• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures. We live in extraordinary times. We are being beaten to death by our own Constitution....that profiling is illegal. That, to me, is the ridiculous part of the whole debate.
I actually agree with this. I would much rather see profiling than the current system if for no other reason than that far fewer people's rights would be abridged. I'm not talking racial profiling, either. I'm talking mannerisms and that sort of thing.
 
Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures. We live in extraordinary times. We are being beaten to death by our own Constitution....that profiling is illegal. That, to me, is the ridiculous part of the whole debate.

No, the ridiculous part of this debate is that you seem to think you need the government's permission to choose your own method of travel. There is no other way to interpret "you don't have the right to fly."
 
This is the most asinine argument I've yet seen on this subject. So because it's not the exact same privacy that's being infringed upon, one is OK, the other is not? :doh

I'll quote myself again, since you glossed over my point without really addressing it:

It's not remotely the same. The public nature of the tranportation, the history of actual efforts to bring things on a plane, remeber 9/11? It wasn't wmds either.

So, there are real and significant differences. treating them as if they were the same is simply inaccurate.
 
No, the ridiculous part of this debate is that you seem to think you need the government's permission to choose your own method of travel. There is no other way to interpret "you don't have the right to fly."

Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.
 
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.

No, you keep INSISTING that you don't have "the right" to fly. You even put it in bold.

So, perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean by "the right to fly," and why, in your estimation, we don't have it.
 
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.

Yeah, right. Security protocols like this would not offend you, eh?

Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

The woman says she was singled out for "extended search procedures" while preparing to board a plane to Amarillo in May 2008.

“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said.

“As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”

The lawsuit claims that other employees laughed and made jokes about the incident "for an extended period of time".

The distraught woman left the screening area to be consoled but when she re-entered the boarding area employees allegedly started joking about the matter.

"One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,'" the suit said.
 
Oh, by the way -- my right to "object" to anything is not trumped by any airline security concern. :roll:
 
Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a "fatwa" — a religious ruling — that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.

Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say - USATODAY.com

It was at a news conference that Napolitano was asked by CNSNews.com, "On the pat-downs, CAIR has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat-downs before board plans. Will you insist that they do go through full body pat-downs before boarding planes?"

Napolitano didn't answer the question. Instead she talked about the need to keep powders and gels and liquids off passenger jets.

What she did say was, "We are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made."

Napolitano: 'More to come' on Muslims, pat-downs

yep, wouldn't want to go against any Fatwa's now would we?

Meanwhile this is ok:




"Those who would give up their rights in order to gain security, deserve neither!"

Franklin


j-mac
 
Oh, by the way -- my right to "object" to anything is not trumped by any airline security concern. :roll:

I would agree with this. You certainly may object. And if you used a more reasonable approach, I might agree with you.
 
No, you keep INSISTING that you don't have "the right" to fly. You even put it in bold.

So, perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean by "the right to fly," and why, in your estimation, we don't have it.

We have no Constitutional right to fly sans whatever regulations and conditions are put in place surrounding that flight. I have a right to go into a restaurant any time I want to, unless I'm barefoot and the restaurant says no. I have a right to enter an airport terminal building. I don't have the right to get on an airline unless I follow whatever regulations and conditions are put in place. If I'm drunk, I lose that right. If I refuse to follow regulations and conditions to get me past the checkpoint, I lose that right.
 
Yeah, right. Security protocols like this would not offend you, eh?

Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

There are jerks everywhere, in every profession, in every corner of the world. To say this is "typical behavior" is just plain reeedickalus.

Oh, by the way -- my right to "object" to anything is not trumped by any airline security concern. :roll:

What didn't you understand about my Post #274?

Just let me make this clear. I think you have every right in the whole wide world to object vociferously to current security screening procedures.
 
I would agree with this. You certainly may object. And if you used a more reasonable approach, I might agree with you.

What disingenuous horse****.

You won't agree with me because you think this is fine. That isn't going to change.

What actually mean is, you'll agree with ME if I'm "more reasonable" and agree with YOU.

:lamo
 
What didn't you understand about my Post #274?

Probably your self-contradiction in your to post to which I was referring. :shrug:
 
What disingenuous horse****.

You won't agree with me because you think this is fine. That isn't going to change.

What actually mean is, you'll agree with ME if I'm "more reasonable" and agree with YOU.

:lamo

I do think it is fine, but I linked a video and argument different than yours that was more reasonable earlier. It related specific to children and their difficulties. By treating everyone as a them and not addressing actual arguments, you lose any chance of actually finding common ground.
 
We have no Constitutional right to fly sans whatever regulations and conditions are put in place surrounding that flight.

It doesn't work like that.

I don't need the Constitution to expressly permit anything I want to do.

The government needs to justify its intrusion to me, not the other way around.


I have a right to go into a restaurant any time I want to, unless I'm barefoot and the restaurant says no.

That's between you and the restaurant owner. The government has nothing to do with it.

I have a right to enter an airport terminal building. I don't have the right to get on an airline unless I follow whatever regulations and conditions are put in place. If I'm drunk, I lose that right. If I refuse to follow regulations and conditions to get me past the checkpoint, I lose that right.

Which the government needs to justify doing.
 
Last edited:
I do think it is fine, but I linked a video and argument different than yours that was more reasonable earlier. It related specific to children and their difficulties. By treating everyone as a them and not addressing actual arguments, you lose any chance of actually finding common ground.

And by frequently declaring your opinion as "fact," which you have done several times over the last few days alone, you've given up any claim to "reasonability." Too late for that now.
 
It doesn't work like that.

I don't need the Constitution to expressly permit anything I want to do.

The government needs to justify its intrusion to me, not the other way around.

Yes, it DOES work like that -- and your big-bad government already did justify it. It's called "The Law," duly enacted by your representatives.

Buy a ticket, refuse the checkpoint security measures, leave the airport, lose your money spent for the ticket. The ticket'll give you "standing," and you can take it all the way to SCOTUS. Be my guest.

But in the meantime, if you don't intend to do that, when you get in the security line at the checkpoint, wouldja' mind keepin' it movin'????
 
It's not remotely the same. The public nature of the tranportation, the history of actual efforts to bring things on a plane, remeber 9/11? It wasn't wmds either.

So, there are real and significant differences. treating them as if they were the same is simply inaccurate.

You can state all you want that some privacies should be infringed and others should not, but that doesn't make you right. You're arguing for some of the most invasive violations of privacy for one of the safest forms of transportation. It's frankly ridiculous that you think getting on a plane is the most vulnerable you're going to be at any given point in your life. Your argument that airplane security can be rationalized because it's been a threat in the past is even further off base. You've never heard of Oklahoma City... Or Columbine? How many planes were involved in those?
 
It doesn't work like that.

I don't need the Constitution to expressly permit anything I want to do.

The government needs to justify its intrusion to me, not the other way around.

Harshaw, would you mind clarifying what it is you're arguing. I believe I've lost your point.
 
And by frequently declaring your opinion as "fact," which you have done several times over the last few days alone, you've given up any claim to "reasonability." Too late for that now.

No, my opinion is my opinion. Fact is fact. Molestation and even feeling up has a factual definition outside of opinion. Not knowing the difference between the two seems to be your problem and not mine. And by going the hyperbolic exaggeration route you did begin with, you left reason and not me.

And it is never to late to stop and make a reasonable argunment.
 
Yes, it DOES work like that -- and your big-bad government already did justify it. It's called "The Law," duly enacted by your representatives.

1) Bull****. This is a TSA measure, not a duly-enacted law.

2) Any law or regulation or action involving a search must absolutely be justified against the 4th Amendment. Merely passing it doesn't make it so.


Buy a ticket, refuse the checkpoint security measures, leave the airport, lose your money spent for the ticket. The ticket'll give you "standing," and you can take it all the way to SCOTUS. Be my guest.

But in the meantime, if you don't intend to do that, when you get in the security line at the checkpoint, wouldja' mind keepin' it movin'????

Sorry; you have no authority here.

You're not doing much for my view of cops and how backwards they frequently seem to understand the relationship between citizen and state. You work for us. We don't work for you.

(Actually, I find that runs about 50/50; about half of the cops I know do take civil liberties very seriously, but I guess we know which 50 you're in.)
 
You can state all you want that some privacies should be infringed and others should not, but that doesn't make you right. You're arguing for some of the most invasive violations of privacy for one of the safest forms of transportation. It's frankly ridiculous that you think getting on a plane is the most vulnerable you're going to be at any given point in your life. Your argument that airplane security can be rationalized because it's been a threat in the past is even further off base. You've never heard of Oklahoma City... Or Columbine? How many planes were involved in those?

Factual some can. Even wiretapping can be done under the proper conditions. I don't object with proper oversight, for example. It is all about the circumstance and specifics. This is the problem we always have in these debates, your side tends to treat unlike things as if they are alkike and lump things together as if there is no nuance, all of nothing. it doesn't work that way. Everything is in the details.
 
No, my opinion is my opinion. Fact is fact. Molestation and even feeling up has a factual definition outside of opinion. Not knowing the difference between the two seems to be your problem and not mine. And by going the hyperbolic exaggeration route you did begin with, you left reason and not me.

And it is never to late to stop and make a reasonable argunment.

Been doing it all day. :roll:
 
Been doing it all day. :roll:

I hope you will understand that as long as you use hyperbolic and exaggerated labugae like feeling up and molestation, I can't agree with you. :shrug:
 
Your argument is childish, imo. I don't need the government's permission to chose to travel one way or another. Travel any way you'd like. But if you choose to fly, OMFG!!!!!!!, be prepared that the security of other passengers aboard that airplane comes before your right to object to security protocols legally in place.

And what was wrong with the old security protocols...the ones that DIDN'T involve Federal Nudie Booths and Federal Groping? They've been fine, as there have been only two attempted terrorist attacks out of MILLIONS of flights in the past 9 years, both of which were thwarted by the passengers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom