have EVERY right to allow the federal government to search their customers before allowing them on their airplanes.

You can travel without getting on an airplane.

HUH? WTF?

And your handle is The Brain?

Anatomy is another subject you miserably failed.

Your Handle should be "THEASS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Son of a bitch.

.

 

[xsited1]

What they are not acknowledging is that by flying you are AGREEING that the pat downs are reasonable. Now certainly it would not be reasonable if TSA were pulling people off the streets and performing the same exact pat down; but by saying hey I want to fly, knowing full well what the cost of admission is , you are agreeing that you find that to be a reasonable price, so complaining after the fact means SHIT.

Bullshit.

I merely want to exercise my NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL .

The goddamned bureaucrats want to pat my junk in order to create the illusion that air travel is safe and in order to continue their goddamned interventionist foreign policy.

wake the fuck up.

.

You have no right to air travel fool.

In fact it can be argued that the airlines are private property and they have EVERY right to allow the federal government to search their customers before allowing them on their airplanes.

You can travel without getting on an airplane.

Yes, you can travel by car or by boat and bypass air travel so the TSA can get away with these searches. Your point about airlines being private property should really open your eyes. Airlines should be able to choose what kind of security they want, but they can't. It would be nice if they could profile, but they can't. It would even be nice if they could allow people to smoke on their airplanes, but they can't. Civil liberties are precious and once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. That's why there are people (like myself) protesting what the TSA is doing. What I find amazing is that some of the same people who protested the Patriot Act are not protesting this. The only connection I can see is that in this case Obama approves of it.

 

[TheBrain]

Bullshit.

I merely want to exercise my NINTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRAVEL .

The goddamned bureaucrats want to pat my junk in order to create the illusion that air travel is safe and in order to continue their goddamned interventionist foreign policy.

wake the fuck up.

.

You have no right to air travel fool.

In fact it can be argued that the airlines are private property and they have EVERY right to allow the federal government to search their customers before allowing them on their airplanes.

You can travel without getting on an airplane.

Yes, you can travel by car or by boat and bypass air travel so the TSA can get away with these searches. Your point about airlines being private property should really open your eyes. Airlines should be able to choose what kind of security they want, but they can't. It would be nice if they could profile, but they can't. It would even be nice if they could allow people to smoke on their airplanes, but they can't. Civil liberties are precious and once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. That's why there are people (like myself) protesting what the TSA is doing. What I find amazing is that some of the same people who protested the Patriot Act are not protesting this. The only connection I can see is that in this case Obama approves of it.

Let's get a few things out of the way.

First among them, I am not an Obama supporter.

Second among them is this. Yes the airplanes are private property but that doesn't mean the owners can just ignore safety concerns. Not anymore than a restaurant owner can say he doesn't care about health concerns, or an automaker can say we don't care about safety concerns. What are you suggesting, that we have two airways one for those who's passengers have been screened, and one for those who's haven't been?

Oh, and we're agreed on profiling, absolutely 100%, it's crazy that the TSA can't focus on who the most likely are to commit such crimes.

But that being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age anyone is afraid of an X Ray machine, they pose NO danger. And in fact I suspect that most of those who refuse to go through them are not actually worried about any dangers.

Oh, one last thing. Given the example we seen in the video posted by the Windbag, what possible harm could come from that search? There is absolutely no justification for refusing to be searched. It's all just a bunch of crying because you DON'T like Obama.

 

[xsited1]

You have no right to air travel fool.

In fact it can be argued that the airlines are private property and they have EVERY right to allow the federal government to search their customers before allowing them on their airplanes.

You can travel without getting on an airplane.

Yes, you can travel by car or by boat and bypass air travel so the TSA can get away with these searches. Your point about airlines being private property should really open your eyes. Airlines should be able to choose what kind of security they want, but they can't. It would be nice if they could profile, but they can't. It would even be nice if they could allow people to smoke on their airplanes, but they can't. Civil liberties are precious and once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. That's why there are people (like myself) protesting what the TSA is doing. What I find amazing is that some of the same people who protested the Patriot Act are not protesting this. The only connection I can see is that in this case Obama approves of it.

Let's get a few things out of the way.

First among them, I am not an Obama supporter.

Second among them is this. Yes the airplanes are private property but that doesn't mean the owners can just ignore safety concerns. Not anymore than a restaurant owner can say he doesn't care about health concerns, or an automaker can say we don't care about safety concerns. What are you suggesting, that we have two airways one for those who's passengers have been screened, and one for those who's haven't been?

Oh, and we're agreed on profiling, absolutely 100%, it's crazy that the TSA can't focus on who the most likely are to commit such crimes.

But that being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age anyone is afraid of an X Ray machine, they pose NO danger. And in fact I suspect that most of those who refuse to go through them are not actually worried about any dangers.

Oh, one last thing. Given the example we seen in the video posted by the Windbag, what possible harm could come from that search? There is absolutely no justification for refusing to be searched. It's all just a bunch of crying because you DON'T like Obama.

It's not a bunch crying because I don't like Obama. If that's all you see, then you've missed the entire point and there's no sense in continuing this conversation. I'm talking about liberty. If a private company wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. If a private company wants to provide air travel without extreme searches, they should be able to do that. If a person doesn't want to go through an x-ray machine to fly on an airplane and they don't want to be subjected to extreme searches, they should have that right. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[TheBrain]

Yes, you can travel by car or by boat and bypass air travel so the TSA can get away with these searches. Your point about airlines being private property should really open your eyes. Airlines should be able to choose what kind of security they want, but they can't. It would be nice if they could profile, but they can't. It would even be nice if they could allow people to smoke on their airplanes, but they can't. Civil liberties are precious and once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. That's why there are people (like myself) protesting what the TSA is doing. What I find amazing is that some of the same people who protested the Patriot Act are not protesting this. The only connection I can see is that in this case Obama approves of it.

Let's get a few things out of the way.

First among them, I am not an Obama supporter.

Second among them is this. Yes the airplanes are private property but that doesn't mean the owners can just ignore safety concerns. Not anymore than a restaurant owner can say he doesn't care about health concerns, or an automaker can say we don't care about safety concerns. What are you suggesting, that we have two airways one for those who's passengers have been screened, and one for those who's haven't been?

Oh, and we're agreed on profiling, absolutely 100%, it's crazy that the TSA can't focus on who the most likely are to commit such crimes.

But that being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age anyone is afraid of an X Ray machine, they pose NO danger. And in fact I suspect that most of those who refuse to go through them are not actually worried about any dangers.

Oh, one last thing. Given the example we seen in the video posted by the Windbag, what possible harm could come from that search? There is absolutely no justification for refusing to be searched. It's all just a bunch of crying because you DON'T like Obama.

It's not a bunch crying because I don't like Obama. If that's all you see, then you've missed the entire point and there's no sense in continuing this conversation. I'm talking about liberty. If a private company wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. If a private company wants to provide air travel without extreme searches, they should be able to do that. If a person doesn't want to go through an x-ray machine to fly on an airplane and they don't want to be subjected to extreme searches, they should have that right. Is that simple enough for you?

If ANY of those things only affected each person who made that choice I would agree with you, but using your logic we could say if a restaurant owner doesn't want to require his employees to wash their hands before returning to work well by God it's his restaurant isn't it?

If GM wants to make a vehicle that has no emissions equipment on it, well they should be able to shouldn't they?

Of course the answer to both of those is no.

 

[xsited1]

Let's get a few things out of the way.

First among them, I am not an Obama supporter.

Second among them is this. Yes the airplanes are private property but that doesn't mean the owners can just ignore safety concerns. Not anymore than a restaurant owner can say he doesn't care about health concerns, or an automaker can say we don't care about safety concerns. What are you suggesting, that we have two airways one for those who's passengers have been screened, and one for those who's haven't been?

Oh, and we're agreed on profiling, absolutely 100%, it's crazy that the TSA can't focus on who the most likely are to commit such crimes.

But that being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age anyone is afraid of an X Ray machine, they pose NO danger. And in fact I suspect that most of those who refuse to go through them are not actually worried about any dangers.

Oh, one last thing. Given the example we seen in the video posted by the Windbag, what possible harm could come from that search? There is absolutely no justification for refusing to be searched. It's all just a bunch of crying because you DON'T like Obama.

It's not a bunch crying because I don't like Obama. If that's all you see, then you've missed the entire point and there's no sense in continuing this conversation. I'm talking about liberty. If a private company wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. If a private company wants to provide air travel without extreme searches, they should be able to do that. If a person doesn't want to go through an x-ray machine to fly on an airplane and they don't want to be subjected to extreme searches, they should have that right. Is that simple enough for you?

If ANY of those things only affected each person who made that choice I would agree with you, but using your logic we could say if a restaurant owner doesn't want to require his employees to wash their hands before returning to work well by God it's his restaurant isn't it?

If GM wants to make a vehicle that has no emissions equipment on it, well they should be able to shouldn't they?

Of course the answer to both of those is no.

You've said enough. You have a much higher tolerance than I do for government regulation.

 

[Contumacious]

Let's get a few things out of the way.

First among them, I am not an Obama supporter.

Second among them is this. Yes the airplanes are private property but that doesn't mean the owners can just ignore safety concerns. Not anymore than a restaurant owner can say he doesn't care about health concerns, or an automaker can say we don't care about safety concerns. What are you suggesting, that we have two airways one for those who's passengers have been screened, and one for those who's haven't been?

Oh, and we're agreed on profiling, absolutely 100%, it's crazy that the TSA can't focus on who the most likely are to commit such crimes.

But that being said, it is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age anyone is afraid of an X Ray machine, they pose NO danger. And in fact I suspect that most of those who refuse to go through them are not actually worried about any dangers.

Oh, one last thing. Given the example we seen in the video posted by the Windbag, what possible harm could come from that search? There is absolutely no justification for refusing to be searched. It's all just a bunch of crying because you DON'T like Obama.

It's not a bunch crying because I don't like Obama. If that's all you see, then you've missed the entire point and there's no sense in continuing this conversation. I'm talking about liberty. If a private company wants to allow smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. If a private company wants to provide air travel without extreme searches, they should be able to do that. If a person doesn't want to go through an x-ray machine to fly on an airplane and they don't want to be subjected to extreme searches, they should have that right. Is that simple enough for you?

If ANY of those things only affected each person who made that choice I would agree with you, but using your logic we could say if a restaurant owner doesn't want to require his employees to wash their hands before returning to work well by God it's his restaurant isn't it?

If GM wants to make a vehicle that has no emissions equipment on it, well they should be able to shouldn't they?

Of course the answer to both of those is no.

Of course, the answer to both is yes.

What is your major malfunction.

The government schools have done a fantastic job indoctrinating you.

Heil Hitler,

.