It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's TSA pat-downs joke infuriates ACLU

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


I think in order to delete any part of the U.S. Constitution requires a super majority of The House of Representatives and the Senate as well as ratification by the States; that or another few methods which have never been used but require the participation of the States. I am curious how you managed to side step that process in order to delete a part of the Constitution?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
hell always be our lil token



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Our leader, (gawd help us)
Has the savvy of a farting drunk in a perfume factory,
To even come close to a controversial issue when speaking to the populace youre elected to represent,
shows callous,
To then even in the slightest way 'joke' about it, (and he did joke about it) adds insult to injury.

Lets joke of ovens to a jewish audience, or how a womans place is in the kitchen and quiet,
Hilarious right?

People like that think theyre intelligent and great and funy and everybody loves them and wants to be them when theyre on stage and performing, (and he was performing).

Because IF he really wanted to be a man of historic value, really powerful, changing the world, bringing freedom and prosperity to his people and the world as a whole, he wouldnt be making jokes about the removal of liberty, and he wouldnt be promising tech advances that would move us to the next piece of sidewalk in 20 years,

He'd be taking advantage of his position and his live television appearance and spilling the beans on most of the fraud and banking scams, and wars, and waste, and deaths caused by the banksters and global corporate evil bastards who were watching from their mansions or in some cases right in the audience.

Change could come quickly, just as quick as someone in a position like that can grow a set of balls.

He is an embarassment.
hear hear fair brother! it is not the ones who watch that become heroes but the ones being watched and taking a stand are the heroes! I want a noble roman gladiator for a president! he'd kick ass and take names all for the glory of his people! the only thing wrong with that scenario is that Dick cheney might shoot him in the face while ted kennedy runs my gladiator over with a car LMAO



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints



I'm also guaranteed the freedom to move about my country without infringement of my rights.


You ARE free to do so. Move. Walk, run, drive, turn cartwheels to get where you want. But you do not have the right to FLY.


edit on 1/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


And just who made that particular discernment in the rights versus travel rules?????

The Right To Travel. We have a right to travel freely within the borders of the US. Telling me that I must relinquish my rights so that I may have access is unacceptable. Do we tell the handicapped the same thing? While on a plane, you get no ADA protection? LOL, think about what you are saying.

To tell me that I must relinquish my rights to gain access to the standard and accepted mode of travel for the profession I am in is beyond the pale. In order to remain employed, I must give up my 4th Amendment right? What part of "inalienable" is so difficult?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


I think in order to delete any part of the U.S. Constitution requires a super majority of The House of Representatives and the Senate as well as ratification by the States; that or another few methods which have never been used but require the participation of the States. I am curious how you managed to side step that process in order to delete a part of the Constitution?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)

Because it was confusing some on the definition of the 4th. There is no warrant being served in this case, it's moot to include it. Not that I want it omitted.

edit on 26-1-2011 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It always amazes me that people use the fact that Obama uses a piece of technology against him. It's something EVERY president has used since it's been around and yet, Obama is the one people slam for it. It sounds like a second grade argument to me... It makes no sense whatsoever... Oh, well.


It's not the fact that he uses a teleprompter, it's the fact that he can't function without one.

As to the joke, I think it was in poor taste. How would the president know what it's like? He's not an everyman and is subjugated to a soul sucking cavity search should he refuse to partake in the scanning.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
They will have TSA gropping bus and train passengers very soon now.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
"Mr. Teleprompter 'funny man's' quip"

Just wondering why you single Obama out for this insult. Since TV became mainstream in the early fifties every president has used teleprompters. What is the big deal?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm not offended by a president making a joke about enforcement of public groping to create the illusion of protection either.

I mean, it's not like this is the first transgression against the constitution he's laughed at. Why would I be outraged by a bear #ting in the woods?

Tomorrow, I plan to shake my fist at the sky for being blue.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Guess it was too soon. Reminds me of Bush looking for WMDs in the office. Open mouth, insert foot.


While joking about TSA searches might be considered ill taste, it's hardly comparable to Bush's "search for WMD's"

People have been embarrassed, and, in a few cases inappropriately fondled by TSA workers.
Several million people died, and millions more left refugees, as a direct cause of the Iraq war.

Comparing the two of them is like comparing a guy who wears argyle socks to Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Why would I be outraged by a bear #ting in the woods?


Ever stepped in bear crap during salmon season?

I was not only outraged, but also appalled and violated!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Oh my the ACLU is offended....heaven forbid.


Don't they have any child rapists that need defending or any illegal aliens that need kissing?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I have a spike in my right tibia, and 6 bolts holding my pelvis together. I cant go to the airport without being pulled in to a tiny room with glass walls. I understand that a lot of you feel that flying is your choice and if you don't like it, don't fly, but look at it from another point of view. I know with 100% certainty that if i go to the airport, i will HAVE to chose between radiation and a naked picture, or getting violated by a stranger. Therefore i choose not to fly.

The problem isn't that i don't fly, the problem is that i have to make that choice. The problem is that this is allowed to happen. What would happen to me if i made it mandatory for these things to happen if someone wanted to enter my house? Sure no one would want to come over, but what if someone choses to? I would most likely be thrown in jail for inappropriately touching the person.

When i was watching the TSOTU that comment pissed me off to no end. Its not a matter of timing, its not a matter of being thin skinned, its a matter of making a joke about MOLESTATION! Never is it ok to turn touching someone in an inappropriate place in to a joke. Yes this hit close to home for me, but it is still inappropriate, uncalled for, and just plain wrong.

And thats all i have to say about that.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Well maybe there's some money to be made for his friends in the railroad industry...it's not the worst joke he's ever made. It's not as bad as the Jonas Brothers and Predator Drones joke he was so proud of himself for , for delivering it so well.
edit on 27-1-2011 by dragonsmusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Obama reminds me of the charming high school QB who does all the talking and charm, public speaking yet is beating up some nerdy kid to get his homework done because he is too stupid to do the work himself instead he jokes so that everyone likes him.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


My only "comparison" here was that both were poor attempts at humor by presidents that caused a stir, as the rest of the excerpted post supports this. Nice nit-pick, though.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash



"Mr. Teleprompter 'funny man's' quip"

Just wondering why you single Obama out for this insult. Since TV became mainstream in the early fifties every president has used teleprompters. What is the big deal?



Perhaps because Obama is the one who delivered the speech?

Did you want people to continue to blame Bush, even when it was Obama giving the speech? LOL



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 



Originally posted by mtnshredder
You're reading the ammendment wrong it say's ","AND" no Warrants issue" Take this out because it's N/A for the most part, at least at the airport. And you will see it reads......
"against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, but upon probable cause."
What doesn't make sense?


What doesn't make sense is removing part of the sentence to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Having said that, you're the first person who has come up with a possible argument of how I might be wrong in my interpretation. I appreciate your adult attitude in putting your case to me. Thank you.
It sure beats all the personal crap that's flying around.

From what I've read, it seems that our argument is an old one.
There have been several cases that have gone back and forth in the Supreme Court arguing for "reasonable searches" vs "warranted searches", separating the two clauses....



There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause.
...
The most important category of exception is that of administrative searches justified by ''special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement.'' Under this general rubric the Court has upheld warrantless searches by administrative authorities in public schools, government offices, and prisons, and has upheld drug testing of public and transportation employees. 24 In all of these instances the warrant and probable cause requirements are dispensed with in favor of a reasonableness standard that balances the government's regulatory interest against the individual's privacy interest;


FindLaw

This is where it gets hairy. If a person knowingly exposes his person, the fourth amendment doesn't come into play.



The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may ''justifiably'' rely. 36 ''What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'' 37 That is, the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.''


It is my position that when a person enters a modern airport security area in the US, they are exposing their person to a place where there is NOT a reasonable expectation of freedom from government search. The government has an interest in keeping the skies safe from whackos, for the good of the populous. Therefore, when a person knowingly enters an airport, the protections of the fourth amendment are set aside, just as if he were trying to get a job and was forced to take a drug test.

Now, I'm not saying that I AGREE with this interpretation, but that's how I think the Supreme Court would rule on this case. The SC would rule that the TSA policy is NOT unconstitutional. I'm speaking strictly of the law and how it would play out. I don't like it or agree with it, but I think that's how it would come down.

.
edit on 1/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It would seem to me that you are stating that the "Enhanced Pat Down" procedure is ok because we have no expectation of privacy at the airport. Is this correct?

If so, then how do we reconcile that the expectation of privacy is subjective and interpretive, based on the newfound whims of the TSA. Before they started the pat downs, i certainly did have an expectation of privacy. Are you saying that they can just change the game, without the consent of The People, and therefore change what our expectation of privacy is?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Right To Travel. We have a right to travel freely within the borders of the US.


Can you take a space shuttle? A tank? Can you travel at 200 mph? Legally? Can you travel to Area 51? Go in and have a cuppa with the boys there? Can you fly YOUR plane without restriction? Over the White House? Through the St. Louis Arch? Under the Golden Gate Bridge? Can you drive without a license? Drive drunk? Can you ignore a cop whose lights and siren come on behind you?

No. There are restrictions to our travel. The right to travel is the right to use the roads and highways of the country, NOT the skies.

Your inalienable right is intact. You DO have the right to travel, by plane if you so wish. But you must undergo a reasonable search to do so.

This is my position. I may be wrong, but this is how I think the Supreme Court would rule.

BFFT - Let me catch up before you ask more questions.

edit on 1/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join