Where is the 'War on Canines'?

[J.T]

One of the topics that most dominates the nation’s political and policy discussions is the threat of terrorism. Politicians regularly warn (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/02/285739/joe-lieberman-says-u-s-should-cut-social-security-to-pay-for-fighting-the-islamist-extremists/) of the dire threat of terrorism and the need to dedicate more resources to battle it. While identifying and then preventing or combating terrorism is an important part of the nation’s national security strategy, it is important to keep things in perspective when deciding national priorities. Last week, the State Department its annual Country Reports On Terrorism (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2009/index.htm), which surveys terrorism injuries and deaths worldwide last year.
The report notes that 15 American private citizens died (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/170479.pdf) from terrorism last year worldwide, with almost all the deaths occurring in Afghanistan and one each occurring in Iraq and Uganda. While this statistic is tragic, it should be noted that it is dwarfed by the number of Americans who died from two other causes which do not receive nearly as much sensationalistic media coverage: dog bites and lightning strikes.


http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/25/304113/chart-only-15-americans-died-from-terrorism-last-year-less-than-from-dog-bites-or-lightning-strikes/

Can we stop panicking and have our rights and liberties back now?

[fj1200]

Do dogs know how to fly airplanes?

[ConHog]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/08/25/304113/chart-only-15-americans-died-from-terrorism-last-year-less-than-from-dog-bites-or-lightning-strikes/

Can we stop panicking and have our rights and liberties back now?

You're an idiot. Did you ever stop to consider that the reason there were so few Americans killed by terrorists last year is precisely because we are at war with terrorists? Do you believe that if we packed up and stopped fighting them we would not see an increase in terror attacks?

As for your stupid comment about dogs, no doubt if we sent the Army into suburban areas to kill dogs in ten years there would be far less deaths due to dog bites. But of course since dogs aren't packed in a cave plotting on killing Americans the government isn't doing so.


What a troll you are.

[ConHog]

Do dogs know how to fly airplanes?

2387


They're gonna get you brah

[J.T]

You're an idiot.
Yes, only idiots want their civil liberties...

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason there were so few Americans killed by terrorists last year is precisely because we are at war with terrorists?

When has forcing an elderly woman tom remove her diaper ever stopped any terrorist attack?

Whom are we fighting, exactly? The insurgents in the nations we've invaded? We already decided to kill bin Laden.


Do you believe that if we packed up and stopped fighting them we would not see an increase in terror attacks?

You can't tell me when checking a baby for bombs has ever stopped a terrorist attack. There's no evidence that giving us our liberties back will lead to any more terrorist attacks unless you intend to use them as false flags to justify more federal power grabs and shitting on civil rights..


As for your stupid comment about dogs, no doubt if we sent the Army into suburban areas to kill dogs in ten years there would be far less deaths due to dog bites.

So you support a war on dogs?

But of course since dogs aren't packed in a cave plotting on killing Americans the government isn't doing so.

Nor is anyone else. Nor was anyone before we started meddling in the world's affairs in the first place.

But the interesting bit is that you feel the need to insist that the government, like the dogs, isn't planning in a cave to kill Americans. Why is that?


What a troll you are.

Yes, wanting our civil liberties back is trolling...

You do realize that, as a Statist supporting the violation of civil liberties and continued power grabs by the federal gov't simply for the sake of power, you are the domestic enemies you swore to protect the Republic from, right?

[ConHog]

Yes, only idiots want their civil liberties...

When has forcing an elderly woman tom remove her diaper ever stopped any terrorist attack?

Whom are we fighting, exactly? The insurgents in the nations we've invaded? We already decided to kill bin Laden.


You can't tell me when checking a baby for bombs has ever stopped a terrorist attack. There's no evidence that giving us our liberties back will lead to any more terrorist attacks unless you intend to use them as false flags to justify more federal power grabs and shitting on civil rights..

So you support a war on dogs?

Nor is anyone else. Nor was anyone before we started meddling in the world's affairs in the first place.

But the interesting bit is that you feel the need to insist that the government, like the dogs, isn't planning in a cave to kill Americans. Why is that?



Yes, wanting our civil liberties back is trolling...

You do realize that, as a Statist supporting the violation of civil liberties and continued power grabs by the federal gov't simply for the sake of power, you are the domestic enemies you swore to protect the Republic from, right?


I find it very irritating when someone chops a post up like you just did. Just make your points.

First , let's discuss the false belief you seem to have that you have a right to fly. You in fact do not. When you book a flight the security requirements are clearly presented to you. You can of course choose not to participate.

That being said, yes there are some dumb things done in the name of safety. We should strive to better the system so that as few of those happen as possible. That doesn't mean you scrap the whole program though.

I think you know exactly who we are fighting.

Yes, I would support a war against those little purse dogs. Kill em all.

Please prove that I support power grabs by the government and or taking away people's rights.

You're a troll. Embrace it.

[J.T]

I find it very irritating when someone chops a post up like you just did. Just make your points.

First , let's discuss the false belief you seem to have that you have a right to fly.



As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html)). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article4) had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea. Thanks to W.H. van Atteveldt for the note about Congressional travel.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel


(http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly)1)These abuses, taken with other abuses such as the VIPR program (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly) constitute a clear violation of the right to travel

2)Airlines are private companies and should always remain so. I'd like to hear your constitutional argument for the Fed forcing these airlines to allow federal agents to strip-search the elderly before they can provide these persons with the services (travel upon their plane). Note that not all flights are between states and that regulating commerce has never before been interpreted to mean strip searching random elderly women so some sicko [T]SA agent can get his jollies.


I think you know exactly who we are fighting.Who?

Old women with bowl problems?


Please prove that I support power grabs by the government and or taking away people's rights.

You're in this thread right now supporting it. This isn't the first time you've shown yourself to be a Statist.

[ConHog]

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel


(http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly)1)These abuses, taken with other abuses such as the VIPR program (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly) constitute a clear violation of the right to travel

2)Airlines are private companies and should always remain so. I'd like to hear your constitutional argument for the Fed forcing these airlines to allow federal agents to strip-search the elderly before they can provide these persons with the services (travel upon their plane). Note that not all flights are between states and that regulating commerce has never before been interpreted to mean strip searching random elderly women so some sicko [T]SA agent can get his jollies.
Who?

Old women with bowl problems?


You're in this thread right now supporting it. This isn't the first time you've shown yourself to be a Statist.



You have NO such right.

[fj1200]

You have NO such right.

I would say it's an extension of a natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights), the liberty one, but that doesn't extend to airline travel.

[ConHog]

I would say it's an extension of a natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights), the liberty one, but that doesn't extend to airline travel.

Of course it doesn't. No matter how much JT and his ilk want to pretend otherwise a person simply doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly without being screened.

And of course as usual , no one can have a rationale discussion with JT because even if you acknowledge that yes some TSA agents either misuse their authority or are improperly trained; he can't acknowledge that doesn't mean the entire agency and everyone that works for it are jack booted NAZIs out to get him.

[J.T]

You have NO such right.

SCOTUS disagrees.

Also, to claim I've no right to move through space is just plain absurd.



Of course it doesn't. No matter how much JT and his ilk want to pretend otherwise a person simply doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly without being screened.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Now, where does COTUS give the TSA the authority to strip search random elderly women at the airport and harass random drivers and commuters on the streets and roadways?

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



Once again you prove yourself a Statist with no love for liberty or the Constitution.

[ConHog]

SCOTUS disagrees.

Also, to claim I've no right to move through space is just plain absurd.




The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Now, where does COTUS give the TSA the authority to strip search random elderly women at the airport and harass random drivers and commuters on the streets and roadways?

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




Once again you prove yourself a Statist with no love for liberty or the Constitution.




SCOTUS disagrees? Please cite the case where they have ruled that you have a consitutuionally protected right to fly on an airplane. Oops, it doesn't exist.

As to your second "point" , ever heard of Sitz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint


Do you really want to argue constituional law with me JT?

[J.T]

I already showed you where SCOTUS has recognized the right to travel and an inherent right of all free persons.



As to your second "point" , ever heard of Sitz?

You're taking a ruling that said a police office could stop you for 30 seconds and ask you where you were headed [that's all sitz really means, as they must then show probable cause if they wish to detain you further, administer a sobriety test, or take you into custody] and claiming it gives you the right to stop and strip search random elderly women and toddlers you think look good in order to get your jollies?

That's one hell of a leap. Sitz doesn't say what you want it to, Statist.

Now, show me where COTUS gives you the authority to strip search random persons to get your jollies.

Sorry, Statist, but you've no right, cause, or authority to molest babies and grandparents in the name of 'nashinul secyuritee'

[ConHog]

I already showed you where SCOTUS has recognized the right to travel and an inherent right of all free persons.


You're taking a ruling that said a police office could stop you for 30 seconds and ask you where you were headed [that's all sitz really means, as they must then show probable cause if they wish to detain you further, administer a sobriety test, or take you into custody] and claiming it gives you the right to stop and strip search random elderly women and toddlers you think look good in order to get your jollies?

That's one hell of a leap. Sitz doesn't say what you want it to, Statist.

Now, show me where COTUS gives you the authority to strip search random persons to get your jollies.

Sorry, Statist, but you've no right, cause, or authority to molest babies and grandparents in the name of 'nashinul secyuritee'

The right to travel does NOT equal the right to travel BY air. I suspect you know that, but are merely being dishonest, again.

Speaking of your dishonesty, I have also never suggested that old ladies should be strip searched nor that little girls should be felt up. Just more lies from you.

Further, you asked a question, and I answered with Sitz.

[J.T]

The right to travel does NOT equal the right to travel BY air.


or by road or by the subway or by sidewalk...

You never told me where SCOTUS gives you the authority to feel up on random citizens.

Do you like the old women, the babies, or the high schoolers most? Were you disappointed you didn't get to feel up all the boys at the prom in Santa Fe?

Now, where does SCOTUS give you the authority to tell a business you're going to cop a feel on their customers based on which ones you feel like strip searching and fondling so you can get your jollies?



Speaking of your dishonesty, I have also never suggested that old ladies should be strip searched nor that little girls should be felt up.

Yes, you did. That's exactly what we're discussing any time we're discussing the [T]SA's unconstitutional and indefensible harassment and abuse of persons they wish to see naked.


Further, you asked a question, and I answered with Sitz.

And it went down in flames. A ruling saying a cop can ask people how they're doing and keep an eye out for signs of illegal activity (including but not limited to operating a vehicle while intoxicated) simply does not mean you can stop, grope, and strip search random persons without due cause just because you get your jollies by humiliating helpless old women or sticking your hand down babies' diapers.

Now, where does COTUS grant the power and authority to do these things. Until you can show us, the entire program remains unconstitutional.

[KartRacerBoy]

The right to travel does NOT equal the right to travel BY air. I suspect you know that, but are merely being dishonest, again.

Speaking of your dishonesty, I have also never suggested that old ladies should be strip searched nor that little girls should be felt up. Just more lies from you.

Further, you asked a question, and I answered with Sitz.

A little analogy here to cloud things up. So the right to free speech by talking doesn't mean the right to free speech on the computer? So the govt can censor speech on the computer? Just asking.

[ConHog]

A little analogy here to cloud things up. So the right to free speech by talking doesn't mean the right to free speech on the computer? So the govt can censor speech on the computer? Just asking.

Certainly the government can, and does, abridge the first amendment, as well as the second etc etc. under certain circumstances. IE try yelling "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded theater and see what the results are. Or try carrying a gun into a courthouse.

[KartRacerBoy]

Certainly the government can, and does, abridge the first amendment, as well as the second etc etc. under certain circumstances. IE try yelling "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded theater and see what the results are. Or try carrying a gun into a courthouse.

It's hard to see what you're trying to say. I pointed out that your constitutional analysis was rather flawed with an anaology on speech.

Or are you just trying to rip someone a new one? :laugh:

[ConHog]

It's hard to see what you're trying to say. I pointed out that your constitutional analysis was rather flawed with an anaology on speech.

Or are you just trying to rip someone a new one? :laugh:

No, not trying to rip anyone; and my analogy isn't flawed. The fact is that none of our "absolute" rights are in fact absolute.

[J.T]

Certainly the government can, and does, abridge the first amendment, as well as the second etc etc. under certain circumstances. IE try yelling "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded theater and see what the results are. Or try carrying a gun into a courthouse.

Traveling via bus, plane, bicycle, or foot; speaking via letters, e-mail, or chatting at a table in a coffee shop = means of exercising one's rights

shouting 'fire' or 'bomb' = what one does with one's liberties

You claimed that one's right to travel doesn't include bicycles, planes, or skateboards simply because- well, you never actually gave a reason or argument, you just declared that you want to strip search old women and put your hand down babies' diapers to get your jollies and everyone should just accept it because the [t]SA was created by the federal government.

Kart pointed out that the right to travel is not limited to a given means of travel (bike, plane, skateboard, bus, walking), just as the right to free speech is not limited to a specific means of communicating that speech (buying time on tv, handing out fliers, running a printing press, speaking in a coffee shop, IMing, txting, facebooking, e-mail, IRC, or sign language).

Your reply was to address a wholly different matter entirely- what one [I]does with that liberty and the abuse of one's freedoms to infringe upon the rights of others or otherwise cause harm (sending threatening e-mails, shouting 'bomb' on a plane, or using online media to incite people to violence and murder; flying a plane into a building, running someone down with one's car, skateboarding inside a private business in violation of the rules established for that business).

So there are three possibilities:
A)You are too stupid to grasp the simplest of matters and have an intelligent discussion regarding liberty, tyranny, civil rights, constitutionality, or pretty much anything else

B)You're just plain trolling again and have no interest in honest and intelligent discourse

C) Both A and B

So... which is it?

[KartRacerBoy]

No, not trying to rip anyone; and my analogy isn't flawed. The fact is that none of our "absolute" rights are in fact absolute.

I at least agree that no constitutional right is absolute. But your logic was....meh. Or at least the way you expressed it.

[J.T]

my analogy isn't flawed

:lol:

You compared the means of exercising one's right to speech or travel with what one does with that right to speech- the speech itself.

Because you're an idiot.

[ConHog]

I at least agree that no constitutional right is absolute. But your logic was....meh. Or at least the way you expressed it.

Pardon, sometimes I'm posting with a VERY cute, but also VERY demanding, 5 year old girl hanging on shoulder and my concentration isn't 100% and thus my point doesn't come across as clearly as I would like.

[ConHog]

Traveling via bus, plane, bicycle, or foot; speaking via letters, e-mail, or chatting at a table in a coffee shop = means of exercising one's rights

shouting 'fire' or 'bomb' = what one does with one's liberties

You claimed that one's right to travel doesn't include bicycles, planes, or skateboards simply because- well, you never actually gave a reason or argument, you just declared that you want to strip search old women and put your hand down babies' diapers to get your jollies and everyone should just accept it because the [t]SA was created by the federal government.

Kart pointed out that the right to travel is not limited to a given means of travel (bike, plane, skateboard, bus, walking), just as the right to free speech is not limited to a specific means of communicating that speech (buying time on tv, handing out fliers, running a printing press, speaking in a coffee shop, IMing, txting, facebooking, e-mail, IRC, or sign language).

Your reply was to address a wholly different matter entirely- what one [I]does with that liberty and the abuse of one's freedoms to infringe upon the rights of others or otherwise cause harm (sending threatening e-mails, shouting 'bomb' on a plane, or using online media to incite people to violence and murder; flying a plane into a building, running someone down with one's car, skateboarding inside a private business in violation of the rules established for that business).

So there are three possibilities:
A)You are too stupid to grasp the simplest of matters and have an intelligent discussion regarding liberty, tyranny, civil rights, constitutionality, or pretty much anything else

B)You're just plain trolling again and have no interest in honest and intelligent discourse

C) Both A and B

So... which is it?

How hilarious that YOU would call anyone stupid or a troll.

[fj1200]

A little analogy here to cloud things up. So the right to free speech by talking doesn't mean the right to free speech on the computer? So the govt can censor speech on the computer? Just asking.

How about some true clarity; the analogy would be that you have the right to free speech you just don't have the right to the computer. Just sayin'.

[ConHog]

How about some true clarity; the analogy would be that you have the right to free speech you just don't have the right to the computer. Just sayin'.

Actually, since the government in fact "owns" the flying lanes the correct analogy would be you DO have the right to free speech, but you do NOT have the right to say whatever you want on television (since the FCC "owns" the airwaves.)

[Gaffer]

You don't have a right to fly. The govt has a no fly list and if they put you on it you will never leave the ground again.

[ConHog]

You don't have a right to fly. The govt has a no fly list and if they put you on it you will never leave the ground again.

You goddamn statist, you're an enemy of the state and an Islamaphobe and a racist to boot.

FAILTARD


Did I get that about right JT?

[Gaffer]

You goddamn statist, you're an enemy of the state and an Islamaphobe and a racist to boot.

FAILTARD


Did I get that about right JT?

You left out TEA PARTIER, but that's a given considering all the other stuff. :thumb:

[J.T]

How about some true clarity; the analogy would be that you have the right to free speech you just don't have the right to the computer. Just sayin'.

So the government can sieze all the computers in the country, since you've no right to your property? :slap:



Actually, since the government in fact "owns" the flying lanes the correct analogy would be you DO have the right to free speech, but you do NOT have the right to say whatever you want on television (since the FCC "owns" the airwaves.)
Fail. Use of the 'flying lanes' is carreied out by the pilots and airline companies, not by the passengers. That's why it's the airlines and the pilots, not the passengers, who must meet FAA guidelines in order to operate their aircraft in the public space (the sky)



You don't have a right to fly. The govt has a no fly list and if they put you on it you will never leave the ground again.
You have no right to drink at a Whites-only fountain. The government mandated segregation and if you went where you weren't allowed, you went to jail :rolleyes:

Just because the government can violate one's civil rights doesn't mean you don't have them.

Now, where does COTUS give the [t]SA the authority to randomly strip search old women, babies, and high school students as a condition of their doing business with an airline company, driving down the street, or attending a school prom?

All you've done is insist that you want to strip search the elderly and make the laughable claim that the police's ability to say 'hello' and keep an eye out for criminal activity somehow means the [t]SA (which is not even a law enforcement agency) has the right and authority to pick old women they find hot out of line and strip them totally naked to get their jollies without any regard to due process, probable cause, the 4th amendment, the right to travel recognized by SCOTUS, or basic human rights such as not being harassed and molested at an airport, on the side of the road, or at a school prom by hired goons tasked with terrorizing, humiliating, and degrading the American populace to break their will and make sure they remain complacent and obedient.

Use of sexual assault, humiliation, and degradation against the populace was once limited to roving bands of murderers and thieves in Africa. Now you idiots jump up and down and scream that the government has the right to do it because the government does it and that if we stop strip-searching the elderly, feeling up beauty queens, and sticking [t]SA's hands down babies' diapers the 'terrists' win. Meanwhile you can't point out a single time these abuses have stopped a terrorist attack (quite the contrary, this abuse program has been proven entirely ineffective time (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tsa_flunks_another_knife_and_death_KUKZEM4X5wIehMI 2wMejBM) after time (http://www.securitydirectornews.com/?p=article&id=sd2011034Zv5nw) after time (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/intruder_sneaks_on_plane_xDqu3V3Hlp6MkhecjM5s4J) after time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41877330/ns/travel-news/) after time (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683) after time (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=7848208) after time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11863165/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/t/airline-screeners-fail-government-bomb-tests/)...)

[ConHog]

So the government can sieze all the computers in the country, since you've no right to your property? :slap:



Fail. Use of the 'flying lanes' is carreied out by the pilots and airline companies, not by the passengers. That's why it's the airlines and the pilots, not the passengers, who must meet FAA guidelines in order to operate their aircraft in the public space (the sky)






Why are you acting so stupid? Use of flying lanes is by the airlines who have agreed that their passengers won't fly unless they succumb to TSA guidelines, no different than television channels use the airwaves but they have agreed to not let people who for instance buy commercial time on their stations just say whatever they want.



Simpleton

[fj1200]

So the government can sieze all the computers in the country, since you've no right to your property? :slap:

No, but I wouldn't expect you to understand so why expand. Besides, it wasn't my analogy I was attempting to clarify.