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

[Contumacious]

Only those drama queens whose self-esteem has reached rock bottom feel sexually violated by a security screening at the airport...

It's a good thing you have people like me who seek to protect everyone's civil liberties (including yours). You're welcome.

You keep pretending I don't care about civil liberties...


Why do you not answer to the downside of the alternative methods as opposed to physical search and admit that your efforts to dishonestly pervert this method will only result in aggressive interrogation tactics which would be a WORSE offense to our civil liberties...?

Valerie, Valerie, Valerie.

Why don't you first research the reasons the Muslims want to retaliate?

And then determine if there are alternative ways of addressing their concerns which do not involve waiving our 4th and 5th Amendment rights?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't [/ame]

.

 

[Valerie]

It's a good thing you have people like me who seek to protect everyone's civil liberties (including yours). You're welcome.

You keep pretending I don't care about civil liberties...


Why do you not answer to the downside of the alternative methods as opposed to physical search and admit that your efforts to dishonestly pervert this method will only result in aggressive interrogation tactics which would be a WORSE offense to our civil liberties...?

Valerie, Valerie, Valerie.

Why don't you first research the reasons the Muslims want to retaliate?

And then determine if there are alternative ways of addressing their concerns which do not involve waiving our 4th and 5th Amendment rights?


.

I don't make policy, I just don't buy into bullshit drama propaganda tactics either...

 

[Contumacious]

Only those drama queens whose self-esteem has reached rock bottom feel sexually violated by a security screening at the airport...

Drama queens, eh?

Is that because there is such an amount of adipose tissue covering your vajayjay that a TSA agent will never find it.

.

Is continuously calling her fat really necessary?

Is she your wife? Are you guys related?

If she is your wife, is that the reason you are so bitter?

.

 

[xsited1]

Only those drama queens whose self-esteem has reached rock bottom feel sexually violated by a security screening at the airport...

It's a good thing you have people like me who seek to protect everyone's civil liberties (including yours). You're welcome.

You keep pretending I don't care about civil liberties...


Why do you not answer to the downside of the alternative methods as opposed to physical search and admit that your efforts to dishonestly pervert this method will only result in aggressive interrogation tactics which would be a WORSE offense to our civil liberties...?

No, I don't.

I'm simply saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.

So what alternative methods are you talking about? You mean the less-intrusive ones? How would they be a WORSE offense to our civil liberties?

 

[Valerie]

Drama queens, eh?

Is that because there is such an amount of adipose tissue covering your vajayjay that a TSA agent will never find it.

.

Is continuously calling her fat really necessary?

Is she your wife? Are you guys related?

If she is your wife, is that the reason you are so bitter?

.

You sound pathetic.

 

[TheBrain]

It's a good thing you have people like me who seek to protect everyone's civil liberties (including yours). You're welcome.

You keep pretending I don't care about civil liberties...


Why do you not answer to the downside of the alternative methods as opposed to physical search and admit that your efforts to dishonestly pervert this method will only result in aggressive interrogation tactics which would be a WORSE offense to our civil liberties...?

Valerie, Valerie, Valerie.

Why don't you first research the reasons the Muslims want to retaliate?

And then determine if there are alternative ways of addressing their concerns which do not involve waiving our 4th and 5th Amendment rights?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg"]What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't [/ame]

.

I don't care why they want to "retaliate", and oh by the way the struck first.

You haven't waived any rights.

Would you be okay with profiling at airports?

 

[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

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.

You could have just said no and saved yourself the trouble of typing all of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I think they actually profile based on humint.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

You could have just said no and saved yourself the trouble of typing all of that.

In other words you have no retort so you just try to come back with something snappy.

Look junior , you might have gotten away with your bullshit around here in the past, but from this point forward if you make a claim you better be able to back it up. So back up your claim that something is unconstitutional even though the SCOTUS has in fact not ruled that is is unconstitutional per our Constitution.

 

[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?

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

All searches are unreasonable. Given the known threats people should insist on their civil rights over false security.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You keep saying that, and you probably believe it, but not everyone has a choice about flying. Even if they do, that does not make the searches reasonable.

 

[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?

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

All searches are unreasonable. Given the known threats people should insist on their civil rights over false security.

LOL How laughable.

 

[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.

You keep saying that, and you probably believe it, but not everyone has a choice about flying. Even if they do, that does not make the searches reasonable.

UNLESS someone is putting a gun to your head and making you get on an airplane you have a choice.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You sir aren't bright at all.

A) There was no sexual assault. The TSA agent never even came close to ANY behavior that comes close to assault

B) I guess you don't realize that an adult could EASILY conceal something on a child if children weren't screened..

Taking B one step further, if you want to eliminate screening for those who haven't blown up a plane in the past, I'm okay with that, but it would mean profiling Muslims , something we don't condone for some stupid reason.

Use your god damned heads, yall brought this on yourself, you can't have it both ways. Either EVERYONE gets screened, or we profile. Take your pick.

Answer the damn question When has a 6 year old girl EVER been a security threat to the point of being a terrorist. What Justification is there for a sexual assault against her simply because her family is dragging her along for a ride on a plane?

When has an adult used a child to carry a WMD into a Plane? when has that ever been used to harm anyone? Mind you this is just this instance there are hundreds of others were the TSA has assaulted citizens who's only crime is to need to get to a destination.

Carry a WMD on a plane??????

All she needs to do is carry it through the checkpoint. Same goes for granny, someone dressed as a nun, a blind guy, baby in a stroller.....

Would you try to smuggle something through for $100k??

Hey genius..Suicide bombers don't get paid. They DIE.
Look, if you want to live in constant fear while be willing to allow government to steamroll your civil liberties, be my guest.
All this nonsensical security rules, gropes and nudie cameras is nothing but window dressing for the eternally offended and other hand wringers who are too chicken shit to do the correct thing and search every single Arab male and female between the ages of 18 and 40 that attempts to board a commercial aircraft.Your side's political correctness is making our lives miserable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It can be argued that the moon is made out of green cheese.

The federal government does not have the right to search anyone without a warrant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

All searches are unreasonable. Given the known threats people should insist on their civil rights over false security.

LOL How laughable.

So if you are stopped by a police officer and he demands without probable cause to search your vehicle, you would comply "just to avoid the hassle"?
Event though the police officer in in clear violation of the law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so you believe a restaurant should be able to ignore health laws ? Wow that's just amazing. You should move to a third world country where such things are of no concern.

and stop with the stupid Hitler references, Hitler killed 8 million innocent people, I would wager that no one on this board advocates that.

No fucktard.

A restaurant should be free to ignore government imposed health laws.

Reputation is an asset.

A businessman may decide to ignore health concerns at his own economic peril. But the same bureaucrats that you support will bail the motherfucker out if he is too big to fail.

.

First of all if it weren't for government mandated health laws, no restaurant would voluntarily maintain the standards they do now. That is fact. So doing away with them and relying on the restaurants to do the right thing would be foolish.

As to your last paragraph, it doesn't even make sense.

You really are an idiot. There are actually many restaurants that voluntarily exceed the government mandated standards. If you ever want to eat in a truly clean restaurant I would recommend you eat kosher.

Rabbi Uses Giant Blowtorch Dubbed "The Inferno" to Eradicate Leavened Bread Before Passover | Popular Science

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

Given the known threats, the searches are not unreasonable.

The 4th Amendment protects an individual right, not a collective one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You could have just said no and saved yourself the trouble of typing all of that.

In other words you have no retort so you just try to come back with something snappy.

Look junior , you might have gotten away with your bullshit around here in the past, but from this point forward if you make a claim you better be able to back it up. So back up your claim that something is unconstitutional even though the SCOTUS has in fact not ruled that is is unconstitutional per our Constitution.

I asked you if you could make an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy, and you resorted to an appeal to authority. Pointing out that you actually failed at the what I asked is not a snappy comeback.

Can you argue that invasive pat downs are reasonable without claiming that the fact that they have not been ruled unreasonable proves they are? Would a strip search be reasonable if we discovered terrorists using fake skin to hide bombs? How, exactly, do you think me locking my bag when I carry it mean that I do not have an expectation of privacy regarding the contents of that bag?

Try to use your brain and actually think for a change, don't just jump up and down and claim that it is legal because no one said it isn't, provide some type of logic that proves you have thought about the issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You keep saying that, and you probably believe it, but not everyone has a choice about flying. Even if they do, that does not make the searches reasonable.

UNLESS someone is putting a gun to your head and making you get on an airplane you have a choice.

If I can provide a single example of someone who does not have a choice about getting on an airplane will you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?