View Poll Results: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • invasive pat downs

    12 10.62%
  • Non invasive pat downs.

    31 27.43%
  • Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.

    17 15.04%
  • Real strip searches

    11 9.73%
  • Cavity search.

    53 46.90%
  • walking through a metal detector.

    52 46.02%
  • other

    29 25.66%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 48 of 50 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 497

Thread: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

  1. #471
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    12-31-10 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    25

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Ahem.

    Does anyone here know why Al Qaeda does not attack US as much as it attacks other nations? It is because they make money in the US. When America's economy is hurting so are they. The recent half assed terror attempts were just to prove they are still relevant. The US will not be under Al Qaeda's cross-hairs if we don't do anything to aggravate them in the first place.

    When radical Muslims come to America, they love it. They love the freedom and the potential to earn money. They see the strippers and hookers and the ball drops for them and they are posed with an age old question. Why should I wait till I am dead to have 40 virgins when I can stay alive and have 40 whores right now.

    As far as the aggressive security on the TSA's part, it is a waste of money. Well, that is to the tax payers, the rich guys who had politicians as friends who sold the machines got a sweet deal. The scanners in some cases can not pick up binary compound explosives and if someone had the intent to blow up a plane, taking his life and along with everyone aboard the said plane, storing the explosive in the anal cavity (As has been done by them in the past) will bypass scanners and pat downs.

    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an ultimate defense and what makes these security measures even more ridiculous is that an estimated 10% of travelers have to go through them. Meaning that 90% do not. I am not big on math or statistics but I am pretty sure the law of averages says that a would-be bomber would have a good chance of not even having to go through the enhanced security.

    If someone actually decides to pack some Semtex in his anal cavity and gets on a plane, the next day Janet Napolitano (along with the TSA Admin.) are going to stress the need for anal cavity searches (for your protection mind you). Hanity expressed his outrage about these enhanced security measures yet when Bush was in power he supported the Patriot Act. I am assuming that he would be against water boarding if it were happening under the Obama Administration.


    I wonder how many of you would be pro anal cavity search, probably quite a few depending on who the current President is of course.

  2. #472
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Got gropped today... The dude was ALL up in my business. This stuff... it's exactly what the 4th amendment was written to prevent.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #473
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Got gropped today... The dude was ALL up in my business. This stuff... it's exactly what the 4th amendment was written to prevent.
    actually it wasnt at all, you had the choice not to partake in their services but you chose to and knew that requires a search, the 4th amendment is still protecting you just like it alwasy has, there was aboslutley no violation of it at all

    you may not like the TSA policies and I may very well agree but they dont violate the 4th in anyway what so ever.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #474
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    actually it wasnt at all, you had the choice not to partake in their services but you chose to and knew that requires a search, the 4th amendment is still protecting you just like it alwasy has, there was aboslutley no violation of it at all

    you may not like the TSA policies and I may very well agree but they dont violate the 4th in anyway what so ever.
    That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "Oh, it's optional to drink the water that comes out of your sink. You could go down to the river that's eight or nine or a hundred miles away, and clean up some water yourself." Just because something wasn't a necessary part of life in 1789 doesn't mean it isn't now. Instant and secure communication and speedy travel, these are a part of our lives. A postal service wasn't a part of life in 1500, but the founders recognized it as a newer addition to a culture that was invaluable. Unnecessarily burdening people is not the business of our government, and unreasonable searches (which is anything based simply on suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause) is against the 4th amendment. They can't do it. Even if you ask them to. They aren't allowed. Period.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #475
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "Oh, it's optional to drink the water that comes out of your sink. You could go down to the river that's eight or nine or a hundred miles away, and clean up some water yourself." Just because something wasn't a necessary part of life in 1789 doesn't mean it isn't now. Instant and secure communication and speedy travel, these are a part of our lives. A postal service wasn't a part of life in 1500, but the founders recognized it as a newer addition to a culture that was invaluable. Unnecessarily burdening people is not the business of our government, and unreasonable searches (which is anything based simply on suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause) is against the 4th amendment. They can't do it. Even if you ask them to. They aren't allowed. Period.
    think what you want but its a fact! one you can argue till you are blue in the face but the fact is "TSA POLICY" does not violate the 4th by an stretch of the imagination

    sorry you are flat out WRONG

    i can open a business tonight, a club, and if I want to search you with TSA guidelines before you come in, I have absolutely every right to do so

    the right you have is to NOT come to my club, nobody is FORCING you to come to my club, its really that simple, clubing is not a right

    nobody is forcing you to commercially fly, flying is not a right, dont like the policies dont fly and fight to get them changed but dont say they violate the 4th because you'll be flat out WRONG lol

    you CHOOSE to fly and you CHOOSE to be searched so there is no violation in reality
    they are 100% allowed because you AGREE to it and their service, you are choosing to partake in thier service and their polices plain and simple LMAO

    sorry you just dont understand the 4th

    also I agree YOUR example was the dumbest thing ever, to bad it has NOTHING to do with what I said or reality
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #476
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's like saying "Oh, it's optional to drink the water that comes out of your sink. You could go down to the river that's eight or nine or a hundred miles away, and clean up some water yourself." Just because something wasn't a necessary part of life in 1789 doesn't mean it isn't now. Instant and secure communication and speedy travel, these are a part of our lives. A postal service wasn't a part of life in 1500, but the founders recognized it as a newer addition to a culture that was invaluable. Unnecessarily burdening people is not the business of our government, and unreasonable searches (which is anything based simply on suspicion, without a warrant or probable cause) is against the 4th amendment. They can't do it. Even if you ask them to. They aren't allowed. Period.
    Yes, but Centrist is trying to say that this type of search falls under 'reasonable'...
    He might also be trying to legitimize it by suggesting that airports are private property... which they are not. It's public property run by private business... Just like an ocean port is public property, but the boats and cruises are run privately.

    There could also be the 'commerce clause' argument... that would be treating the people as cargo that must be inspected to be insured for the safety of the flight... so it's in the name of protecting interstate commerce.

    All I gotta say is that it takes some manipulation of the intentions of the constitution that this be allowed. Now, a metal detector, wand, and in extra need a pat-down of the beeping area... THAT constitutes reasonable, it doesn't invade your space, it's quick, it's proven safe. To go this extra-step, which in any other cases would be reserved for people already arrested... how 'reasonable' this new procedure is WILL be challenged.

    That's the only sense in which this needs to be tested.

    That said, I've heard of cases back in the 40's where farmers had been forced to burn down wheat fields that were meant as chicken feed, on the basis that these farmers NOT buying wheat on the open market would inversely affect interstate commerce and so it was deemed a constitutional order.

    The things you can justify with clever word play...

  7. #477
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Yes, but Centrist is trying to say that this type of search falls under 'reasonable'...
    He might also be trying to legitimize it by suggesting that airports are private property... which they are not. It's public property run by private business... Just like an ocean port is public property, but the boats and cruises are run privately.

    There could also be the 'commerce clause' argument... that would be treating the people as cargo that must be inspected to be insured for the safety of the flight... so it's in the name of protecting interstate commerce.

    All I gotta say is that it takes some manipulation of the intentions of the constitution that this be allowed. Now, a metal detector, wand, and in extra need a pat-down of the beeping area... THAT constitutes reasonable, it doesn't invade your space, it's quick, it's proven safe. To go this extra-step, which in any other cases would be reserved for people already arrested... how 'reasonable' this new procedure is WILL be challenged.

    That's the only sense in which this needs to be tested.

    That said, I've heard of cases back in the 40's where farmers had been forced to burn down wheat fields that were meant as chicken feed, on the basis that these farmers NOT buying wheat on the open market would inversely affect interstate commerce and so it was deemed a constitutional order.

    The things you can justify with clever word play...
    reasonable isnt a factor because you agree to it
    "reasonable" is also a lost cause in the argument because its TOTALLY subjective

    no word play here just facts
    i will again repeat the facts

    you are free to not LIKE it ( i dont "like" it either)
    you are free to CRY about it (obviously you know this already)
    you are free to SPEAK out against it
    you are free to not PARTAKE in said service
    you are free to PROTEST to change it
    you are free to fight for different policies
    and all of that is fine and dandy

    you want to think its to much, over the top, overkill, non effective etc etc all that is fine, does it make you mad? thats ok too

    but what it absolutely is NOT is a violation of the 4th. So when you are crying about it and want it changed, which is your right, dont bring up the 4th because then it waters down the argument with fallacies.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-30-10 at 01:50 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #478
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    reasonable isnt a factor because you agree to it
    "reasonable" is also a lost cause in the argument because its TOTALLY subjective

    no word play here just facts
    i will again repeat the facts

    you are free to not LIKE it ( i dont "like" it either)
    you are free to CRY about it (obviously you know this already)
    you are free to SPEAK out against it
    you are free to not PARTAKE in said service
    you are free to PROTEST to change it
    you are free to fight for different policies
    and all of that is fine and dandy

    you want to think its to much, over the top, overkill, non effective etc etc all that is fine, does it make you mad? thats ok too

    but what it absolutely is NOT is a violation of the 4th. So when you are crying about it and want it changed, which is your right, dont bring up the 4th because then it waters down the argument with fallacies.
    Ok, but hear me out for a change... I'm TRYING to agree with you here... I'm saying that this IS going to be challenged... BUT it's on the basis that 'airline searches are reasonable'

    So, what do we define as 'reasonable search'?? Should you have a full body cavity search in public?? Should children? Should the elderly? I mean, who knows, maybe someone will sew a bomb into their chest... so maybe we should also have mandatory chest x-rays as well??? It's in the name of a 'reasonable' search, right??

    The problem is that you can 'justify' anything as constitutional...as I was trying to explain by the forced eradication of wheat back in the 40's having been legally accepted as constitutional.

    BUt, I was trying to ask you to elaborate on your point of PRECISELY how YOU justify these things within the constitution... I've listend a number of angles and you accuse me of crying... no, actually, I'm accusing you of being an &*(hole and to explain your position a little better.

    If your only understanding is 'it doesn't violate the constitution' then I'll just conclude that you haven't come to that conclusion by means of any independent thought on the matter and are just repeating talking points.

  9. #479
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,784

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Ok, but hear me out for a change... I'm TRYING to agree with you here... I'm saying that this IS going to be challenged... BUT it's on the basis that 'airline searches are reasonable'

    So, what do we define as 'reasonable search'?? Should you have a full body cavity search in public?? Should children? Should the elderly? I mean, who knows, maybe someone will sew a bomb into their chest... so maybe we should also have mandatory chest x-rays as well??? It's in the name of a 'reasonable' search, right??

    The problem is that you can 'justify' anything as constitutional...as I was trying to explain by the forced eradication of wheat back in the 40's having been legally accepted as constitutional.

    BUt, I was trying to ask you to elaborate on your point of PRECISELY how YOU justify these things within the constitution... I've listend a number of angles and you accuse me of crying... no, actually, I'm accusing you of being an &*(hole and to explain your position a little better.

    If your only understanding is 'it doesn't violate the constitution' then I'll just conclude that you haven't come to that conclusion by means of any independent thought on the matter and are just repeating talking points.
    I have no problem with anybody "challenging" the policies
    I accused people of crying because people are, you can call me what ever you want Im not trying to be one at all its just like beating my head against a brick wall, but go back through the thread and see who the "agressors" are lol

    my stance is VERY clear, its not a violation because the search isnt forced and flying isnt a right, you are subjecting yourself to search and seizure by partaking in the said services. Actually its not even MY stance, it the 4ths stance.

    If you want MY OPINION ask me
    do I think the polices are extreme? yep
    do I LIKE them? not really I think its ashame they are needed

    but that has nothing to do with the 4th

    TSA Policy itself is not a violation

    if you want my opinion on what is "reasonable" ask me, swing your examples by me and Ill give you my OPINION on them, but it also wont have to do with the 4th nor will it matter since flying isnt a right

    constitiuional justifaction is NOT needed because these searches arent forced on you so they dont need justified

    just like me owning a night club and searching you before you enter, doesnt need justified, its my club and my service you want, dont like it dont come in.

    now if i would just see you on the street and force you into a search then YES that violates the 4th, you choosing to enter my club and partake in my services doesnt ( and no my services are not sexuall perv!! )
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #480
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    my stance is VERY clear, its not a violation because the search isnt forced and flying isnt a right, you are subjecting yourself to search and seizure by partaking in the said services. Actually its not even MY stance, it the 4ths stance.
    Wait a second :
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, [u]and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/b]

    I just have to first make sure that we're talking about the same fourth.

    If you want MY OPINION ask me
    do I think the polices are extreme? yep
    do I LIKE them? not really I think its ashame they are needed
    Good, you at least have a bit of humanity left in you... but you're a fool for thinking that this type of humiliation is NEEDED.

    but that has nothing to do with the 4th

    TSA Policy itself is not a violation

    if you want my opinion on what is "reasonable" ask me, swing your examples by me and Ill give you my OPINION on them, but it also wont have to do with the 4th nor will it matter since flying isnt a right
    Flying is not the part that gets violated... it is your right to be secure in your person... part of why a peeping tom is a criminal. Also, flying does not serve as probable cause to be effectively strip searched or patted down from head to toe.

    constitiuional justifaction is NOT needed because these searches arent forced on you so they dont need justified
    Actually, the search IS FORCED on people. Sometimes because they are famous, or got big breasts, or people with a hip replacement that sets off the metal detectors even naked. Even if it's only 3% of people that are forced into the search, they are generally not forced into this choice for any reason that would count as 'probable cause'.

    just like me owning a night club and searching you before you enter, doesnt need justified, its my club and my service you want, dont like it dont come in.

    now if i would just see you on the street and force you into a search then YES that violates the 4th, you choosing to enter my club and partake in my services doesnt ( and no my services are not sexuall perv!! )
    The airports themselves are public property. Tax money paid for those airports... So, while your dance club is private, airports are like walking on the streets.

    Yes, it's been accepted that there needs to be a level of security at airports... at first they would search based on probable cause... THEN came metal detectors designed to add a level of security that was reasonable and did not invade a persons space.

    Now, they've gone beyond what is 'reasonable' searches into 'unreasonable searches' that are typically reserved for prisoners who have already been found guilty of a crime.

    So I really fail to see your logic, and can't see how you're overstating the position to say that this is constitutional when it has yet to have it's constitutionality challenged.

    At the very least, Chertoff should be indited for the delayed payoff he got for purchasing the machines... that payoff being to become the CEO of the company involved in these machines.

Page 48 of 50 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •