• 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!

94-year-old upset by TSA pat down

Link


How about common sense as a security measure.

People always get all worked up about grandma and junior getting patted down at airport security. Let me ask you something, if some nut job decides to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, do you think they'd dress like bin laden to do it?
 
Yep yet another reason to defund, disband and unconstitutional organization, if this is going to happen then the American citizens who fly should now practice civil disobedience. Patting down a 94 year old this is just out right bullSh!t it runs on the same level is patting down a 4 year old, actually anyone that doesn't warrant it.
 
People always get all worked up about grandma and junior getting patted down at airport security. Let me ask you something, if some nut job decides to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, do you think they'd dress like bin laden to do it?

Nor would they rely strictly on airplanes to attack us. Why do we only frisk people there? The last bomb (which luckily we caught) was set to go off in Times Square. Why not frisk everyone?
 
I'd guess those who say that this is pretty shaky as far as our rights go. Those who see no need in frisking 6 year old kids.

pretty shakey is fine
not liking it is fine

still no illegal which is the only thing a care about

but I was referring to the "us" that must think driving and flying are equal LOL






Just because I know I'll have to be searched doesn't mean it's O.K. This is my point. More and more are coming to the conclusion tha tit isn't. Watch, things are going to change.

wont bother me if they do change right now though people "thinking" its not ok doesnt change the law LOL

I know you say you arent arguing law but all my statements deal in the law so you either have to also deal with the law or not quote and reply to me



This is a stupid avenue to take because we know we grant special protections to our president. Nobody else can just shoot someone for walking onto their lawn.

no its VERY valid you just dont like it
the white house lawn and your lawn are just as different as you driving your own car and flying :shurg:




No it isn't. Just because the secret service can shoot me for sneaking onto the White House lawn doesn't mean I can have my car searched for no cause or give a reason why they can search me for simply picking air travel over road travel.

how old are you? LMAO
because you simply dont get reality
nobody said you car can be searched and it is VASTLY different than flying for the facts listed you choose to ignore LOL

like I said your acknowledgment of them doesnt change anything flying is NOT equal to driving to anybody honest and objective, not even the same ball park
 
Yep yet another reason to defund, disband and unconstitutional organization, if this is going to happen then the American citizens who fly should now practice civil disobedience. Patting down a 94 year old this is just out right bullSh!t it runs on the same level is patting down a 4 year old, actually anyone that doesn't warrant it.

I agree it is "bull****" but its not against the law nor does it violate the constitution in any way :shrug:
 
Nor would they rely strictly on airplanes to attack us. Why do we only frisk people there? The last bomb (which luckily we caught) was set to go off in Times Square. Why not frisk everyone?

LMAO

so are you now equating "walking through time square" also equal to flying?
 
People always get all worked up about grandma and junior getting patted down at airport security. Let me ask you something, if some nut job decides to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, do you think they'd dress like bin laden to do it?
Sense 9-11 I believe hijacking a aircraft is now obsolete, that said I guarantee a 94 year old women has not hijacked a aircraft, nor has a 4 year old you in aviation history. Now if they do attempt to hijack a aircraft I will guarantee you this, I will be sure to stick a peg in the spokes on the wheels of her walker as she makes her way to the cockpit.
 
Sense 9-11 I believe hijacking a aircraft is now obsolete, that said I guarantee a 94 year old women has not hijacked a aircraft, nor has a 4 year old you in aviation history. Now if they do attempt to hijack a aircraft I will guarantee you this, I will be sure to stick a peg in the spokes on the wheels of her walker as she makes her way to the cockpit.

Too right.....her aged body would be why she avoids security pat down......then she gets on the plane, hands off the c4 to someone a little more "hijack fit" and it's off to the fireworks!
 
We have not brought our daughters to see their grandmother and great-grandfather in the US since this madness started largely because of this madness. We may just go in through Canada on the land border next time we do make a visit... haven't decided yet...

It sucks, but since we havn't been pulled aside or anything yet, it is worth it for us no matter how utterly ridiculous and retarded the situation. I think that too many people are afraid of challenging the illegality of this, to be honest. Or they don't have the time or resources, like me. I can't really fight this, living overseas.

I thought of going through Canada, but it would add so much time and cost to our trip. We visit in the LA area. Mexico is definitely out of the question too.
 
pretty shakey is fine
not liking it is fine

still no illegal which is the only thing a care about

but I was referring to the "us" that must think driving and flying are equal LOL

As far as rights go there is nothing to discern the two.

I know you say you arent arguing law but all my statements deal in the law so you either have to also deal with the law or not quote and reply to me

I never argued it wasn't the law. I'm argueing that I'm starting to think it's a bad one and I can't find a justification for the government searching people who have done nothing wrong.

no its VERY valid you just dont like it
the white house lawn and your lawn are just as different as you driving your own car and flying :shurg:

But your entire reasoning rests upon "because it just is".

how old are you? LMAO
because you simply dont get reality
nobody said you car can be searched and it is VASTLY different than flying for the facts listed you choose to ignore LOL

You've listed no facts as to why. You've come up with the idea why we can't just drive up to the White House. I could use that justification for anything.

like I said your acknowledgment of them doesnt change anything flying is NOT equal to driving to anybody honest and objective, not even the same ball park

Walking isn't the same as driving either but it doesn't change our rights to not be searched.
 
Too right.....her aged body would be why she avoids security pat down......then she gets on the plane, hands off the c4 to someone a little more "hijack fit" and it's off to the fireworks!

Why couldn't she have just set it off on the subway on the way to the airport instead?
 
People always get all worked up about grandma and junior getting patted down at airport security. Let me ask you something, if some nut job decides to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building, do you think they'd dress like bin laden to do it?

How many planes have been hi-jacked by anybody other than a non-Middle Eastern young man? When Japanese babies or old white women start doing it, let me know. Until then, or just about every other situation like it... it is not only retarded, it is illegal.
 
LMAO

so are you now equating "walking through time square" also equal to flying?

Why not? LMAO

McVey blew up a building with a van. Some Muslim guys went on a shooting rampage in the DC area with a van. Another Muslim guy ran over people with his SUV. In London they blew up a Metro, same in Japan except they used Sarin gas. Bomb in Times Square. Seriously, if you don't support frisking every person that drives a car, you are only hypocritically contradicting yourself. LMAO
 
I agree it is "bull****" but its not against the law nor does it violate the constitution in any way :shrug:

LMAO

Too bad reality and legality trump your opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion though... :shrug:
 
How many planes have been hi-jacked by anybody other than a non-Middle Eastern young man? When Japanese babies or old white women start doing it, let me know. Until then, or just about every other situation like it... it is not only retarded, it is illegal.

Yes, but if they only search middle-eastern men...they're profiling...
 
LMAO

Too bad reality and legality trump your opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion though... :shrug:

I agree they would trump my opinion if I satated my opinion, i have only stated facts supportted by reality and legality, my opinion has not been argued except when I said its BS that a 94yr old lady gets searched.

the rest are just facts begin stated by me :D
 
Why not? LMAO

McVey blew up a building with a van. Some Muslim guys went on a shooting rampage in the DC area with a van. Another Muslim guy ran over people with his SUV. In London they blew up a Metro, same in Japan except they used Sarin gas. Bomb in Times Square. Seriously, if you don't support frisking every person that drives a car, you are only hypocritically contradicting yourself. LMAO

it would only be hypocritically if they were the SAME they are not LOL
if you understood law and reality choosing to take part in a said service with no force, that has to travel through government controlled airspace where you consent to being searched is nothing like walking down the street or driving a car and searches being forced so you can move through free land in your own property LMAO

they are entirely different things all together to anybody honest and objective lol
 
As far as rights go there is nothing to discern the two.



I never argued it wasn't the law. I'm argueing that I'm starting to think it's a bad one and I can't find a justification for the government searching people who have done nothing wrong.



But your entire reasoning rests upon "because it just is".



You've listed no facts as to why. You've come up with the idea why we can't just drive up to the White House. I could use that justification for anything.



Walking isn't the same as driving either but it doesn't change our rights to not be searched.

keep talking circles and deflecting
flying and driving are totally different and that fact isnt going to change because you simply dont like it LOL

Legality is all that matters in this debate, if you want to THINK its wrong or too much fine, I might agree with you but that would only make it your opinion or a shared opinion nothing more :shrug:
 
Yes, but if they only search middle-eastern men...they're profiling...

We profile all the time. We just don't call it that. It's why we search little girls. Not because they are dangerous, but just so we can avoid the accusations.
 
We profile all the time. We just don't call it that. It's why we search little girls. Not because they are dangerous, but just so we can avoid the accusations.

Yes. That's what I was getting at.
 
keep talking circles and deflecting
flying and driving are totally different and that fact isnt going to change because you simply dont like it LOL

Legality is all that matters in this debate, if you want to THINK its wrong or too much fine, I might agree with you but that would only make it your opinion or a shared opinion nothing more :shrug:

It was once legal to tell passengers that they had to ride in the back of the bus. Obviously they were cool with this as they got on the bus anyway.
 
Yes. That's what I was getting at.

So there are no justifiable reasons to search many of the people that are searched other than an unwillingness to discuss the facts of the situation. Yes, I'd agree with that.
 
It was once legal to tell passengers that they had to ride in the back of the bus. Obviously they were cool with this as they got on the bus anyway.

correct that was legal at one time
your opinion on whether they were cool with it or not is meaningless to any of my statements though nor is it something I am "arguing" about the TSA

I dont like the TSA but ill never say silly things like they violated the 4th or that flying is equal to driving because theres no logic to support such false claims
 
Last edited:
I agree it is "bull****" but its not against the law nor does it violate the constitution in any way :shrug:
Not saying anything about the law on this statement, although it can be argued and in the eyes of our founding fathers it is a violations of the 4th amendment. Although I mainly address the organization, where in the law or constitution does it permit the U.S. Government to create a organization that allows a entity of the government to search it citizens without cause or due process. I believe that this need to go through the legislative process and for this to happen it need to be petitioned before the people. So I will ask a question, would this be acceptable to our founding fathers if this situation existed back in their day.
 
It was once legal to tell passengers that they had to ride in the back of the bus. Obviously they were cool with this as they got on the bus anyway.
I think they more or less tolerated it until 1964 and beyond.
 
Back
Top Bottom