• 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 Could Ban Flights From Texas If State Passes Anti-Patdown Law

Just like the DEA can swoop in and bust people for marijuana.

Deal with it.

And I am dealing with it, by debating it, and protesting it in whatever means I can.

Or were you looking to say "bend over"?



So the DEA can do X, a completely different agent can do Y invasive thing and we should be OK with it?

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that your logic is not there... at all. For one, the DEA's abilities have nothing to do with the TSA. Secondly, i the DEA does act in a manner that is unjust and gets away with it, that shouldn't mean that another agency should do whatever it want unchallenged. It means, if anything, we should put MORE scrutiny on these agencies to make sure they have the proper checks and balances.





1) The body scanners don't show naked bodies, they show a thermal scan. All you get is an outline

Maybe some of the other ones out there, used in other European countries, but the ones in use sure as heck show more than just an outline... or do you just go by the shrunken, distored images relased by the TSA/DHS for news agencies, instead of samples from the manufactuer's own page, and images leaked from the machines themselves?


3) The searches are not unreasonable, but they aren't done with enough... partiality. I mean they check little kids.

The problem is with the methods, not the searching in of itself.


I don't understand why people are so uptight about the body scanners though.

Even after reading the various complaints made about them, from the digital strip search aspect , to the radiation aspect, to the image recording/storage issue?
 
Last edited:
Cool. You mind if I feel your wife/girlfriend up like that, without probable cause?

I'm assuming that they don't grope women for ****s and giggles. It's a highly-scrutinized and watched-after position, not a circus.
 
Cool. You mind if I feel your wife/girlfriend up like that, without probable cause?

Are you a TSA worker and are we about to board a flight? Then YES because I have NO no problem you "searching" her and doing your job since we chose to partake in said services where we are fully aware we may be searched.

LMAO
 
Last edited:
And I am dealing with it, by debating it, and protesting it in whatever means I can.

Or were you looking to say "bend over"?



So the DEA can do X, a completely different agent can do Y invasive thing and we should be OK with it?

I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that your logic is not there... at all.

I was mostly referring to enforcing a federal law on top of a state's law, but you can misinterpret it however you want.
 
I'm assuming that they don't grope women for ****s and giggles. It's a highly-scrutinized and watched-after position, not a circus.

WRONG! ever TSA work is sexually aroused and sexually assaulting every passenger just to get off, its a huge conspiracy!
 
Are you a TSA worker and are we about to board a flight?

Nope, I'm not a TSA worker, but I can wait and feel her up before you board a flight if that makes you feel better. Why does my title matter? If it's not sexual assault, then it's not sexual assault.

O_Guru said:
Then YES because I have NO no problem you "searching" her and doing your job since we chose to partake in said services where we are fully aware we may be searched.

Pardon my French, but that is bull****. These regulations aren't the doing of a few overzealous airlines, the federal government mandates them for ALL flights. You can make the same "we chose to do it knowing we might be searched" argument for ANY violation of civil liberties. Hell, you can use it to justify cops randomly strip-searching people who are walking down the street. "Well, they KNEW that they might be strip-searched and they chose to go out walking anyway." :roll:
 
Until we train TSA workers to think like terrorists trying to smuggle a bomb on a plane or predict the future, it is what it is.

If they can't be trained to think like terrorists trying to smuggle a bomb on a plane, then they have no reason for existing at all.
 
Nope, I'm not a TSA worker, but I can wait and feel her up before you board a flight if that makes you feel better. Why does my title matter? If it's not sexual assault, then it's not sexual assault.

Did you really just ask this? Why does yout title matter? how about common sense, reality and logic.

If my son is in school and called down to the nurses office Im going to be concerned if its the janitor that inspects him for a hernia instead of the nurse LMAO titles matter to anybody that has common sense LMAO Sorry I live in the REAL world and a stranger doing it for no reason is NOTHING like the TSA doing it and a person KNOWING its going to be done and AGREEING to it by partaking in said services. :lamo

Could you be any more dramatic?



Pardon my French, but that is bull****. These regulations aren't the doing of a few overzealous airlines, the federal government mandates them for ALL flights. You can make the same "we chose to do it knowing we might be searched" argument for ANY violation of civil liberties. Hell, you can use it to justify cops randomly strip-searching people who are walking down the street. "Well, they KNEW that they might be strip-searched and they chose to go out walking anyway." :roll:

Wow you either have a serious lack of understanding or reality or serious comprehension skills, your example isn't even close to the same on any rational level what so ever?

"walking down the street"???? LOL:aliens3:
 
Then YES because I have NO no problem you "searching" her and doing your job since we chose to partake in said services where we are fully aware we may be searched.

You act like the groping and searching are synonymous, a in because searching is OK that this method is OK. Just because it is a means of searching doesn't make it the best, OK, or necessary for that matter.

I'm for some method of searching that works, and I am opposed to these, and am not OK with the pat downs as they are.

And last time I checked, expecting a search doesn't mean anything goes - the checks STILL must obey the law, hell, *if I remember correctly* the laws giving the limited administrative search SPECIFY specifically that they have to be reasonable, and follow applicable laws.

Some cop can set up a checkpoint to enter a courthouse and require being kicked in the balls until you throw up, that doesn't make it legal because you have the choice to enter the courthouse or not. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that there are boundaries, boundaries only pushed wih GOOD reasons, backed up by proof of necessit, and not arbitrary crap like "well, he chose to pass through here" with nothing else to go by.

CHOICE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LACK THEREOF OF A FEDERAL AGENCY'S ACTIONS.

If you're gonna defend that argument of yours, PLEASE back it up with FACTS to prove me wrong - laws, case law, etc, instead of just playing the "it is because it is" angle without backing it up, because every thread is is just that, and it is getting - pardon my french - pretty ****ng annoying.
 
Last edited:
Did you really just ask this? Why does yout title matter? how about common sense, reality and logic.

If my son is in school and called down to the nurses office Im going to be concerned if its the janitor that inspects him for a hernia instead of the nurse LMAO titles matter to anybody that has common sense LMAO Sorry I live in the REAL world and a stranger doing it for no reason is NOTHING like the TSA doing it and a person KNOWING its going to be done and AGREEING to it by partaking in said services. :lamo

So to make sure I understand you correctly: It's sexual assault when a stranger feels someone up in this manner for no reason...but it's not sexual assault when a TSA agent feels someone up in exactly the same manner, also for no reason. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

O_Guru said:
Wow you either have a serious lack of understanding or reality or serious comprehension skills, your example isn't even close to the same on any rational level what so ever?

"walking down the street"???? LOL:aliens3:

Since you obviously can't make a coherent argument to defend your view, I think I'm done responding to you. Toodles. :2wave:
 
Every day when I commute to work, I ride the DC Metro. It holds as many people as an airplane does, if not more. Subways have been the targets of terrorist bombings in the past, and yet I don't so much as pass through a metal detector before boarding. And you know what? That's fine. Everyone accepts the miniscule risk, because it isn't worth the time, money, or liberty to set up TSA-style anal probes at every turnstyle for the Metro.

It is insane to be wasting so much money on this **** at our airports. People have absolutely lost their minds. The risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack is tiny.
 
You act like the groping and searching are synonymous, a in because searching is OK that this method is OK. Just because it is a means of searching doesn't make it the best, OK, or necessary for that matter.

I'm for some method of searching that works, and I am opposed to these, and am not OK with the pat downs as they are.

And last time I checked, expecting a search doesn't mean anything goes - the checks STILL must obey the law, hell, *if I remember correctly* the laws giving the limited administrative search SPECIFY specifically that they have to be reasonable, and follow applicable laws.

Some cop can set up a checkpoint to enter a courthouse and require being kicked in the balls until you throw up, that doesn't make it legal because you have the choice to enter the courthouse or not. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that there are boundaries, boundaries only pushed wih GOOD reasons, backed up by proof of necessit, and not arbitrary crap like "well, he chose to pass through here" with nothing else to go by.

CHOICE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LACK THEREOF OF A FEDERAL AGENCY'S ACTIONS.

If you're gonna defend that argument of yours, PLEASE back it up with FACTS to prove me wrong - laws, case law, etc, instead of just playing the "it is because it is" angle without backing it up, because every thread is is just that, and it is getting - pardon my french - pretty ****ng annoying.

No Im showing you that to somebody rational the word "groping" has no power like you want it too. A lot of people relate that word to a sexually thing and while in some dictionaries that will be listed why down the list it just means to feel around. Its a buzz word and appeal to emotion that doesnt work on objectional people.

Now on to the rest of your post.

If you are agreeing in said search and are aware of what they are then YES actually it does and thats a fact. If a cop doesnt have cause to search me or my car he can NOT but if I give him permission he CAN and anything he finds he CAN charge me with and if he finds anything questionable he can now USE that for cause and take the search further.

The cop and the kick in the balls is just nonsense and not even applicable, what are you in middle school? If you can't defend you stance with something rational and relevant just say so LOL

Get angry all you want, your emotion just shows your frusatation because of your inablity to back up your claim but the fact remains, the 4th is not being violated because the search is consented. :)
 
how about common sense, reality and logic.

You might want to try that yourself. :roll:

If my son is in school and called down to the nurses office Im going to be concerned if its the janitor that inspects him for a hernia instead of the nurse LMAO

Yet you are perfectly all right with undertrained people putting these aggressive flavor pat downs upon us, and those untrained so far as radiation emitting technologies ex-raying us just to get on a goddammed airplane? :roll:

... like the TSA doing it and a person KNOWING its going to be done and AGREEING to it by partaking in said services. :lamo

Show me where I agreed to these specific methods. Please show me, 'cause you sure won't find it in the airline's Contract of Carriage [federal government is doing this], and ou sure won't find it in any laws governing the TSA since the methods employed are supposed to follow the currently existing laws.

Or better yet, show me where choosing to get on an airplane or not is at all a condition that allows the feds to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to us, unbounded by laws, logic, and common sense in the name of "keeping us safe," since you spew the same crap over and over, and don't prove it, just repeat what amounts to "it is because it is."

If you are so sure, please, just back it the **** up with facts already, stop making us guess.
 
Last edited:
So to make sure I understand you correctly: It's sexual assault when a stranger feels someone up in this manner for no reason...but it's not sexual assault when a TSA agent feels someone up in exactly the same manner, also for no reason. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

Nope that's what you made up in you head to feel better about being wrong, I said nothing of the sort, that's an appeal to emotion by you with an example that isn't parallel in any way shape of form. Let me know when you can back up you claims or find flaw in what I actually said instead of just making random stuff up ;)



Since you obviously can't make a coherent argument to defend your view, I think I'm done responding to you. Toodles. :2wave:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Translation: You figured out you can't respond with anything logical, rational or reality based so you are stopping in an attempt to save face, its cool, that is smarter than continuing.:2wave: I accept that you concede
 
You might want to try that yourself. :roll:



Yet you are perfectly all right with undertrained people putting these aggressive flavor pat downs upon us, and those untrained so far as radiation emitting technologies ex-raying us just to get on a goddammed airplane? :roll:

:scared: NO NOT SEARCHES AND SCANNERS!!!!!
If you actually read the thread I said Im not a fan, Id like more training and better personnel especially in those random PC training moments, elderly, disabled etc etc BUT that will never make me get all emotional and make up the false claim that the 4th is being violated LOL

and until a system that is equal or better is ready to be put in place with or with out searches and scanners I have no problem with it and deal with it many times every year.



Show me where I agreed to these specific methods. Please show me, 'cause you sure won't find it in the airline's Contract of Carriage [federal government is doing this], and ou sure won't find it in any laws governing the TSA since the methods employed are supposed to follow the currently existing laws.

Or better yet, show me where choosing to get on an airplane or not is at all a condition that allows the feds to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to us, unbounded by laws, logic, and common sense in the name of "keeping us safe," since you spew the same crap over and over, and don't prove it, just repeat what amounts to "it is because it is."

If you are so sure, please, just back it the **** up with facts already, stop making us guess.

Really, are you this delusional? You know that these type of searches might happen to get on a plan thats a fact, right.

Once you by a ticket and stand in line where they tell you may be searched that is your consent. This is common sense.

I have proved it, you just fail to accept it but that doesn't bother me because your OPINION on the facts don't matter, punch all the keyboards you want, use all the cuss words you want, be over dramatic and all emotional but nothing changes.

Don't lik ite, don't fly or try to change it but you better have something better than saying it violates the 4th or rights or some of the other nonsense in this thread because you will be wrong. :D
 
Don't lik ite, don't fly or try to change it but you better have something better than saying it violates the 4th or rights or some of the other nonsense in this thread because you will be wrong.

Why, becase you say so? Convincing argument there, chief. Like I said before, back it up with facts, since you are making statements as if they were fact and do'nt back them up with anything other than opinion.


Seriously, its like:
:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal
 
Last edited:
Why, becase you say so? Convincing argument there, chief. :roll: Like I said before, back it up with facts, since you are making statements as if they were fact and do't back them up.

Nope has nothing to do with "me" thats what you dont get.
The fact is consent allows searches, sorry that bothers you.
Like I said not my problem if you don't accept the facts, they still exist :D
 
Nope has nothing to do with "me"

Uh... you were making the factual sounding statement, and being challenged to prove its veracity, yes it does.

:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks and the baiting, now.
 
Uh... you were making the factual sounding statement, and being challenged to prove its veracity, yes it does.

:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal

Sorry you are misinformed again, I didn't make a factual "sounding" statment I stated a FACT.
Consent allows searches, this is a fact and has nothing to do with me or my opinion.

Do you disagree, are you saying you can not consent to a search?
 
The only thing I'm asking is to prove your assertions with something more than "it is because it is because it is because it is" ad infinitum.

EDIT: I think Capt's post was aimed at both at us, and I think w is a good time to set us on a more .. pleasant and less charged means of continuing this debate if possible. [and it should easily be possible, I'm optimistic that civility and being passionate about our posts are not mutually exclusive. :D]
 
Last edited:
The only thing I'm asking is to prove your assertions with something more than "it is because it is because it is because it is" ad infinitum.

EDIT: I think Capt's post was aimed at both at us, and I think w is a good time to set us on a more .. pleasant and less charged means of continuing this debate if possible. [and it should easily be possible, I'm optimistic that civility and being passionate about our posts are not mutually exclusive. :D]

WHat ever you think but its pretty simply, since you ignored all the examples and what not just simply anser my post.

"Consent allows searches, this is a fact and has nothing to do with opinion.

Do you disagree, are you saying you can not consent to a search?"

all you gotta do is answer ;)
 
I call bull****. There is no way the TSA is going to cancel every flight originating from Texas. To even issue this kind of empty threat is beyond retarded. Hopefully Texas passes their law and tells the TSA to go **** themselves.

That would be a change—the TSA ****ing themselves, instead of ****ing innocent passengers. I'm all for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom