• 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

Zyphlin said:
If access to any major highway was limited to specific locations and to go through you were subject to a search of your car and of your person, I'd say that would be perfectly legal to do.
Click to expand...


So you'd be fine living under a totalitarian regime? that is what you describe here.

I'd love to make this my sig....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, no one would answer this question before, possibly you have the integrity to do so....

How many possible terrorist acts have been thwarted on domestic point to point flights within the US since Obama and the TSA blueshirts said we needed to do this?
Click to expand...

Why would, or how would, someone tell you classified information?

Seriously, even if I did know, you think I'd risk my career and my freedom because some random guy on a message board wants to challenge my integrity by demanding I give him sensitive or classified information?

Do you think there's some "Thwarted Terrorist Attacks Monthly" that go out to all the people in various federal law enforcement agency that says "Here's exactly what's been thwarted and feel free to share it with all your friends"?

Sorry bud, but no...some rando on a message board questioning my integrity isn't going to make me violate the law.

For that matter, how many Kids, grandmothers, or Nun's have been arrested with terror plans in the US at all?
Click to expand...

Before the shoe bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it in the shoe?

Before the underwear bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it their underwear?

Before 9/11, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that used box cutters?

Before Richard Reed, how many half-white english Al-Qaeda members attempted a terrorist attack on the U.S.

How hard is it to dress up as a nun? How hard is it to fathom someone using their kid as a bomb if they're willing to blow themselves up? Why is it that when we are "reactive" with things like taking shoes off people get upset, but then they want us to be reactive in regards to the focus of our security.
 
j-mac said:
So you'd be fine living under a totalitarian regime? that is what you describe here.

I'd love to make this my sig....

j-mac
Click to expand...

Large difference between thinking something is legal and liking it.

For example, I think Westboro protesting is legal. I also dislike it.

Though I think the hypothetical I stated would be a bit more questionable than the airports for the reason I stated in said post...namely, an incident on a highway would have significantly less impact on the national transit system and on the economy of the country and thus national security, and as such I think the "reasonable"ness of such a search would be far more suspect than that when getting on an airplane.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
And said fine was ridiculous and should've been dealth with. In regards to the 900 complaints, my question would be how many complaints were there in each year since TSA came into being? You need more evidence to say that 900 is actually worth while or not. By the way, statistically 900 is miniscule. 190,000 people go through O'hare airport alone in a DAY. Lets say all 900 complaints came JUST from O'Hare and JUST in one week...it'd still mean 1 in every 1500 had something to COMPLAIN about. Not necessarily did something wrong, but to complain.

Now take O'Hare and spread that over to the 21 other Cat-X sized airports in the U.S. If you average 150,000 through them each per day, you're looking at one complaint for ever 15,000 passengers IF all the complaints were made in a single week.

When looked at the sample size the number you're giving is MINISCULE and to imply it as somehow evidence of a wide spread thing is statistically ridiculous.

That is not to say that LEGITIMATE cases of misconduct shouldn't be investigated. It absolutely SHOULD be. However for every legitimate problem, such as the guy who had his bladder bag broken, you have a "Don't Touch My Junk" situation where (up until the fine) there was nothing wrong there.



Its still cases of the Media trumpeting up something to make it appear a bigger issue than it is, which raises public hyper awareness of it causing "complaints" to file in that would routinely not raise to the level of needing to do such. And you're also horribly incorrect about the reaction to it. Investigations into some complaints have occured, which is evident in the case of the man being apologized too by the TSA head himself for inappropriate conduct by an agent.

The response isn't to STFU and take it, its to tell people to pleaes deal with it honestly and realistically and to also not try to actively disrupt air travel. With everyone and his brother who has the back of a hand ran down his leg calling it "Groping!" or "Fondling!" its hard to figure out which cases where someone actually LEGITIMATELY did something inappropriate and which cases someone did exactly what they should do but the person having it done is just pissy and doesn't like it.



The same probable cause that allows them to search everyone going into a court house or other federal buildings. Airports are government property. The air that the planes are flying in (at least over U.S. land) is U.S. Government Property. And due to the far higher level of impact on national security and the economy should something disrupt air traffic as compared to disrupting a court room it stands to reason a greater level of searching is needed and is allowed.



Yeah, I am. A large amount of people is a large amount of people. Isolated incidents blown up in the media represent one large amount of people as much as it represents another large amount of people. But thanks for proving my point down below which you call a strawman. For a different "class" of people you have different rules and views on what is okay to do to them.



And where am I saying that there shouldn't be an investigation. I'm saying there shouldn't be the wholesale stereotyping of the entire TSA, the attempt to paint the erronious actions as the norm, or that every flippant complaint should be looked at as if its definitely a violation.



Except they have said and are doing investigations. This is standard process. Where have they made any statement that they will not investigate any of these complaints?

Similar to something we experience on this board...simply because the investigation doesn't come to the conclussion YOU want it to doesn't mean that they're not hearing the complaint.



The hyperbole on their part about the life and death nature of the scanners is as annoying as the hyperbole about groping and fondling. That said, the amount of potential damage to the economy with massive protests on one of the busiest days of the year likely helped cause the situation to be one where they felt that the need for safety was outweighed. Doesn't make it right, but don't think for a second they turned it off because they really provide no benefit to security.



See above. And the same thing is happening in the federal employee wage thing. Don't say the rich need to pay more because their evil greedy bastards, that's class warfare. But you're fine to say that federal employees need to get paid less because they're lazy incompotent bafoons. Don't say that the military is a bunch of murderous thugs who are just there to get their jollies because of a few bad apples, but be sure to call all the TSA a bunch of sexual molesting perverted idiots because of it. Certain classes or groups of people are perfectly acceptable for conservatives to belittle, stereotype, and degrade in hopes of turning the public against them to push a political agenda.



What happens when you refuse to take a breathalyzer? It gives them probable cause to take further action. You turn down going through the security in the technical way, they'll check you the analog way. Don't want either? Fine, take a train, bus, or car.

And I'm sorry, am I incorrect in believing you're one of those people pushing for racial, ethnic, or religious profiling? If so, what the hell are you even doing bitching about the constitutionality of these searches if you're pushing for something already deemed unconstitutional?



Actually...yeah, I believe the vast majority (and all the cat-x airports) are on government land. And yes, the sky over the country at the altitudes the planes fly IS government controlled. While they don't own the planes in the sky, they do own the area the planes are flying in.



Unlike plane travel, an incident with a car is not likely to have nearly the same impact on our national transportation system nor on our economy so the level of search based on the potential threat isn't the same. Additionally the situations of when the searches could be conducted are not the same if you're talking about traffic stops as that is not a universal access point search.

If access to any major highway was limited to specific locations and to go through you were subject to a search of your car and of your person, I'd say that would be perfectly legal to do.
Click to expand...



Courthouses are points of contention, and they have far fewer security measures than an airport. Usually a metal detector and a retired cop. I don't see how that's comparable to full body scanners and invasive inside the waist band pat downs.

As for the media, I don't give a crap about what they are "hyping" or not. I am sure they are. The point is, however, there is an issue here with idiotic polices and 4th amendment violations. Clear violations, that the people are not standing for any longer.

I still don't get why, in the name of national security we shut down these all important scanners over the thanksgiving weekend to avoid "protests". Seems if it's so important to fondle my junk (and I convince my wife there is nothing more important, but I digress), that fear of a terrorista far outweighs any rumor of a protest. If it's not that dangerous that we can forgo these invasive scans/junk fondling, in lieu of a protest, I guess the danger is not nearly as great as the TSA and the admin fear mongering.


Also speaking of "large places" what about football games? Why no scanners and groping there? I mean how "safe" can we be here?


And these scanners are bunk anyway, Shape one of these moldable explosives shape it like a tampon stick up a hoo hoo, and what are we going to do next? Refuse flight to women, or check hoo hoo's from now on?

Let me ask you zyph, where is the line for you?
 
Zyphlin said:
Why would, or how would, someone tell you classified information?

Seriously, even if I did know, you think I'd risk my career and my freedom because some random guy on a message board wants to challenge my integrity by demanding I give him sensitive or classified information?

Do you think there's some "Thwarted Terrorist Attacks Monthly" that go out to all the people in various federal law enforcement agency that says "Here's exactly what's been thwarted and feel free to share it with all your friends"?

Sorry bud, but no...some rando on a message board questioning my integrity isn't going to make me violate the law.
Click to expand...


:lamo Come on Zyph, you can do better than that can't you? So you are telling us the ol' "I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya" crap?

Truth is, that with the backlash coming out about this stepped up security the government would indeed trot out there some justification as to why these measures are taking place, if nothing else to quiet the mob. You have nothing to justify these measures.

Before the shoe bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it in the shoe?
Click to expand...

Richard Reed? he was taking United flight 63 from Paris France, to Miami FL

Before the underwear bomber, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that hid it their underwear?
Click to expand...

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a Nun to me, plus he was on Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam, to Detroit MI.

Before 9/11, how many people tried a terrorist attack in the U.S. that used box cutters?
Click to expand...

And we already had security measures in place that have prevented attacks for nearly 10 years now. Why all the sudden ramping up domestically?

Before Richard Reed, how many half-white english Al-Qaeda members attempted a terrorist attack on the U.S.
Click to expand...

Again was flying from out of the country to a destination inside the US. Not a point to point domestic flight.

How hard is it to dress up as a nun? How hard is it to fathom someone using their kid as a bomb if they're willing to blow themselves up? Why is it that when we are "reactive" with things like taking shoes off people get upset, but then they want us to be reactive in regards to the focus of our security.
Click to expand...

Many are not so willing to give their rights up without so much as a whimper.


j-mac
 
Zyphlin said:
And I'm SURE that the House chairman couldn't possibly be responding to public uproar
Click to expand...

no, the public uproar provides the impetus

that's why the dem chair of house homeland security and his ultra progressive partner described these touchy tsa intrusions as "running afoul of privacy and civil liberties"

the politics of these pat downs is pure poison, transparently

party on, pal
 
A customer of popular women’s health company, Gladrags, relayed her recent experience at the hands of the TSA via email.

In short, she was asked to walk through a radiation firing naked body scanner and complied. The scanner produced a naked image of her, but because her sanitary towel was obscuring her most intimate parts from prying eyes, the TSA agents pulled her aside for a full groin search. Not something to be relished by any person, let alone someone who has previously suffered sexual assault.

Here is the woman’s email:

I recently traveled via air, and was subjected to that new scanning device. “No problem,” I thought. I was wearing jeans and a linen tanktop, bra, panties, and one camouflage pantyliner.

I’m a rule follower, so I never have any problems at the airport. Not this time. I was stopped, and then held for 15 minutes while they tried to find a female supervisor. I couldn’t get to my bag, my shawl or my shoes; just standing there while the TSA agents kept me in one place.

Now, I don’t want this to be about bad TSA agents; they were doing their job, they were as delicate as they could be, etc., etc. But what ultimately happened is that I was subjected to search so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults.

Why?

Because of my flannel panty-liner. These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your “groin” while another woman watches on (two in my case – they were training in a new girl – awesome).

So please, please, tell the ladies not to wear their liners at the airport (I didn’t even have an insert in). I’m a strong, confident woman; I’m an Army vet, I work full-time and go to graduate school full-time, I have a wonderful husband, and I don’t take any nonsense from anyone. I don’t dramatize, and I don’t exaggerate. I’m trying to give you a sense of who I am so you won’t think that this is a plea for attention, or a jumping on the bandwagon about the recent TSA proposed boycott.

I just don’t want another woman to have to go through the “patting down” because she didn’t know that her glad-rag would be a matter of national security.”
Click to expand...

Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim

a more mainstream source: Female passenger subjected to patdown after her sanitary napkin showed up on body scanner : Hot Topics
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Courthouses are points of contention, and they have far fewer security measures than an airport. Usually a metal detector and a retired cop. I don't see how that's comparable to full body scanners and invasive inside the waist band pat downs.
Click to expand...

They have fewer security measures, but also warrant fewer. And for a point of contention the practice has been going on for a pretty damn long time without it being deemed unconstitutional yet.

As for the media, I don't give a crap about what they are "hyping" or not. I am sure they are. The point is, however, there is an issue here with idiotic polices and 4th amendment violations. Clear violations, that the people are not standing for any longer.
Click to expand...

And I disagree with the notion of clear violations of the 4th amendment. I think there are isolated incidents of people taking the searches too far. I think the majority of them are well within the boundries of the law.

Though again, my issue isn't even so much with people disagreeing with the methods. You don't like the full body scanner? Fine. You don't like the pat downs? Fine. Argue that, no issue here from me. My issue though is with people who are simply using the complaints to push for things that are unquestionably unconstitutional, or use ridiculous hyperbole, exaggeration, and faulty logic when discussing it to imply a far larger and more widespread issue then it is.

I still don't get why, in the name of national security we shut down these all important scanners over the thanksgiving weekend to avoid "protests". Seems if it's so important to fondle my junk (and I convince my wife there is nothing more important, but I digress), that fear of a terrorista far outweighs any rumor of a protest. If it's not that dangerous that we can forgo these invasive scans/junk fondling, in lieu of a protest, I guess the danger is not nearly as great as the TSA and the admin fear mongering.
Click to expand...

I think it was rather dumb for them to cave into threats and turn off the machines. My only guess is they felt the protests were going to be legitimate enough to where it would cause a severe issue for the transit system as wait times on the busiest day of the year would become astronomically long as they have to give the large majority of travelers hand searches.

Your reasoning is faulty reverend, as it tries to compare two situations (One of the busiest travel days of the year mixed with a nation wide protest compared to a normal travel day) and act as if they're analogs. They're not. It could be concievable that normal travel + these scanners is safer than normal travel without these scanners...but extremely busy travel + huge protests could cause more harm than normal travel without scanners.

Also speaking of "large places" what about football games? Why no scanners and groping there? I mean how "safe" can we be here?
Click to expand...

The threat to national security posted with something happening at a football game is less than with an airplane, and thus less interest in the government investing money to put said scanners into those area.

However, I know going into Fedex field I've been wanded before and I've also been given a pat down. Not as "invasive" as what goes on with airports at the moment now, but as I said the potential threat is greater on the planes.

Not to mention they're relatively poor analogs since generally...even if its helped financed by a city...stadiums aren't federal property.

And these scanners are bunk anyway, Shape one of these moldable explosives shape it like a tampon stick up a hoo hoo, and what are we going to do next? Refuse flight to women, or check hoo hoo's from now on?
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Something like this can be thought up for EVERY form of security. Are you for scrapping all airport security? If so, that's fine, but lets be up front with your position. Because there's no a single form of security present that you can't come up with something like you just did.

Let me ask you zyph, where is the line for you?
Click to expand...

I don't know, and won't know until we hit that point and it sparks as "the line" for me. Hypotethically speaking, it'll be when we start doing something that is clearly unconstitutional to me. So far, I've not really seen it. If we go to less security in the airports I'd be fine with it (As long as the people calling for it don't bitch if/when something happens), but lets do it with actual reasonable and realistic confrontation with the issues rather than exaggerations and over reactions.
 
Zyphlin said:
First, I think one of TSA's biggest issues is being reactionary instead of proactive. The primary threat right now is muslim extremists. That may not always be the main threat. It is also not the only threat. It is also not the ONLY thing the TSA is there for.
Click to expand...

Yes, thus far, this is the only explanation for what they're doing. What other excuses have they used?


Second, thank you for your pathetic and worthless hyperbole with the "groping" comment.
Click to expand...

You're very welcome!


Third, yes, I think the most intelligent way to both effecitvely and constitutionally (because unlike some conservatives I don't say "**** the constitution" whenever it benefits me to do so) go about the screening is to screen everyone with further screening happening based on certain criteria. Do I think the way TSA does it right now is the perfect way? Absolutely not. There's definite places for improvement. But I think the general method is the best for the nature of our countries air traffic and the balance of our needs of security, expediency, and constitutionality.
Click to expand...

So although it is ineffective and is against the Constitution you are still for it. I'd never heard before that the Constitution had to be "balanced" but i suppose anything can happen in the political climate today.

The terrorists are laughing while Americans are removing their shoes and any other suspicious clothing, having their intimated selves exposed to strangers, having those same strangers run their hands over their bodies, including little girls, and ignoring a significant part of the Constitution. While going out of their way to not offend Muslims this same government has no compunction about offending ordinary Americans, and will fine and jail them if they don't comply with this insanity. And you're all for it.

Yes, silly me, not imagining that its fine to **** on the constitution.
Click to expand...

That's one way to put it.

.Yay! More ignorant hyperbole! No one is having their crotches exposed, and once again your implication with the negative tone of the word grope there is far different than what is happening.
Click to expand...

I suppose you haven't seen the photos and videos.
Now I agree, we are horribly reactionary. Guess what, what you and others are proposing is REACTIONARY. Its saying "this is the problem now, lets just deal with that". What you and others are doing is no different than the shoe thing.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific here? How do i relate to "the shoe thing"?

The person that wants to **** on the constitution is making an allegation of tyranny...that's funny.
Click to expand...

And who is genuinely want to **** on the Constitution? Wasn't it you who said it should be "balanced"?
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
:lamo Come on Zyph, you can do better than that can't you? So you are telling us the ol' "I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya" crap?
Click to expand...

No J-mac, I'm pulling the "I can lose my job if I post SSI or higher information" crap mixed with stating that its unreasonable to think that since people aren't telling you things that would be considered classified that it means its not happening. Seriously, :lamo all you want, you not being seemingly mature enough to understand there are actual restrictions and rules regarding information in some jobs isn't going to magically make me or others divulge stuff.

Think back to the Bush Administration even. Was there weekly briefings given out to the public explaining every single attack or possible threat that was thwarted by TSA? Are you suggesting TSA did almost nothing while Bush was in office as well?

Richard Reed? he was taking United flight 63 from Paris France, to Miami FL
Click to expand...

The point being that he wouldn't fit this mystical testable stereotype of a terrorist prior to his action.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a Nun to me, plus he was on Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam, to Detroit MI.
Click to expand...

Again, the point being that just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.

And we already had security measures in place that have prevented attacks for nearly 10 years now. Why all the sudden ramping up domestically?
Click to expand...

And thank you for making my point about the media. This "ramp up" you speak of isn't something new. TSA has been "ramping up" its security since its inception. Multiple years ago it upgraded many airports with the "sniffer" machines that puffs air and looks for trace chemicals. It was a number of years ago when the first of the body scanners started to make the news. We had changes with things like the shoes, the liquids on the plane, etc. TSA has been "ramping up" since its inception, its not something new, its not like for 10 years it was completely stagnant and all of a sudden new stuff is being done.

Many are not so willing to give their rights up without so much as a whimper.
Click to expand...

You're right, they're not willing to (potentially since the SCOTUS hasn't said its unconstitutional yet) give up their rights.....they're just apparently willing to give up OTHER peoples rights since so many pushing against this are pushing for something that HAS been ruled on by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
 
Grant said:
So although it is ineffective and is against the Constitution you are still for it. I'd never heard before that the Constitution had to be "balanced" but i suppose anything can happen in the political climate today.
Click to expand...

Simply because YOU believe it is ineffective and against the constitution doesn't make it unquestionable fact. Show me a SCOTUS case stating that the TSA's searches are unconstitutional then I'll agree with you.

The terrorists are laughing while Americans are removing their shoes and any other suspicious clothing, having their intimated selves exposed to strangers, having those same strangers run their hands over their bodies, including little girls, and ignoring a significant part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to appeal to emotion with your language here, but you can try to paint all the horrible pictures you want to act like its the "norm", we shouldn't make policy based on whether or not terrorists are laughing. And again, show me where the SCOTUS has ruled TSA's actions are unconstitutional.

While going out of their way to not offend Muslims this same government has no compunction about offending ordinary Americans, and will fine and jail them if they don't comply with this insanity. And you're all for it.
Click to expand...

Wah wah wah obama cowtowing to muslism wah wah wah.

Don't care about your worthless partisan politics, has nothing to do with the topic.

I suppose you haven't seen the photos and videos.
Click to expand...

I have. In the way people are implying when they use groping I've not really seen it. I've not seen anyone have to expose their private parts for view. I've seen a few cases where individuals acted outside of the guidelines and procedures and they should be punished for those cases, but its ridiculous to take those isolated incidents and suggest its standard.

Can you be more specific here? How do i relate to "the shoe thing"?
Click to expand...

By that I meant those pushing for the focus to be on Muslims or Arabic men and not on "nuns or kids or grandma" are doing nothing different than what TSA was doing with the shoe bomber. You're seeing something happen and thus reacting specifically to that without regard for future variations.

And who is genuinely want to **** on the Constitution? Wasn't it you who said it should be "balanced"?
Click to expand...

Whoever is stating that we should focus or limit our searchs simply on muslims or arabic males with broad profiling, the type of thing in law enforcement that has been found flatly unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Calling for proper investigation is "swallowing up as if it were gospel"? Please boo stop exaggerating and being so hysterical. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo You have treated it as if it were true. It has been myself and not you stated that it is just a claim, and you've objected to that. You really a funny person Rev. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo You have treated it as if it were true. It has been myself and not you stated that it is just a claim, and you've objected to that. You really a funny person Rev. ;)
Click to expand...


Well at least you waited till noon before you hit the sauce. :shrug:
 
Zyphlin said:
Show me a SCOTUS case stating that the TSA's searches are unconstitutional...And again, show me where the SCOTUS has ruled TSA's actions are unconstitutional...
Click to expand...

Red herring. The searching IN OF ITSELf is not the problem, the TYPE of search [the specific pat down policies, body scanners] is what has everybody up in arms.
 
Zyphlin said:
I find it really, really disgusting and frankly pathetic that many of the same types of people who railed and shouted about the "drive by media" style of reporting during Katrina...hyping up singular incidents as the norm, creating a culture where people come out complaining and exaggerating to get attention, reporting on things dishonestly and in exaggerated terms...are now championing this because "See! See! So much is happening! There's so much focus".

I will say again, anyone that considers what's going on at 99% of those screenings as "groping" are in bad need of some education in their sex life because I feel hugely sorry for whoever their partner is.

And what's most disgusting is people like Sean Hannity who for years is going on and on and on about security who is now wantonly and openly playing politics with the security of this country and with an agency created and whose procedural methods were put into place under a President he supported simply because he wants to shove his, idiotic and inpractical, political position about profiling down peoples throats.

The man is more worried about scoring political points, degrading muslims, and pushing his agenda than he is about security with his constant exaggerations, attempts to get the security removed, and denegration of the TSA. He's a pathetic peice of political trash and he's shown himself clearly here. And I garauntee you if we did impliment the unfeasable methods he wanted and Al Qaeda smartens up and recruits a white guy who slaps a bomb on his wheelchair bound grandma, that ****ing **** would be the first one screaming about how horrible security is under Obama, how worthless the TSA is, how the system failed, etc etc.

You have a work force of millions with a handful of stories coming out, primarily because the media has stirred up a controversy, and its made out to be the norm. You have no intellectual honesty going on that is looking and honestly comparing this with what was going on prior to Obama being in office. You have constant and continual exaggeration, hyperbole, and distortion when speaking about it. If this was anything else you'd have most of the people on the right here screaming about the left wing media bias, the media manufacturing a story, and other such bull**** but when it suits their need to attack Obama then suddenly everything we hear is absolute gospel truth.

Its ****ing ridiculous.
Click to expand...

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” -- Thomas Jefferson
 
American said:
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Read my other posts American. I have no problem with people being up in arms about something. Be up in arms about something based on realistic fact, not exaggerated hyperbole. Be up in arms about the actual thing, not simply because its political advantageous for you to be upset because it helps you push another agenda.

Pretty sure Jeffersons purpose in that quote wasn't "Be attentive of public affairs when it gives you a chance to insult the other sides politicians". You have conservatives quoting the ACLU as their defense for bad things happening when the ACLU was making similar accusations when Bush was in office, but of course...Bush was in Office, not Obama, so naturally the ACLU was not to be trusted then.
 
Travelsonic said:
Red herring. The searching IN OF ITSELf is not the problem, the TYPE of search [the specific pat down policies, body scanners] is what has everybody up in arms.
Click to expand...

Again, show me where that's been found to be unconstitutional. Large difference in saying you think something is unconstitutional and stating it as if its a foregone conclussive fact.
 
Zyphlin said:
Read my other posts American. I have no problem with people being up in arms about something. Be up in arms about something based on realistic fact, not exaggerated hyperbole. Be up in arms about the actual thing, not simply because its political advantageous for you to be upset because it helps you push another agenda.

Pretty sure Jeffersons purpose in that quote wasn't "Be attentive of public affairs when it gives you a chance to insult the other sides politicians". You have conservatives quoting the ACLU as their defense for bad things happening when the ACLU was making similar accusations when Bush was in office, but of course...Bush was in Office, not Obama, so naturally the ACLU was not to be trusted then.
Click to expand...
And I'm one of them, to illustrate how wrong these searches MUST be.
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, show me where that's been found to be unconstitutional. Large difference in saying you think something is unconstitutional and stating it as if its a foregone conclussive fact.
Click to expand...

I think this level of search without a warrant is unreasonable.
 
American said:
And I'm one of them, to illustrate how wrong these searches MUST be.
Click to expand...

But the ACLU had issues with the TSA BEFORE these searches, when the Bush administration was running it, and yet they were ignored or better yet blasted by Conservatives during that time.

Yet...magically...when they're coming out against something this Administration is saying is okay and can be spun in a way to look bad for Obama, suddenly conservatives are going "see, see! The ACLU says its bad!"
 
American said:
I think this level of search without a warrant is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

That's wonderful. I don't. You think its unconstitutional. I think it is. Its in place and staying there until SCOTUS agrees with you though or the agency volunteerily changes it.
 
Zyphlin said:
But the ACLU had issues with the TSA BEFORE these searches, when the Bush administration was running it, and yet they were ignored or better yet blasted by Conservatives during that time.

Yet...magically...when they're coming out against something this Administration is saying is okay and can be spun in a way to look bad for Obama, suddenly conservatives are going "see, see! The ACLU says its bad!"
Click to expand...
I don't remember what they said before.
 
American said:
I don't remember what they said before.
Click to expand...

Just a quick smattering

2004 - ACLU: Airport frisks are invitation to sexual harassment

Funny line in that one:

Even those who pass successfully though metal detectors and appear unsuspicious may be subject to an intrusive pat-down in sensitive body areas, including breasts, genitals, and buttocks.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began allowing full-body frisks when it revamped its screening tests on Sept. 22 to ensure passenger safety. Since then, about a dozen complaints are filed each week regarding screening misconduct, many from women who feel they were groped.
Click to expand...

Lets continue on.

How about in 2005 when the ACLU came out Against TSA Questioning Suspicious Behavior. Yes, I remember all the conservatives praising the glorious upstanding ACLU then.

2006 ACLU sues government over 'no-fly' list.

Oh, what about 2007, when that Bush guy was still in office. There were these things beginning to roll out and test new airline passenger screening machines called "millimeter-wave passenger imaging technology"....or as people keep calling it now "naked scanners". And boy the ACLU had a big problem with it then. Know who WASN'T having a gigantic huge fit about it talking for hours on end on their talk shows and flooding message boards? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a C.

But now...oh we MUST listen to the ACLU, I mean, the ACLU is saying it so it MUST be serious.
 
the aclu, like house homeland security, is cited by the serious as SIGNAL

ie, indication of the lay of the land

hello
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom