Young Boy strip searched by TSA

[my-rifle]

Not sure how describing/defining the background of each profession he is referencing is considered Ad Hominem.

I wasn't referring to that when I pointed out his ad hominem argument. I was referring to his attacks on me. That after all is what a good ad hominem argument is all about.

 

[CEHollier]

Back to the origional point. You defend the federal government mandating manual rape or digitally stripping of women and children to board an airplane. Even Israeli security experts say it is unnecessary and too intrusive. They do what our PC government won't. They profile. Rather than profiling they opt to these invasive methods on all citizens. What I questioned about your approval of these techniques is: 1 your self respect and respect for family, 2 what else would you let them do to you, 3 how far would you be willing to let this go? Scan/search to enter a courthouse, mall, store. Where will this end if we don't draw a line now?

BTW - The only fallacy here is believing these patdowns/scans are necessary.

Personal attacks - LOL You can call me a bad name if it will make you feel better.

 

[my-rifle]

Back to the origional point. You defend the federal government mandating manual rape or digitally stripping of women and children to board an airplane. Even Israeli security experts say it is unnecessary and too intrusive. They do what our PC government won't. They profile. Rather than profiling they opt to these invasive methods on all citizens. What I questioned about your approval of these techniques is: 1 your self respect and respect for family, 2 what else would you let them do to you, 3 how far would you be willing to let this go? Scan/search to enter a courthouse, mall, store. Where will this end if we don't draw a line now?

BTW - The only fallacy here is believing these patdowns/scans are necessary.

Personal attacks - LOL You can call me a bad name if it will make you feel better.

1) I did not defend the TSA's use of invasive searches. I said they don't bother me. I also said that the fact that we prefer to sacrifice freedom for security bothers me.

2) Profiling American citizens has been ruled unconstitutional the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC, whatever that term means. The Fourth and more importantly the Fourteenth Amendments have been shown to make profiling illegal. I express no opinions about it.

Excerpt from the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."

As I pointed out elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that looking funny is an unreasonable criterion. That's the Constitution talking here.

Excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ...

I think the reason they have these intrusive searches (all fear of terrorists aside) is because it is illegal to profile. Any searches of American citizens not caused by a person's behavior, must be performed on everyone. Thus the intrusive searches.

Again, as I have pointed out copiously in this thread. I am not defending the searches - simply saying they don't bother me. I've been through worse, and when I travel there's usually something waiting on the other end that makes a lot of inconveniences worthwhile. Frankly the 30-inch leg-room in coach bothers me more.

 

[simplyorange]

I wasn't referring to that when I pointed out his ad hominem argument. I was referring to his attacks on me. That after all is what a good ad hominem argument is all about.

i hope your wife gets "searched" by a pervert who just got done "pleasing himself" to a scan picture and catches genitial warts.then maybe you will see why people are not willing to "sit back and enjoy being raped"

your mindset is why our country is headed into the toilet. thanks cheif!

with that being said,IF i did fly(which i wont) and they tried to touch my son, fists will fly at any expense nessicary. my son can sit at his moms house knowing that daddy did what i promised him i would the day he was born...protect him no matter what.and every member of my red blooded american family would stand behind my decision.

-edited per request-

 

[my-rifle]

i hope your wife gets felt up by a pervert who just got done masturbating to a scan picture and catches genitial warts.then maybe you will see why people are not willing to "sit back and enjoy being raped"

your mindset is why our country is headed into the toilet. thanks cheif!

with that being said,IF i did fly(which i wont) and they tried to touch my son, fists will fly at any expense nessicary. my son can sit at his moms house knowing that daddy did what i promised him i would the day he was born...protect him no matter what.and every member of my red blooded american family would stand behind my decision.

Wow. So much hatred. You oughta watch that. It'll shorten your life. I'm pretty sure that since you've written about your intent to do so you will have commited a felony assault. That's just what your son needs - a felon for a dad. I'm sure that'll make him proud.

 

[JBE]

Wow. So much hatred. You oughta watch that. It'll shorten your life. I'm pretty sure that since you've written about your intent to do so you will have commited a felony assault. That's just what your son needs - a felon for a dad. I'm sure that'll make him proud.

Actually that would be Simple Assault and that's a misdemeanor and not a felony....

 

[Leonidas]

1) I did not defend the TSA's use of invasive searches. I said they don't bother me. I also said that the fact that we prefer to sacrifice freedom for security bothers me.

2) Profiling American citizens has been ruled unconstitutional the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC, whatever that term means. The Fourth and more importantly the Fourteenth Amendments have been shown to make profiling illegal. I express no opinions about it.

Excerpt from the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."

As I pointed out elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that looking funny is an unreasonable criterion. That's the Constitution talking here.

Excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ...

I think the reason they have these intrusive searches (all fear of terrorists aside) is because it is illegal to profile. Any searches of American citizens not caused by a person's behavior, must be performed on everyone. Thus the intrusive searches.

Again, as I have pointed out copiously in this thread. I am not defending the searches - simply saying they don't bother me. I've been through worse, and when I travel there's usually something waiting on the other end that makes a lot of inconveniences worthwhile. Frankly the 30-inch leg-room in coach bothers me more.

You make some valid points.

But if recollection serves me, not a single, solitary one of the nineteen 9/11 Middle Eastern gentlemen was a US citizen. Not a citizen, less than a full set of Constitutional rights. Profile their sorry asses. 2 lines: citizens, non citizens. Can't cry foul on this. Remember, our government declared "War on Terrorism." Different set of rules.

 

[rebelray84]

I would like to point out that if ANY local,parish/county,state police did this they would,at very least be fired,sued and quite possibled criminally charged.Yet the feds are given a totally free pass?Really?

 

[Tim67]

This is Obama punishing us for the recent election and getting us used to the idea that the government owns us.

 

[CEHollier]

1) I did not defend the TSA's use of invasive searches. I said they don't bother me. I also said that the fact that we prefer to sacrifice freedom for security bothers me.

First you say it doesn't bother you. Then you say it does. Which is it?

2) Profiling American citizens has been ruled unconstitutional the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC, whatever that term means. The Fourth and more importantly the Fourteenth Amendments have been shown to make profiling illegal. I express no opinions about it.

The Isrealis "screen" passengers looking for actual terrorists. They don't waste time and resources violating elderly ladies and children.

Excerpt from the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."

As I pointed out elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that looking funny is an unreasonable criterion. That's the Constitution talking here.

No one is being searched because they "look funny
". However, how many airplanes have been attacked by elderly ladies or children? This is a big waste of resources and a huge intrusion on our privacy.

Excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ...

I think the reason they have these intrusive searches (all fear of terrorists aside) is because it is illegal to profile. Any searches of American citizens not caused by a person's behavior, must be performed on everyone. Thus the intrusive searches.

This is what I call PC idiocracy. Crush everyones privacy because the government is afraid to "screen" most likely suspects. It is asshattery at it's finest. It is a waste of money and resources. It is not unreasonable to scrutinize a specific type of person when they are the only ones blowing airplanes out of the sky.

Again, as I have pointed out copiously in this thread. I am not defending the searches - simply saying they don't bother me. I've been through worse, and when I travel there's usually something waiting on the other end that makes a lot of inconveniences worthwhile. Frankly the 30-inch leg-room in coach bothers me more.

Think about this analogy. A man is looking to get drunk and pick up a prostitute. So instead of going to a bar he starts out going from church to church. After many days of driving and wasting time he then decides to try Christian Book stores, again he fails. See where this is going? To screen likely suspects will yield much better results. Instead of violating innocent American citizens and wasting time and money use common sense and go after likely suspects.

 

[my-rifle]

1) I did not defend the TSA's use of invasive searches. I said they don't bother me. I also said that the fact that we prefer to sacrifice freedom for security bothers me.

First you say it doesn't bother you. Then you say it does. Which is it?

2) Profiling American citizens has been ruled unconstitutional the US Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with PC or not PC, whatever that term means. The Fourth and more importantly the Fourteenth Amendments have been shown to make profiling illegal. I express no opinions about it.

The Isrealis "screen" passengers looking for actual terrorists. They don't waste time and resources violating elderly ladies and children.

Excerpt from the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."

As I pointed out elsewhere, the Supreme Court has ruled that looking funny is an unreasonable criterion. That's the Constitution talking here.

No one is being searched because they "look funny
". However, how many airplanes have been attacked by elderly ladies or children? This is a big waste of resources and a huge intrusion on our privacy.

Excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ...

I think the reason they have these intrusive searches (all fear of terrorists aside) is because it is illegal to profile. Any searches of American citizens not caused by a person's behavior, must be performed on everyone. Thus the intrusive searches.

This is what I call PC idiocracy. Crush everyones privacy because the government is afraid to "screen" most likely suspects. It is asshattery at it's finest. It is a waste of money and resources. It is not unreasonable to scrutinize a specific type of person when they are the only ones blowing airplanes out of the sky.

Again, as I have pointed out copiously in this thread. I am not defending the searches - simply saying they don't bother me. I've been through worse, and when I travel there's usually something waiting on the other end that makes a lot of inconveniences worthwhile. Frankly the 30-inch leg-room in coach bothers me more.
Think about this analogy. A man is looking to get drunk and pick up a prostitute. So instead of going to a bar he starts out going from church to church. After many days of driving and wasting time he then decides to try Christian Book stores, again he fails. See where this is going? To screen likely suspects will yield much better results. Instead of violating innocent American citizens and wasting time and money use common sense and go after likely suspects.

This whole commenting inside a quote is idiotic as you can see from the above quote of yours.

Your first comment indicates you didn't read my words. Read my comment again. Here, I'll quote it for you: "I did not defend the TSA's use of invasive searches. I said they don't bother me. I also said that the fact that we prefer to sacrifice freedom for security bothers me." That's really not that difficult.

Next: Your use of the word "screen" in quotes indicates there is a hidden meaning to the word you don't want to come out and define. Please define the word.

Next: Are you suggesting that all men should be searched, but no women or children should be searched? If that's what you're suggesting I'll posit that it won't take the bad guys long to figure that one out.

Next: "This is what I call PC idiocracy. Crush everyones privacy because the government is afraid to "screen" most likely suspects. It is asshattery at it's finest. It is a waste of money and resources. It is not unreasonable to scrutinize a specific type of person when they are the only ones blowing airplanes out of the sky." It may not be unreasonable, but it is unconstitutional. You DO support the Constitution, don't you?

Finally your analogy. Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm an idiot though, so it's not surprising. Can you just say what it is you're trying to say?

 

[CEHollier]

Finally your analogy. Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm an idiot though, so it's not surprising. Can you just say what it is you're trying to say?

No elderly women or children have blown up or tried to blow up an airplane. Our government is wasting time and money searching these people. The 9/11 highjackers, the shoe bomber, and the underwear bomber all have commonalities. Why not scrutinize individuals with these commonalities?

 

[sraacke]

The reason they are searching old women and kids is becasue of the reports/fear that "the evildoers" have planned to expand the recruitment of people outside of the typical mideastern male profile. There is at least one terrorist attack on an airliner where investigators who searched the wreckage came to believe that the plane was downed by explosives smuggled aboard by women carrying them in their underware. Is it discusting to think that some parent may put a weapon or explosives on his/her child to smuggle onto a plane? Certainly, but it is a posibility.

 

[Leonidas]

"strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." --Thomas Jefferson, on the treaty of the Louisiana Purchase which he did not believe to be Constitutional, yet he signed it.

Do you, in fact, believe that non citizens enjoy the full complement of Constitutional rights? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[my-rifle]

On the other hand the United States Constitution is the monarch of our State, and there is no higher law. Hard to reconcile the two, no?

 

[Leonidas]

You haven't addressed my question.

Actually, there is higher law. The Framers themselves spoke of natural law, which they obviously considered "higher law."
So reconciliation is a simple matter.

 

[Leonidas]

Do you, in fact, believe that non citizens enjoy the full complement of Constitutional rights? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Okey dokey, I'll answer it.

No, they do not.

Do they have a right to remain here as long as they wish?....No, their visa may be withdrawn at any time.

Do they have a right to work here?.....No, they must have permission, which may be withdrawn.

Do they have a right to own and bear arms?.....No, they do not.


Ergo, it is accepted that they do not enjoy full protection of the Constitution. It is not unconstitutional to profile them.

 

[my-rifle]

Okey dokey, I'll answer it.

No, they do not.

Do they have a right to remain here as long as they wish?....No, their visa may be withdrawn at any time.

Do they have a right to work here?.....No, they must have permission, which may be withdrawn.

Do they have a right to own and bear arms?.....No, they do not.


Ergo, it is accepted that they do not enjoy full protection of the Constitution. It is not unconstitutional to profile them.

I agree with most of what you say. It's difficult for me sometimes to differentiate between what I would like to be and what the framers expressly stated. I also agree that it is constitutional to profile non-citizens. That's why we profile them.

 

[Leonidas]

I agree with most of what you say. It's difficult for me sometimes to differentiate between what I would like to be and what the framers expressly stated. I also agree that it is constitutional to profile non-citizens. That's why we profile them.

Buddy, you're not unique in this. It's because of the twisting and convolutions and perversions and distortions of those in DC who would be (and almost are) our masters that we all must sometimes step back, pause and recapture the truth and genius of our founding documents.


Hi, Spanky. Happy Turkey day!

 

[my-rifle]

Also those are some fine sunglasses.