Woman Roughed Up, Arrested for Reciting the Constitution During TSA Inspection

[-Cp]

Absolutely horrible - makes me wonder how long left and right bomb throwers will stay caught-up in the false left vs. right debate while the real powers who control this country play out their evils:

I take off my shoes and strip my backpack of computer and the baggie of incidentals. I stand in line while my armpits grow embarrassingly moist and I feel my heart race. I think, Get a hold of yourself. You're being a drama queen.


When it is my turn, I decline to go through the monitor that scans under your clothes, as I always do. The TSA agent starts his spiel about how safe it is. I've done my research. His statements are questionable, but that is not why I am doing this. I start my own spiel.


"The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution reads: 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 warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, an particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-----


I'm speaking loud and clear so those around me can hear. Before I get to "unreasonable search" a man in an ill-fitting suit and a tie marches up to me. He tells me I was disrupting his operation. I have no idea what his position is. He stands in front of the metal detector--the first place they usually screen me. He tells me I am holding up the line. I drop my voice and tell him to go ahead and screen me. I'll take the pat down. But that's not what he wants. He wants me to shut up. I continue reading the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/683300/bizarre%3A_woman_roughed_up%2C_arrested_for_reciti ng_the_constitution_during_tsa_inspection/#paragraph6

[ConHog]

Absolutely horrible - makes me wonder how long left and right bomb throwers will stay caught-up in the false left vs. right debate while the real powers who control this country play out their evils:

I take off my shoes and strip my backpack of computer and the baggie of incidentals. I stand in line while my armpits grow embarrassingly moist and I feel my heart race. I think, Get a hold of yourself. You're being a drama queen.


When it is my turn, I decline to go through the monitor that scans under your clothes, as I always do. The TSA agent starts his spiel about how safe it is. I've done my research. His statements are questionable, but that is not why I am doing this. I start my own spiel.


"The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution reads: 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 warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, an particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-----


I'm speaking loud and clear so those around me can hear. Before I get to "unreasonable search" a man in an ill-fitting suit and a tie marches up to me. He tells me I was disrupting his operation. I have no idea what his position is. He stands in front of the metal detector--the first place they usually screen me. He tells me I am holding up the line. I drop my voice and tell him to go ahead and screen me. I'll take the pat down. But that's not what he wants. He wants me to shut up. I continue reading the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/683300/bizarre%3A_woman_roughed_up%2C_arrested_for_reciti ng_the_constitution_during_tsa_inspection/#paragraph6


Maybe that stupid idiot should realize that the fourth amendment specifies that it only applies to unreasonable searches and that since a sane person can REASONABLY assume that a search is part of getting on a fucking airplane, she has no argument. And neither do those who agree with her stupidity.

[Kathianne]

Maybe that stupid idiot should realize that the fourth amendment specifies that it only applies to unreasonable searches and that since a sane person can REASONABLY assume that a search is part of getting on a fucking airplane, she has no argument. And neither do those who agree with her stupidity.

She did not refuse the search, she was reading the 4th amendment aloud. I don't really see how this was unreasonable.

You seem to think it's okey dokey that it's happening at the airports, but it is so unlikely to remain there. Trains, buses, perhaps rest stops will be next.

I back law enforcement, but this is the law writers that have a problem. Those people at TSA are like Barney Fife's.

[ConHog]

She did not refuse the search, she was reading the 4th amendment aloud. I don't really see how this was unreasonable.

You seem to think it's okey dokey that it's happening at the airports, but it is so unlikely to remain there. Trains, buses, perhaps rest stops will be next.

I back law enforcement, but this is the law writers that have a problem. Those people at TSA are like Barney Fife's.



You're right, in many cases the TSA do act like a bunch of Barney Fife's . That doesn't make being asked to walk through a scanner unconstitutional. It merely means that the TSA is a hodgepodge organization that needs to make some changes.

BUT there are idiots around who are making things worse than they need to be. Walk through the goddamneed scanner and you have don't have to worry about being patted down, and only the most uneducated buffoon truly believes that machine is dangerous.

No I'm not calling people who are genuinely concerned idiots, I'm instead suggesting that most who claim that they are truly concerned are liars and just out to cause trouble.

[Kathianne]

You're right, in many cases the TSA do act like a bunch of Barney Fife's . That doesn't make being asked to walk through a scanner unconstitutional. It merely means that the TSA is a hodgepodge organization that needs to make some changes.

BUT there are idiots around who are making things worse than they need to be. Walk through the goddamneed scanner and you have don't have to worry about being patted down, and only the most uneducated buffoon truly believes that machine is dangerous.

No I'm not calling people who are genuinely concerned idiots, I'm instead suggesting that most who claim that they are truly concerned are liars and just out to cause trouble.

Not necessarily right on the last bit. But I got ahead of myself. One is supposed to be able to avoid the scanners, that show your body. That's what she was refusing, not the search itself. That is one of the 'rights' given in this 'new law system' which is beyond intrusive from the get go. Thus, no great trouble making here, just willing to take a stand. Then there is the issue of reading the 4th amendment while willing or at least tolerant to being searched. Nope, that wasn't allowed either.

Sorry, this is the logical outcome of TSA handling of anyone questioning not so much the workers, as the premise for their work.

[ConHog]

Not necessarily right on the last bit. But I got ahead of myself. One is supposed to be able to avoid the scanners, that show your body. That's what she was refusing, not the search itself. That is one of the 'rights' given in this 'new law system' which is beyond intrusive from the get go. Thus, no great trouble making here, just willing to take a stand. Then there is the issue of reading the 4th amendment while willing or at least tolerant to being searched. Nope, that wasn't allowed either.

Sorry, this is the logical outcome of TSA handling of anyone questioning not so much the workers, as the premise for their work.



If you're only beef is that she was hassled for reciting the fourth amendment, or anything else that matter, while being searched. I'd agree with you. The TSA should just do their jobs and ignore what people are saying or reading or whatever as long as they are being peaceful in doing so. BUT let's please remember that they are just humans and as such they make mistakes.

[DragonStryk72]

Maybe that stupid idiot should realize that the fourth amendment specifies that it only applies to unreasonable searches and that since a sane person can REASONABLY assume that a search is part of getting on a fucking airplane, she has no argument. And neither do those who agree with her stupidity.

You're wrong, its NOT reasonable to be searched for committing the "sin" of purchasing a legally obtained ticket to board a legal method of travel, and standing in line as you are supposed to. That is in no way reasonable that you should be full body searched. Also you can't opt out, you either have to be patted down, or you have to go through the scanner. You cannot opt to simply leave the airport, that's a federal crime now. And before you start on that, "Then don't fly", the TSA has expanded into the Bus stations, as well as weigh stations now. It's really only a matter of time before rest stops, and trains are on the list too. When exactly is it unreasonable to you?

[Kathianne]

If you're only beef is that she was hassled for reciting the fourth amendment, or anything else that matter, while being searched. I'd agree with you. The TSA should just do their jobs and ignore what people are saying or reading or whatever as long as they are being peaceful in doing so. BUT let's please remember that they are just humans and as such they make mistakes.

No, it wasn't one mistake, just look around. They are bullies and incompetents and there isn't a reason to think we're one whit safer than before those buffoons were present.

Those buffoons though are just doing as they are instructed. Sort of like those guys at ATF and Fast & Furious. The executive branch is out of control and wielding way too much power over the people.

[ConHog]

No, it wasn't one mistake, just look around. They are bullies and incompetents and there isn't a reason to think we're one whit safer than before those buffoons were present.

Those buffoons though are just doing as they are instructed. Sort of like those guys at ATF and Fast & Furious. The executive branch is out of control and wielding way too much power over the people.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people fly every day without having any problems with the TSA. How many incidents are there every day? A handful, maybe a hundred a day at most? I dare say that that is a VERY low percentage of incidents and that NOTHING would have less incidents.

As for the ATF. I worked with them extensively, they are professional and well meaning, but very political at the top. I absolutely agree that isn't right.

[fj1200]

Literally hundreds of thousands of people fly every day without having any problems with the TSA. How many incidents are there every day? A handful, maybe a hundred a day at most? I dare say that that is a VERY low percentage of incidents and that NOTHING would have less incidents.

Not exactly the point is it? An incredibly low percentage of TX students had a problem saying the Mexico pledge so I suppose she should toe the line and say the pledge.

[ConHog]

Not exactly the point is it? An incredibly low percentage of TX students had a problem saying the Mexico pledge so I suppose she should toe the line and say the pledge.



Au contraire, it's exactly the point. When that teacher did that we all (most of us) condemned that teacher, not the school she taught for, not the teacher's unions she belongs to, not the profession of teaching, but the TEACHER who made the poor decision.

I thank you for agreeing with me.

[Kathianne]

Au contraire, it's exactly the point. When that teacher did that we all (most of us) condemned that teacher, not the school she taught for, not the teacher's unions she belongs to, not the profession of teaching, but the TEACHER who made the poor decision.

I thank you for agreeing with me.

Ah, but the school agreed with her, no one asked if what she was doing was actually school policy, not aligned with state curriculum.

[fj1200]

Au contraire, it's exactly the point. When that teacher did that we all (most of us) condemned that teacher, not the school she taught for, not the teacher's unions she belongs to, not the profession of teaching, but the TEACHER who made the poor decision.

I thank you for agreeing with me.

I didn't agree with you, quite the contrary. Did the school reprimand her? Did the union refuse to back her stance? Do other teachers support her actions? Maybe you know the answers to all of those but the bureaucracy that she works for and the bureaucracy that is the TSA grants abnormal power that they shouldn't have. I'm forced to go by the TSA if I want to fly and some are forced into public schools because they are told to and have no option for other schooling.

[ConHog]

Ah, but the school agreed with her, no one asked if what she was doing was actually school policy, not aligned with state curriculum.

But still only ONE teacher did it, just like only a small percentage of TSA agents act like morons. And of course the school publicly sided with her. But we shall see if that stands; and I can tell you for sure that teachers are often told things in private by administrators and school boards that are not made public IE We will publicly back your decision, but in the future...............

[Kathianne]

But still only ONE teacher did it, just like only a small percentage of TSA agents act like morons. And of course the school publicly sided with her. But we shall see if that stands; and I can tell you for sure that teachers are often told things in private by administrators and school boards that are not made public IE We will publicly back your decision, but in the future...............

Uh huh! The board members can start running into all the rooms for the foreseeable future, making sure nothing like this goes on in the future. Right. Maybe cameras in all the rooms that can be monitored at any moment? Oh yeah...

[ConHog]

Uh huh! The board members can start running into all the rooms for the foreseeable future, making sure nothing like this goes on in the future. Right. Maybe cameras in all the rooms that can be monitored at any moment? Oh yeah...





Ummm what?

[Kathianne]

Ummm what?

Good idea, right? I do believe you said that you made sure that type of 'oversight' was implemented in your school.

Answer, but I'm going to have to call it a night. I'll come and look tomorrow-after another 16 hour Friday. I may not get to this until Sat. ;)

CH, I do think you are more thoughtful than you often portray yourself here. I'm not quite sure why you run hot and cold. In any case, you are much more good than bad. Sorry if my being tired has made me a bit snarky.

[ConHog]

Good idea, right? I do believe you said that you made sure that type of 'oversight' was implemented in your school.

Answer, but I'm going to have to call it a night. I'll come and look tomorrow-after another 16 hour Friday. I may not get to this until Sat. ;)

CH, I do think you are more thoughtful than you often portray yourself here. I'm not quite sure why you run hot and cold. In any case, you are much more good than bad. Sorry if my being tired has made me a bit snarky.



Meh, it's just a message board, I've been pissy myself a few times. So I don't hold against others who are generally good posters but get out of whack occasionally.

As to answer your question about cameras in classrooms. Yes I did post on here in the past that our school does that, but if you will go back to that conversation, you will see that I noted that that was mostly for our parents benefit, as they can log on and watch their children's class at any time. The school does record all cameras just in case, but we do NOT have somoene watching the video feeds live. Our schools buses are also so equipped. It certainly isn't to catch teachers teaching wrong as you seem to be implying.

[logroller]

If you're only beef is that she was hassled for reciting the fourth amendment, or anything else that matter, while being searched. I'd agree with you. The TSA should just do their jobs and ignore what people are saying or reading or whatever as long as they are being peaceful in doing so. BUT let's please remember that they are just humans and as such they make mistakes.

Sounds to me like you're taking the 'I'm just doing my job' defense'; which throughout modern times has enabled some of the most horrific crimes man has committed.
So far as reasonable search, even suspected drunk drivers are given a choice on the method of search-- that's all she was asking. Admittedly while protesting the search- but last I read- that's a right. And so what if she's reading the constitution as a political demonstration of the mistake which is being made? Isnt it a responsibility of a dutiful citizen to protest an attempt to violate one's rights? I mean when should one protest, if not then? Or just be quiet, walk the line and everything will be fine. That's a recipe for change you can believe in:lame:

[ConHog]

Sounds to me like you're taking the 'I'm just doing my job' defense'; which throughout modern times has enabled some of the most horrific crimes man has committed.
So far as reasonable search, even suspected drunk drivers are given a choice on the method of search-- that's all she was asking. Admittedly while protesting the search- but last I read- that's a right. And so what if she's reading the constitution as a political demonstration of the mistake which is being made? Isnt it a responsibility of a dutiful citizen to protest an attempt to violate one's rights? I mean when should one protest, if not then? Or just be quiet, walk the line and everything will be fine. That's a recipe for change you can believe in:lame:


Are people just being illiterate tonight? I have CLEARLY posted on here at least 4 times that I agree the TSA agents in question were wrong to get upset over her reciting the 4th Amendment.

How much clearer can I make that?

[logroller]

Are people just being illiterate tonight? I have CLEARLY posted on here at least 4 times that I agree the TSA agents in question were wrong to get upset over her reciting the 4th Amendment.

How much clearer can I make that?

FAir enough. But as to the reasoned choice on the type of search- has she that right?

[LuvRPgrl]

But still only ONE teacher did it, just like only a small percentage of TSA agents act like morons. And of course the school publicly sided with her. But we shall see if that stands; and I can tell you for sure that teachers are often told things in private by administrators and school boards that are not made public IE We will publicly back your decision, but in the future...............

So you are using "something spoken in private" and "something YOU THINK might happen in the future, to prove your point?
Thats laughable at best.

[ConHog]

FAir enough. But as to the reasoned choice on the type of search- has she that right?


As long as the the TSA is giving people the option I see nothing wrong with choosing not to be scanned, and I think it's stupid to get upset over someone reciting the 4th Amendment during their pat down

I do think that anyone more evolved than a caveman would realize the scanner isn't dangerous though.

[jimnyc]

What would have happened if this woman followed the law and didn't become a pain in the ass? Would she have been arrested? On line at an airport is not the place to protest. While I think the TSA is taking many things WAY too far, people need to hit the right avenues to fix the issue. Become a pain in the ass with employees who are just doing their jobs like everyone else, you'll likely get tossed in the can. I'd RATHER the TSA takes shitheads like this out of the way rather than making lines longer for the rest of us. She CHOSE to be a pain in the ass, at the wrong venue, and paid the price.

[Abbey Marie]

I am surprised at the people defending this woman, actually. She came to that airport with every indication of looking for trouble, and she found it. Sweating, nervous, probably memorizing/reciting the 4th Amendment on the way there.

She repeatedly says that she wanted to go through the pat down instead of the x-ray. Then instead of going to do it, she creates a scene by reciting the Amendment. This is a person looking for trouble; not a solution. Everyone knows that you cannot create a scene in an airport. And it is my understanding that you have the option of the pat down if you prefer it. Had she shut up, I will bet that she would have had her alleged wish.

Every profession has their jerks, but I think these security people did the best they could with an unreasonable person on a disruptive mission. And recognizing this I suspect is the reason that not a single passenger took out their cameras or phones as she hoped.

As long as flying is optional, and there is a choice of x-ray or pat-down, I see no coercion here.

[jimnyc]

I am surprised at the people defending this woman, actually. She came to that airport with every indication of looking for trouble, and she found it. Sweating, nervous, probably memorizing/reciting the 4th Amendment on the way there.

She repeatedly says that she wanted to go through the pat down instead of the x-ray. Then instead of going to do it, she creates a scene by reciting the Amendment. This is a person looking for trouble; not a solution. Everyone knows that you cannot create a scene in an airport. And it is my understanding that you have the option of the pat down if you prefer it. Had she shut up, I will bet that she would have had her alleged wish.

Every profession has their jerks, but I think these security people did the best they could with an unreasonable person on a disruptive mission. And recognizing this I suspect is the reason that not a single passenger took out their cameras or phones as she hoped.

As long as flying is optional, and there is a choice of x-ray or pat-down, I see no coercion here.

Ding Ding Ding!!! :clap::clap:

[revelarts]

....
As long as flying is optional, and there is a choice of x-ray or pat-down, I see no coercion here.

As long as __________ (fill in any life activity) is Optional and there's a choice of how the __4th__ amendment is broken (hot or mild) there's no problem/coercion here.

Abbey I'm disappointed.

[jimnyc]

As long as __________ (fill in any life activity) is Optional and there's a choice of how the __4th__ amendment is broken (hot or mild) there's no problem/coercion here.

Abbey I'm disappointed.

And what about people ignoring the laws and taking matters into their own hands? Should EVERY TSA agent in the nation be ignored because we disagree with laws and their superiors? NO, we fight to have it changed.

Would be nice though if we could just ignore laws we don't agree with and expect no reaction from those in charge.

I think we should do away with the regular 'ol metal detectors. Should we expect to get into any venue/concert/sporting event, Rev? Too intrusive for me, bad law, I ignore.

[Abbey Marie]

As long as __________ (fill in any life activity) is Optional and there's a choice of how the __4th__ amendment is broken (hot or mild) there's no problem/coercion here.

Abbey I'm disappointed.

Sorry, RA.

I try to apply logic to situations, instead of emotion or unsubstantiated fear.

If/when the "fill in the blank" activities get out of hand, I'll be right there with you. As I said, yes, some agents have acted like jerks, but that is mainly because they are told they absolutely must not appear to be profiling. So they overdo it to avoid that.

Right now, I see an agency trying to keep everyone safe as they can. Go ahead and x-ray or pat me down. And if I am reeaally sensitive about it, I'll drive instead.

[revelarts]

And what about people ignoring the laws and taking matters into their own hands? Should EVERY TSA agent in the nation be ignored because we disagree with laws and their superiors? NO, we fight to have it changed.

...

Ignoring the Law
Ignoring the Law

and if the LAW itself is Illegal. the law breaks THE LAW.
whats' the citizen to do
whats the law enforcement officer, also a citizen, to do?
Which law do you break Jim?

[jimnyc]

Ignoring the Law
Ignoring the Law

and if the LAW itself is Illegal. the law breaks THE LAW.
whats' the citizen to do
whats the law enforcement officer, also a citizen, to do?
Which law do you break Jim?

So you're all for ignoring our opportunity to have laws repealed through government and courts? You think it better to let the citizens decide what and if any laws lay outside what is acceptable, and if they deem it as such it's our right to just ignore it? Sounds great in fucking fantasy land, or maybe other 3rd world countries where their courts, judicial system and governments have no meaning.

The right to have laws repealed has a process, it's legal, and has always been the American way. Now because you disagree, we should incite law breaking and forget the process in the courts? YOU disagree with a law... What if others disagree with marijuana being outlawed? Another takes issue with speeding laws or helmet laws. So long as they feel the laws are not legal - they should ignore our governments and courts and do as they wish.

Love ya, Rev, but you're fucking whacked and I hope you live FAR away from NY, where we have boneheads on display for the world to see what happens when you let the insane run the asylum.

[logroller]

What would have happened if this woman followed the law and didn't become a pain in the ass? Would she have been arrested? On line at an airport is not the place to protest. While I think the TSA is taking many things WAY too far, people need to hit the right avenues to fix the issue. Become a pain in the ass with employees who are just doing their jobs like everyone else, you'll likely get tossed in the can. I'd RATHER the TSA takes shitheads like this out of the way rather than making lines longer for the rest of us. She CHOSE to be a pain in the ass, at the wrong venue, and paid the price.


http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/aa-poster-stop-asking-questions.jpg

Is being a pain in the ass against the law?
We should Impeach Obama then; I trust it will happen too, because the mechanisms for having your grievances redressed by govt are oh-so effective
/sarcasm.

[jimnyc]

Has anyone even confirmed this story? Hell, do a search on google for "Arrested for Reciting the Constitution During TSA Inspection" and we are already 4th in results! Here is that link:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=60&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=Arrested+for+Reciting+the+Constitution+During+TS A+Inspection&qe=QXJyZXN0ZWQgZm9yIFJlY2l0aW5nIHRoZSBDb25zdGl0dXR pb24gRHVyaW5nIFRTQSBJbnNwZWN0aW9u&qesig=8OwFLO-TC15oRLl79PMUIA&pkc=AFgZ2tnrYwUmt3fOTn4at03fZbShQU_xtDUdXWTK0391nx _py-LsRtJ3hnWJA4qkvS141bU-N252J8_7y4IA317qMZhv3Wplkw&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Arrested+for+Reciting+the+Constitution+During+T SA+Inspection&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc20b2672385f007&biw=1920&bih=908

Also not a single credible link when going through pages and pages of that search

A search on CNN or ABC for the same yields no results. Not saying it's false, but ...

[jimnyc]

Log - as to your attachment of Lady Liberty - do you think she would agree or disagree about our judicial system, and that being the appropriate venue for lady justice to decide if a law should be repealed? Or is it better for our country to avoid the process and just ignore laws "they" feel is uncostitutional? Do you think our courts and supreme court is incapable of hearing such a case, and we're better off doing it ourselves, as citizens, by just ignoring and our implementing our own ways? Sounds odd that so many think it's kosher to just ignore laws we disagree with, however fucked up they are, without using what our country has done from the beginning via courts and electing officials, and repealing said laws.

[logroller]

Good call Jim. We're up to #3 now. Following your lead, I found this to be an entry in a "diary" by a science fiction writer, under the title TSA Arrests Me for Using the Fourth Amendment as a Weapon (Tales from the Edge of a Revolution #2) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-(Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2)):lame2: move this shit to conspiracy theories.

[jimnyc]

Good call Jim. We're up to #3 now. Following your lead, I found this to be an entry in a "diary" by a science fiction writer, under the title TSA Arrests Me for Using the Fourth Amendment as a Weapon (Tales from the Edge of a Revolution #2) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-%28Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2%29):lame2: move this shit to conspiracy theories.

-Cp gets angry if I do that :coffee:, plus this seems to have made for a good discussion, even if it appears thus far as not confirmed.

Sure is funny how things get blogged around and go from a blog entry to the horrors of unconstitutionality. <--- Did I make that word up? Thought I heard it somewhere before and the context seems to fit! LOL

[logroller]

Log - as to your attachment of Lady Liberty - do you think she would agree or disagree about our judicial system, and that being the appropriate venue for lady justice to decide if a law should be repealed? Or is it better for our country to avoid the process and just ignore laws "they" feel is uncostitutional? Do you think our courts and supreme court is incapable of hearing such a case, and we're better off doing it ourselves, as citizens, by just ignoring and our implementing our own ways? Sounds odd that so many think it's kosher to just ignore laws we disagree with, however fucked up they are, without using what our country has done from the beginning via courts and electing officials, and repealing said laws.

That's a great question Jim. Lady liberty is french, not american-- it was a gift that stemmed from our influence on their own path to liberty; but it is uniquely a french interpretation; but you can't very well turn down a gift from the people who helped fund our Revolution. Our justice system is better representative of our system. Lady liberty carries what, a book and a torch; while lady justice carries a scale and sword (ans she's blind-folded, of course) So to answer your question, I'd say the Statue of Liberty, like the French, would publicly kowtow to an oppressive force, while secretly violating the law at every opportunity.

As to our system of justice, there are some problems which require us to break the law to instigate change. In order for a law to be challenged on Constitutional grounds, a tort, or injury must be presented-- which usually requires a person be convicted of some criminal statute to get the ball rolling. Even if a law is on the books, yet not enforced, it won't ripen to be heard by SCOTUS. Another issue, and what the founders mention in the Decl.of Ind, was that people are more inclined to suffer, where injuries are sufferable. Indeed there is a dispositon of SCOTUS to not rule on an issue if people simply put up with it-- even if its wrong. It takes a determined person to overcome the hurdles to overturn a law. If it is even possible for an individual to do so at all; it takes big bucks and a long process to get to that level, and most people can't be bothered.

[jimnyc]

Excellent reply, log! Still no reason I see in there though where it would show it fully necessary for citizens to take matters into their own hands and ignore laws. It would take a lot more than that to convince me that the people should break laws and likely incite riots or worse.

[ConHog]

As long as __________ (fill in any life activity) is Optional and there's a choice of how the __4th__ amendment is broken (hot or mild) there's no problem/coercion here.

Abbey I'm disappointed.



The 4th Amendment was not violated here. Do you understand that part?

[revelarts]

...So you're all for ignoring our opportunity to have laws repealed through government and courts? ....
Who said anything about ignoring that opportunity.
Why do you assume that that is the ONLY ligit way to respond to ILLEGAL laws, UNLawful laws.
Don't people in the military have the option to disobey illegal orders.
Is that so "crazy"?

And as Log and others have pointed out, Quoting the amendments is NOT illegal.
NOT even close.
But Some people here don't seem to like ANY opposition to "laws" in any form.
Protesters "deserve what they get, HAR HAR"
Speaking out or even questioning at the point of Infringement on rights, Is "MOSTLY premeditated nuisance A-hole behavior, they deserve what they get".
"IT'S THE LAW!!! People get paid to enforce it, right or wrong, you should live under it quietly or get you teeth knocked in or put in jail until it's changed... LEGALLY, and we will decide randomly what legally is if you act upset or angry it's probably not, until then NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS, IT's the law IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, don't fly, ride the bus, truck or train. AND Shut the Heck Up."

But I'm Crazy to think something is wrong with this picture?

Jawohl Herr Jim

[revelarts]

The 4th Amendment was not violated here. Do you understand that part?
That's a matter of honest interpretation or interpretation of convince.

[revelarts]

...
As to our system of justice, there are some problems which require us to break the law to instigate change. In order for a law to be challenged on Constitutional grounds, a tort, or injury must be presented-- which usually requires a person be convicted of some criminal statute to get the ball rolling. Even if a law is on the books, yet not enforced, it won't ripen to be heard by SCOTUS. Another issue, and what the founders mention in the Decl.of Ind, was that people are more inclined to suffer, where injuries are sufferable. Indeed there is a dispositon of SCOTUS to not rule on an issue if people simply put up with it-- even if its wrong. It takes a determined person to overcome the hurdles to overturn a law. If it is even possible for an individual to do so at all; it takes big bucks and a long process to get to that level, and most people can't be bothered.

very well and succinctly put Log :clap:.

[jimnyc]

Who said anything about ignoring that opportunity.
Why do you assume that that is the ONLY ligit way to respond to ILLEGAL laws, UNLawful laws.
Don't people in the military have the option to disobey illegal orders.
Is that so "crazy"?

And as Log and others have pointed out, Quoting the amendments is NOT illegal.
NOT even close.
But Some people here don't seem to like ANY opposition to "laws" in any form.
Protesters "deserve what they get, HAR HAR"
Speaking out or even questioning at the point of Infringement on rights, Is "MOSTLY premeditated nuisance A-hole behavior, they deserve what they get".
"IT'S THE LAW!!! People get paid to enforce it, right or wrong, you should live under it quietly or get you teeth knocked in or put in jail until it's changed... LEGALLY, and we will decide randomly what legally is if you act upset or angry it's probably not, until then NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS, IT's the law IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, don't fly, ride the bus, truck or train. AND Shut the Heck Up."

But I'm Crazy to think something is wrong with this picture?

Jawohl Herr Jim

Someone MADE UP a story and you took it hook, line and sinker!

With that said - tell me, Rev, do you have video of this event so we can see that all that was done by this citizen was politely recite the Constitution? Do tell, Rev!

[revelarts]

Someone MADE UP a story and you took it hook, line and sinker!

With that said - tell me, Rev, do you have video of this event so we can see that all that was done by this citizen was politely recite the Constitution? Do tell, Rev!
I've acknowledge that with a thanks. People for and against the the imaginary incident bought it.
But the principals brought up still stand. I'll edit out my reference to incident.

Who said anything about ignoring that opportunity.
Why do you assume that that is the ONLY ligit way to respond to ILLEGAL laws, UNLawful laws.
Don't people in the military have the option to disobey illegal orders?
Is that so "crazy"?

Speaking to officials on the street is NOT illegal.
NOT even close.
But some people here don't seem to like ANY opposition to "laws" in any form.
Protesters "deserve what they get, HAR HAR"
Speaking out or even questioning at the point of Infringement on rights, Is "MOSTLY premeditated nuisance A-hole behavior, they deserve what they get".
"IT'S THE LAW!!! People get paid to enforce it, right or wrong, you should live under it quietly or get you teeth knocked in or put in jail until it's changed... LEGALLY, and we will decide randomly what legally is if you act upset or angry it's probably not, until then NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS, It's the law IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, don't fly, ride the bus, truck or train. AND Shut the Heck Up."

But I'm Crazy to think something is wrong with this picture?

[jimnyc]

Dude, you're standing your ground on a made up scenario to obviously appear on sided - and you're still likely to insist on breaking the law and/or circumventing security based on that. Wow. There's a whole lotta blogs out there that I hope you never find! LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

Someone MADE UP a story and you took it hook, line and sinker!

With that said - tell me, Rev, do you have video of this event so we can see that all that was done by this citizen was politely recite the Constitution? Do tell, Rev!
What is being debated here is the type of treatment the woman may have, or may not have suffered. Those like conngo hog, are arguing that the way it was handled, whether made up or real, was legitimate.
We are not debating if it really happened.
If it didnt happen, then we are simply debating a hypothetical, happens all the time, even by you, to bring up a hypothetical.

. If you want to debate the legitimacy of it, I suggest you start another thread instead of derailing this one. Go ahead, I will give you my permission.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

What is being debated here is the type of treatment the woman may have, or may not have suffered. Those like conngo hog, are arguing that the way it was handled, whether made up or real, was legitimate.
We are not debating if it really happened.
If it didnt happen, then we are simply debating a hypothetical, happens all the time, even by you, to bring up a hypothetical.

. If you want to debate the legitimacy of it, I suggest you start another thread instead of derailing this one. Go ahead, I will give you my permission.:laugh:

I already debated what I needed to add - which is we as citizens don't get to automatically ignore laws/regulations we don't agree with. A few others here seem to think that "if they feel" something is unconstitutional that they immediately get to ignore it. We have PLENTY of hotbed issues currently and in our past that have been fought in the courts as people thought it was unconstitutional.

Should the queers have just ignored laws and demanded that city officials marry them in places it was outlawed, or do what they did, which was get the law changed. I can cite dozens of these instances - and in each case the answer would be to handle it in the appropriate venue. Short of having weapons drawn on peaceful citizens, I believe we should all be adhering to laws made by the politicians we have voted in - until such time we vote someone in to have it changed or have laws reversed via our judicial system. But just saying "Oh my, I feel that's against my 4th amendment rights and therefore I'll do as I please" is stupid and will only lead to arrests and violence - like we see happening in other countries that have no respect for their laws, politicians, governments and police.

[fj1200]

As long as flying is optional, and there is a choice of x-ray or pat-down, I see no coercion here.


If/when the "fill in the blank" activities get out of hand, I'll be right there with you.

So once the searches reach the level that YOU feel is intrusive THEN you'll be there? Well that's a solid line that we can count on.

[Abbey Marie]

RA, the story was a fake. Time to let go.

[fj1200]

A few others here seem to think that "if they feel" something is unconstitutional that they immediately get to ignore it.

...But just saying "Oh my, I feel that's against my 4th amendment rights and therefore I'll do as I please" is stupid and will only lead to arrests and violence ...

Did I miss where someone here argued for that? As I recall the mythical 4th amendment "hero" didn't ignore any law only recited the 4th as she was being "searched."

[Abbey Marie]

So once the searches reach the level that YOU feel is intrusive THEN you'll be there? Well that's a solid line that we can count on.

As opposed to the level RA and you feel is intrusive. Your line is better, though, :rolleyes:

You don't have to count on my feelings at all. I encourage you to think unemotionally about it, and draw your own conclusions. Just don't freak out in front of me at the airport. I don't want to get delayed by your outbursts.

[ConHog]

That's a matter of honest interpretation or interpretation of convince.



Our Constitution is not meant to be interpreted by the citizens of this country as they come across situations which require them to do so. We can only assume that by now the SCOTUS would have put a stop to security checks at airports if they were ever going to do so. That is the litmus test. Has SCOTUS declared them to be a violation? No, then they are NOT a violation PERIOD. FULL STOP.


Do you have the right to disobey the law? You bet, you also have the right to face the consequences of doing so.

By the way that same rule applies to military personal in terms of disobeying illegal orders. The onus is on you to prove they were illegal orders if you choose to disobey them. Simply saying "in my OPINION the order was illegal" is not ever going to be enough.


Did I miss where someone here argued for that? As I recall the mythical 4th amendment "hero" didn't ignore any law only recited the 4th as she was being "searched."



And on THAT point I think Jimmy, and in fact any reasonable person, would agree that while annoying the lady would have the absolute right to do so. Why anyone would choose expose their ignorance like that is beyond me, so be it.

[fj1200]

As opposed to the level RA and you feel is intrusive. Your line is better, though, :rolleyes:

You don't have to count on my feelings at all. I encourage you to think unemotionally about it, and draw your own conclusions. Just don't freak out in front of me at the airport. I don't want to get delayed by your outbursts.

At least my line is definable. But thinking unemotionally, as usual, it is better to limit the power of government in the first place rather than granting monopoly power to it and then trying to reign it back in to the point that you unemotionally decided it should have stopped. Another scorpion/frog dilemma eh?


Our Constitution is not meant to be interpreted by the citizens of this country as they come across situations which require them to do so.

Really? Wow.

[ConHog]

At least my line is definable. But thinking unemotionally, as usual, it is better to limit the power of government in the first place rather than granting monopoly power to it and then trying to reign it back in to the point that you unemotionally decided it should have stopped. Another scorpion/frog dilemma eh?


But where do you want that limit to be? No searches at all, because that is the ONLY way you will ever eliminate people making stupid decisions both in regards to how they conduct searches AND in how they react to them.

You have to admit that MOST cases that we see where people claiming they were harassed by the TSA the person themselves was actively contributing to the problem. Either in the form of they went to the airport LOOKING for trouble or they over reacted to something silly. And yes the same can be said about TSA agents, there are the usual goobers who get a little power and let it go to their heads and there are the usual goobers who get pissed and escalate a situation if they feel someone has "questioned their authority."

You seem to want to get rid of the TSA but have no comment on the pain in the ass fliers.

[Gunny]

Maybe that stupid idiot should realize that the fourth amendment specifies that it only applies to unreasonable searches and that since a sane person can REASONABLY assume that a search is part of getting on a fucking airplane, she has no argument. And neither do those who agree with her stupidity.

I agree. Doesn't make it right.

[jimnyc]

Did I miss where someone here argued for that? As I recall the mythical 4th amendment "hero" didn't ignore any law only recited the 4th as she was being "searched."

So tell me then, can we ask this person or any witnesses if she DID do anything to warrant an arrest, or are we going to simply go by an obvious one sided story and run with it?

[ConHog]

I agree. Doesn't make it right.



I agree 1000% Gunny. We have the right to be wrong in this country.

[fj1200]

So tell me then, can we ask this person or any witnesses if she DID do anything to warrant an arrest, or are we going to simply go by an obvious one sided story and run with it?

We may certainly ask the bit players in this comic book tragedy if the protagonist did in fact do anything to warrant an arrest? And if so then please prosecute.

[ConHog]

We may certainly ask the bit players in this comic book tragedy if the protagonist did in fact do anything to warrant an arrest? And if so then please prosecute.


Not every wrong is an illegal act. The woman in this fable was being a pain in the ass. That isn't illegal, but it is a pain in the ass.

[jimnyc]

We may certainly ask the bit players in this comic book tragedy if the protagonist did in fact do anything to warrant an arrest? And if so then please prosecute.

And if we can't, just do whatever the fuck we please. Fuck the laws. Fuck order in the nation. Fuck the judicial system. And in a case like the other thread, fuck whatever someone else REALLY says and lets just make shit up. WHat a coincidence, enjoying a made up scenario to get a point across, or make up words and put them in my mouth in the other thread. Come out of fantasy land whenever you feel like it.

[jimnyc]

Not every wrong is an illegal act. The woman in this fable was being a pain in the ass. That isn't illegal, but it is a pain in the ass.

ANd we have no idea if she was breaking laws or not because the writer purposely made it one sided, so therefore we should still ignore laws and regulations and just break them if we "feel" its unconstitutional. Sorry, even if I felt it was, I would still say it needs to be handled appropriately, and that's not by creating chaos by ignoring laws/regulations.

[ConHog]

ANd we have no idea if she was breaking laws or not because the writer purposely made it one sided, so therefore we should still ignore laws and regulations and just break them if we "feel" its unconstitutional. Sorry, even if I felt it was, I would still say it needs to be handled appropriately, and that's not by creating chaos by ignoring laws/regulations.

True enough. Here's an idea. If you think your rights were violated. Hire a lawyer and sue as per the very Constitution that you say you are for following.

People crack me the fuck up sometimes. And make me cry at the same time.

[jimnyc]

True enough. Here's an idea. If you think your rights were violated. Hire a lawyer and sue as per the very Constitution that you say you are for following.

People crack me the fuck up sometimes. And make me cry at the same time.

Why sue when we can just "feel" something is unconstitutional and ignore it. Fuck a couple hundred years of precedence and just have anarchy in our airports, that would speed up the process! I hate what they're doing too, but I do what I have to do and get on the plane. If I wanted to fight it I would go via the judicial avenue. I already foresee some of this crap hitting the SC. But citizens cant just be ignoring stuff because they don't like the laws, feel the process is too long or too expensive.

[Gunny]

We may certainly ask the bit players in this comic book tragedy if the protagonist did in fact do anything to warrant an arrest? And if so then please prosecute.

Sure. After the murder is committed, let's prosecute. That'll sure bring back the dead.

[fj1200]

Sure. After the murder is committed, let's prosecute. That'll sure bring back the dead.

So we now have the constitutional authority to search everyone when there's no evidence of a crime in the first place?

[ConHog]

So we now have the constitutional authority to search everyone when there's no evidence of a crime in the first place?


That isn't what's happening at all you paranoid nerd.

[fj1200]

That isn't what's happening at all you paranoid nerd.

No, it's just an overexpansion of government that seems to know no end.

[ConHog]

No, it's just an overexpansion of government that seems to know no end.


That's odd because I actually thought the COTUS empowered the government to protect us.


Do you simply object to the TSA as an organization or do you object to there being ANY searches prior to boarding a plane?

[LuvRPgrl]

I already debated what I needed to add - which is we as citizens don't get to automatically ignore laws/regulations we don't agree with. A few others here seem to think that "if they feel" something is unconstitutional that they immediately get to ignore it. We have PLENTY of hotbed issues currently and in our past that have been fought in the courts as people thought it was unconstitutional.

Should the queers have just ignored laws and demanded that city officials marry them in places it was outlawed, or do what they did, which was get the law changed. I can cite dozens of these instances - and in each case the answer would be to handle it in the appropriate venue. Short of having weapons drawn on peaceful citizens, I believe we should all be adhering to laws made by the politicians we have voted in - until such time we vote someone in to have it changed or have laws reversed via our judicial system. But just saying "Oh my, I feel that's against my 4th amendment rights and therefore I'll do as I please" is stupid and will only lead to arrests and violence - like we see happening in other countries that have no respect for their laws, politicians, governments and police.

So you think the civil rights protestors of the 60's shouldnt have done so, just wait til the laws change?

[ConHog]

So you think the civil rights protestors of the 60's shouldnt have done so, just wait til the laws change?



No one said that. Don't compare this made up story and your cries that the TSA is mean with the struggle of blacks to be treated as equals.

[fj1200]

That's odd because I actually thought the COTUS empowered the government to protect us.


Do you simply object to the TSA as an organization or do you object to there being ANY searches prior to boarding a plane?

Protect us from intrastate travel? That's certainly not an originalist interpretation.

But I mostly object to the TSA as an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare that is grossly expanding what is required. I would hope that my boarding of an airplane is subject to the contract between myself and a private air carrier.

[ConHog]

Protect us from intrastate travel? That's certainly not an originalist interpretation.

But I mostly object to the TSA as an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare that is grossly expanding what is required. I would hope that my boarding of an airplane is subject to the contract between myself and a private air carrier.

BINGO and it fucking is. Read your ticket, It CLEARLY states that you WILL be searched if you want to board their planes. NOW if you owned an airline and wanted to argue that you were being forced to do something against your will you would have an argument, but notice that the people who own the airlines WANT the security, Know why? Ummm because every time something happens one of you idiots who screams " don't search me bro" sues the fucking airlines.

Duh, it's your fault we're being searched.

[jimnyc]

So you think the civil rights protestors of the 60's shouldnt have done so, just wait til the laws change?

Fight to have laws changed, yes. Protesting legally, not in a TSA line, yes. Using all legal means, yes. But they shouldn't have had carte blanche to ignore laws they didn't like, nope.

[ConHog]

Fight to have laws changed, yes. Protesting legally, not in a TSA line, yes. Using all legal means, yes. But they shouldn't have had carte blanche to ignore laws they didn't like, nope.


I'm going to disagree with you here Jim, Civil disobedience is a valid tool for change. Doesn't mean I wouldn't punch someone in the fucking mouth if they were impeding MY flight over something stupid, but hey I have the right to civilly disobey laws to :)

[jimnyc]

I'm going to disagree with you here Jim, Civil disobedience is a valid tool for change. Doesn't mean I wouldn't punch someone in the fucking mouth if they were impeding MY flight over something stupid, but hey I have the right to civilly disobey laws to :)

And then the police need to do their jobs and arrest you if you break the law.

[fj1200]

BINGO and it fucking is. Read your ticket, It CLEARLY states that you WILL be searched if you want to board their planes. NOW if you owned an airline and wanted to argue that you were being forced to do something against your will you would have an argument, but notice that the people who own the airlines WANT the security, Know why? Ummm because every time something happens one of you idiots who screams " don't search me bro" sues the fucking airlines.

Duh, it's your fault we're being searched.

Of course it says it but we're not talking about my interaction with said private airline now are we?

Because the government was stupid enough to create a whole new ever-growing bureaucracy that conveniently removed the responsibility from the private sector while at the same time granting $15 Billion in cash and guarantees. Hell, I'd have taken the deal too if I were an airline exec.

Now please show where I have sued the airlines.

[ConHog]

Of course it says it but we're not talking about my interaction with said private airline now are we?

Because the government was stupid enough to create a whole new ever-growing bureaucracy that conveniently removed the responsibility from the private sector while at the same time granting $15 Billion in cash and guarantees. Hell, I'd have taken the deal too if I were an airline exec.

Now please show where I have sued the airlines.

UMMM , yes we are. You don't have a right to fly. You only get to fly if you follow the guidelines set forth by the people who own the planes. They have unanimously agreed to having their passengers searched.

Pity that you don't understand that simple logic.

[-Cp]

And then the police need to do their jobs and arrest you if you break the law.

You'll make such a wonderful mindless drone to be controlled................

[Psychoblues]

You'll make such a wonderful mindless drone to be controlled................

Jim is a dumbass. He knows it.

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

As opposed to the level RA and you feel is intrusive. Your line is better, though, :rolleyes:

You don't have to count on my feelings at all. I encourage you to think unemotionally about it, and draw your own conclusions. Just don't freak out in front of me at the airport. I don't want to get delayed by your outbursts. \\

Seems to me the outburst was by the TSA and the TSA is the one that delayed you. I mean, before they arrived on the scene, I got on a plane in 5 minutes, now its 2 hours. Oh, I get it, being delayed for possible safety is ok, but being delayed for possibly protecting your constitutional rights is not?

[Psychoblues]

\\

Seems to me the outburst was by the TSA and the TSA is the one that delayed you. I mean, before they arrived on the scene, I got on a plane in 5 minutes, now its 2 hours. Oh, I get it, being delayed for possible safety is ok, but being delayed for possibly protecting your constitutional rights is not?

NOT

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

Our Constitution is not meant to be interpreted by the citizens of this country as they come across situations which require them to do so..

So, if a situation requires me to interpet the COTUS, I'm not suppose to?


We can only assume that by now the SCOTUS would have put a stop to security checks at airports if they were ever going to do so..
Why would you assume that? SCOTUS is infallable?


That is the litmus test. Has SCOTUS declared them to be a violation? No, then they are NOT a violation PERIOD. FULL STOP..
Yavolt herr commandante, if Adolph says so, then it is so.
You dont have any problem at all with all the judicial activism that the libs have been using to thwart our constitution for the last 50 years?
You dont ever think scotus gets it wrong. ? Look how long slavery was legal, and I dont give a fat cigar what ANYBODY SAYS, that was flat our wrong, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. PERIOD. FULL STOP..




Do you have the right to disobey the law? You bet, you also have the right to face the consequences of doing so..
a rather meaningless statement really. In fact, downright silly, Do you even know what you just said there? That at times we may excercise some of our rights, but be jailed for it.
But I also bet you were one of those scoffing at the brits lawyers declaring the seccession of the US from the crown to be illegal.


By the way that same rule applies to military personal in terms of disobeying illegal orders. The onus is on you to prove they were illegal orders if you choose to disobey them. Simply saying "in my OPINION the order was illegal" is not ever going to be enough.
so, are we in the military now?


Has anyone even confirmed this story? Hell, do a search on google for "Arrested for Reciting the Constitution During TSA Inspection" and we are already 4th in results! Here is that link:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=60&gs_id=3&xhr=t&q=Arrested+for+Reciting+the+Constitution+During+TS A+Inspection&qe=QXJyZXN0ZWQgZm9yIFJlY2l0aW5nIHRoZSBDb25zdGl0dXR pb24gRHVyaW5nIFRTQSBJbnNwZWN0aW9u&qesig=8OwFLO-TC15oRLl79PMUIA&pkc=AFgZ2tnrYwUmt3fOTn4at03fZbShQU_xtDUdXWTK0391nx _py-LsRtJ3hnWJA4qkvS141bU-N252J8_7y4IA317qMZhv3Wplkw&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Arrested+for+Reciting+the+Constitution+During+T SA+Inspection&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc20b2672385f007&biw=1920&bih=908

Also not a single credible link when going through pages and pages of that search

A search on CNN or ABC for the same yields no results. Not saying it's false, but ...

You think something has to have really happened for us to argue it here? :laugh::laugh:


No one said that..
YES, you did.


Don't compare this made up story and your cries that the TSA is mean with the struggle of blacks to be treated as equals.

OH, you mean COTUS doesnt apply unless its something REALLY SERIOUS?


BINGO and it fucking is. Read your ticket, It CLEARLY states that you WILL be searched if you want to board their planes. NOW if you owned an airline and wanted to argue that you were being forced to do something against your will you would have an argument, but notice that the people who own the airlines WANT the security, Know why? Ummm because every time something happens one of you idiots who screams " don't search me bro" sues the fucking airlines.

Duh, it's your fault we're being searched.

So, if the airlines were to state on the ticket that you have to strip, that would be ok? Just because its on the ticket?

Not everything is legal that a private enterprise wants to require of you.

On FJ's point, the search, if at all, should be conducted by the airlines, not the govt.


I'm going to disagree with you here Jim, Civil disobedience is a valid tool for change. Doesn't mean I wouldn't punch someone in the fucking mouth if they were impeding MY flight over something stupid, but hey I have the right to civilly disobey laws to :)

And you have the right to suffer the consequences too, like looking up at the ceiling after you ATTEMPTED to punch me.

[fj1200]

UMMM , yes we are. You don't have a right to fly. You only get to fly if you follow the guidelines set forth by the people who own the planes. They have unanimously agreed to having their passengers searched.

Pity that you don't understand that simple logic.

No, we are talking about the growth of government.

I understand that simple logic that you sucked down. I also understand that you support the expansion of the police state because... well I'm not really sure why but I don't want to be subjected to that power every time I want to engage in commerce. Please tell me where that expansion stops.

[Kathianne]

No, we are talking about the growth of government.

I understand that simple logic that you sucked down. I also understand that you support the expansion of the police state because... well I'm not really sure why but I don't want to be subjected to that power every time I want to engage in commerce. Please tell me where that expansion stops.

Indeed. TSA is not intel, it's supposed to be a tool. Unfortunately with the addition of 'non-profiling' and such, it's become a source of power for idiots to bludgeon the public with. Prevention? Not so much. It's ineffective, expensive, intrusive.

The Patriot Act has proven to be a bone-headed idea, though there may well be aspects of it that are working and those should be kept. TSA is not one of them.

[jimnyc]

You'll make such a wonderful mindless drone to be controlled................

I suppose that's better than someone who gets it on with their relatives, huh Duane? Talk about mindless!

[jimnyc]

Jim is a dumbass. He knows it.

Psychoblues

As much as I know you are a no good drunk who only pops around here from time to time on a bender. Seek help, loser.

[revelarts]

Not every wrong is an illegal act. The woman in this fable was being a pain in the ass. That isn't illegal, but it is a pain in the ass.

Only if you have an overly sensitive @ss.




Fight to have laws changed, yes. Protesting legally, not in a TSA line, yes. Using all legal means, yes. But they shouldn't have had carte blanche to ignore laws they didn't like, nope.

No protest a lunch counters either.
Tuct your shirt in and 2 strait lines to the class, or a rap on the knucles. what gives with this school marm-ish, Kommandant Klink-ish, honestly SLAVISH desire for everyone to follow the "rules".
Citizens made up the rules, Citizens can change the rules, Citizens can question the rules, anytime anywhere. we are adults not children or subjects. The Police, TSA work for us. The Congress, President the SCOTUS work for US.
(I've been on a few miliary bases and i've seen the pictures on the walls of the chain of command for that base. at the top is always the picture of the current POTUS. But I've thought recently that there should be 2 more spots above that. Above the president should be a picture of the constitution, then above that should be a map of the US with small pics of all kinds of Americans. )

Why is it that you think the only alternative to everyone following every stinking law, and those enforcing them not even unconvinced by a question or a comment, is one step from COMPLETE anarchy?
When we've got more laws on the books than can even be obeyed and more people in jail than any country in the world. Plus it's painfully clear that we have LOST liberty sense 9-11 and over the past 70 years or so in general.
I'm not sure where any rational fear of perpetual "Riots in the streets" comes from with a just the thought of a person protesting in a TSA line.

[jimnyc]

Rev, save it, you seem to be going off the deep end. You REALLY need to get here to NYC and be with your brethren speaking out against the man and singing songs. You dislike just about every aspect of our government but don't want to follow the countries rules - then either start a revolution of sorts or move the fuck out. But your non-stop conspiracies are vomit inducing.

[ConHog]

And you have the right to suffer the consequences too, like looking up at the ceiling after you ATTEMPTED to punch me.


How silly. I make a general statement and then you try to make it personal. But let me add that no one has EVER attempted to punch me in my civilian life. Must be something about the scowl they teach you to wear in Ranger training.:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Rev, save it, you seem to be going off the deep end. You REALLY need to get here to NYC and be with your brethren speaking out against the man and singing songs. You dislike just about every aspect of our government but don't want to follow the countries rules - then either start a revolution of sorts or move the fuck out. But your non-stop conspiracies are vomit inducing.Hey jim, this isnt a retort to anything you've posted here.
I think it is actually very ironic that, in fact, the occupy and piss on wall street protesters arent even protesting something that was illegal.


How silly. I make a general statement and then you try to make it personal.
What you said is personal. I could easily see myself doing some type of protest on that scale, so you made a comment that you might, or will TRY to punch me in the mouth.
I do not allow anyone to man handle me, my wife, my family, or even strangers very often. Cops have come close, but never took it over the line.


But let me add that no one has EVER attempted to punch me in my civilian life. Must be something about the scowl they teach you to wear in Ranger training.:laugh2:

And I have never punched or try to punch anyone unless they had already gotten into "my space".:laugh2:
If a scowl ever makes one change their mind about "getting physical", then I suggest that person never consider it under any circumstances ever.

[ConHog]

What you said is personal. I could easily see myself doing some type of protest on that scale, so you made a comment that you might, or will TRY to punch me in the mouth.
I do not allow anyone to man handle me, my wife, my family, or even strangers very often. Cops have come close, but never took it over the line.



And I have never punched or try to punch anyone unless they had already gotten into "my space".:laugh2:
If a scowl ever makes one change their mind about "getting physical", then I suggest that person never consider it under any circumstances ever.

Yeah that's some internet bravado there from someone who has obviously never came across a person who probably needed their ass kicked but a person could tell just by looking at them that they weren't man enough to get the job done. :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah that's some internet bravado there from someone who has obviously never came across a person who probably needed their ass kicked but a person could tell just by looking at them that they weren't man enough to get the job done. :laugh:

not sure what that means, maybe use some commas?

[ConHog]

not sure what that means, maybe use some commas?



The sentence required no commas.

However I will interpret for you.

You might now think you'd like to attempt to kick my ass, but I guarantee if you saw me you would quickly change your mind.


Now let's get back to the other thread slap that Delanne idiot around a little more shall we?:laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

As much as I know you are a no good drunk who only pops around here from time to time on a bender. Seek help, loser.

And you would be wrong about that as well, jimbo. But, what the heck? It's a political message board. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

And you would be wrong about that as well, jimbo. But, what the heck? It's a political message board. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

Psychoblues


Hey bottle boy. You disgust me.

[Psychoblues]

Hey bottle boy. You disgust me.

Strange. I find you pretty funny on a number of levels. Even a bit queer sometimes.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

The sentence required no commas.

However I will interpret for you.

You might now think you'd like to attempt to kick my ass, but I guarantee if you saw me you would quickly change your mind.


Now let's get back to the other thread slap that Delanne idiot around a little more shall we?:laugh2:


WELL, as a wise man once said, "you might put me in the hospital, but I assure you, they will take you there first."

You sure like to be full of bravado and then say lets not talk about it alot.

Where did I say I would want to kick your, or anybody elses ass?

I dont start fights, never have, never will. If someone doesnt get physical with me first, I will never get physical with them, but I can assure you one thing, I have taken guys tougher and bigger than you down,,,,there are lots of "tools of the trade" that most dont know of, and few expecct to see coming, and when they do,,,its often funny.

My best friend is all of 5-6" and when someone in a bar or party needed some straightening out, me and all my six foot plus buddiess would stand aside and let Op , all 155 pounds of him, break the guys ribs.

"

[ConHog]

WELL, as a wise man once said, "you might put me in the hospital, but I assure you, they will take you there first."

You sure like to be full of bravado and then say lets not talk about it alot.

Where did I say I would want to kick your, or anybody elses ass?

I dont start fights, never have, never will. If someone doesnt get physical with me first, I will never get physical with them, but I can assure you one thing, I have taken guys tougher and bigger than you down,,,,there are lots of "tools of the trade" that most dont know of, and few expecct to see coming, and when they do,,,its often funny.

My best friend is all of 5-6" and when someone in a bar or party needed some straightening out, me and all my six foot plus buddiess would stand aside and let Op , all 155 pounds of him, break the guys ribs.

"

LOL Dude, it's not like we're ever going to meet anyway. And I assure you I have no desire to fight you. I was just making a point. I'm a 22 year Ranger qualified veteran of the military police. Not many folks mess with me.

[LuvRPgrl]

The sentence required no commas. [/QUOTE YES IT DOES.


However I will interpret for you.

You might now think you'd like to attempt to kick my ass, but I guarantee if you saw me you would quickly change your mind.
How do you get to "I want to kick your ass"? You were the one declaring to throw the first punch. Im just telling you that if I was doing what that woman did, and you TRIED to punch me, then the gloves would be off. I dont start fights, never. But I also dont bring a knife to a knife fight, I dont believe in fair fights, and as a wise man once said, You might put me in the hospital, but they will be taking you there too.
.....And
I never change my mind about what to do based on fear, Im always scared every single time Im in a fight, every time.




Now let's get back to the other thread slap that Delanne idiot around a little more shall we?:laugh2:

run away little boy,

[Kathianne]

YES IT DOES.


How do you get to "I want to kick your ass"? You were the one declaring to throw the first punch. Im just telling you that if I was doing what that woman did, and you TRIED to punch me, then the gloves would be off. I dont start fights, never. But I also dont bring a knife to a knife fight, I dont believe in fair fights, and as a wise man once said, You might put me in the hospital, but they will be taking you there too.
.....And
I never change my mind about what to do based on fear, Im always scared every single time Im in a fight, every time.





run away little boy,

Another application for thread banning? Back to the topic, please.

[ConHog]

YES IT DOES.


How do you get to "I want to kick your ass"? You were the one declaring to throw the first punch. Im just telling you that if I was doing what that woman did, and you TRIED to punch me, then the gloves would be off. I dont start fights, never. But I also dont bring a knife to a knife fight, I dont believe in fair fights, and as a wise man once said, You might put me in the hospital, but they will be taking you there too.
.....And
I never change my mind about what to do based on fear, Im always scared every single time Im in a fight, every time.





run away little boy,

What a silly response. I try to make light of a situation and get this ended and back to another thread, and you make a silly comment about little boy running away? LOL

Anyway, what's this thread about again so we can get back on topic?

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL Dude, it's not like we're ever going to meet anyway. And I assure you I have no desire to fight you. I was just making a point. I'm a 22 year Ranger qualified veteran of the military police. Not many folks mess with me.

that wasnt your original point. You said if you saw someone doing what she did, you would punch them. Im simply letting you know I would step in and you wouldnt be happy about that.

Its been my experience that people who brag about how bad they are, usually arent.

and I aint bragging how bad I am when I tell you, if you punched me, I aint gonna back down.

The baddest ass I ever knew was 5-6 and 155 pounds, but he would break your ribs before you knerw he was throwing a punch.
So, like a punch in the airport, or bravado on line, if you throw shit around, dont be so surprised that some of us wont stand for it. Ive made citizens arrests when everybody else was just watching,
/
One guy was totally flying on crank and that is always a scary proposistion, the other guy was way bigger than me and yes, I am six ft tall plus, and that was scarier than shit, especially when he started to try to gouge my eyes, but I took him down anyways. When things get to a certain point, you no longer have a choice.

[Kathianne]

No more 'fight talk.' Over, done with. Each of you are manly men, kick ass. Whoopie! Next post is on topic.

[ConHog]

No more 'fight talk.' Over, done with. Each of you are manly men, kick ass. Whoopie! Next post is on topic.



BUT BUT I have a really good story about how manly I am. I want to tell it. It's a good one, it involves me getting my clock cleaned by a 5 foot nothing tall woman :laugh: Let me tell it.

[Kathianne]

BUT BUT I have a really good story about how manly I am. I want to tell it. It's a good one, it involves me getting my clock cleaned by a 5 foot nothing tall woman :laugh: Let me tell it.LOL! To the lounge, tyvm.