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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think you may be right - for the 2006 Supreme Court, pre-9/11. But today?




Didn't 9/11 happen in 2001?




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


My post has already been edited. Reason: "I'm an idiot." I made a mistake, Loam and I corrected it. I understand that you do not make mistakes, but Nazis do sometimes. Get off my ass, will you?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My post has already been edited. Reason: "I'm an idiot." I made a mistake, Loam and I corrected it. I understand that you do not make mistakes, but Nazis do sometimes. Get off my ass, will you?


Everyone makes mistakes, including me.


I'm not on your ass, but merely responding to your posts.

And, I never called you a Nazi. (Link.)





edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
The problem is that the American Government and the TSA went about introducing all this Scanner & pat-down stuff all wrong...!!

Marketing!!! It's all in the marketing!!!

They should have advertised the scaners as "FREE X-Rays" and the pat-downs as "FREE ALL BODY MASSAGES"..!!

People would have been quing for them and more people would have been flying for all the freebies!!

Sry, I just couldn't resist that...



I like that.

And silly as it sounds - - it might even work. Hey! I'd go in just to have the free medical body scan.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Well, it would seem that the constitutionality boils down to if it is reasonable to expect one to consent to such a private search. I claim it is not. I don't fly until something changes.


I agree with you. And I just stumbled onto an issue that I think is being missed here.

There's LEGALLY unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court decides) and there's MORALLY unconstitutional, which is what I think we're talking about here. I see drug tests, TSA airport policies and AZ's SB1070 law ALL as MORALLY unconstitutional, but only the Supreme Court can rule if they are LEGALLY unconstitutional or not. There are a lot of issues that we discuss here that we call unconstitutional, and I think it's important to differentiate between the two, which I will be mindful to do in the future.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
Not one person had a real answer.


You mean an answer you liked.



No - I did not mean that at all. I meant an educated/knowledgeable politically based real answer that makes sense.

Not the usual flippant sound bites.

edit on 27-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


3 hours - 4 hours - - - it depends on what site you read. Getting a bit nit-picky?

Other then that I made no comment one way or the other - - - except that in a discussion a few years ago I learned that Israel is used as a model because of their success rate.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
No - I did not mean that at all. I meant an educated/knowledgeable politically based real answer that makes sense.

Not the usual flippant sound bites.


We'll have to find an appropriate thread, then, where we can both play and I could attempt to meet your standard.





Originally posted by Annee
3 hours - 4 hours - - - it depends on what site you read. Getting a bit nit-picky?


No, not at all.

The point really was to demonstrate that the length of time was the same, despite radically different screening methodologies.
edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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


The search for WMDs left 100,000+ Iraqis dead.
The pat downs in airports left no one dead and angered a few uptight individuals.

I don't see how you could compare such comments from the two men. You should be ashamed.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


You are ignorant when it comes to this.. I mean that in the true sense of the word, not an insult.

If CNN railways wanted to implement full body scanners, they could. They are a private company, that makes its own policy. Are you really not understanding that, or simply dont like it, and are having problems accepting it?

Greyhound says you can not have alcohol on their buses... They can do that, they are a private company. If greyhound wanted to implement full body searches, you would then be faced with a new decision, get searched and ride... or don't

I think you are fooling yourself and making yourself look silly. There is a difference between thinking they can't and understanding they can, and disagreeing with it.. You need to figure that out for yourself.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Well, it would seem that the constitutionality boils down to if it is reasonable to expect one to consent to such a private search. I claim it is not. I don't fly until something changes.


I agree with you. And I just stumbled onto an issue that I think is being missed here.

There's LEGALLY unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court decides) and there's MORALLY unconstitutional, which is what I think we're talking about here. I see drug tests, TSA airport policies and AZ's SB1070 law ALL as MORALLY unconstitutional, but only the Supreme Court can rule if they are LEGALLY unconstitutional or not. There are a lot of issues that we discuss here that we call unconstitutional, and I think it's important to differentiate between the two, which I will be mindful to do in the future.


That is a VERY astute point. Duly noted.


Something to keep in mind: SCOTUS is "government"...they will always vote themselves more power. Our founders were pretty clear that the law must be easily interpreted by the common man.

I really do doubt that American's know what it means to be free anymore.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Your post indicates you must have a reading comprehension problem... And, I mean that in the true sense of the phrase, not an insult.



Originally posted by Resurrectio
If CNN railways wanted to implement full body scanners, they could. They are a private company, that makes its own policy. Are you really not understanding that, or simply dont like it, and are having problems accepting it?

Greyhound says you can not have alcohol on their buses... They can do that, they are a private company. If greyhound wanted to implement full body searches, you would then be faced with a new decision, get searched and ride... or don't

I think you are fooling yourself and making yourself look silly. There is a difference between thinking they can't and understanding they can, and disagreeing with it.. You need to figure that out for yourself.



Your response is complete gibberish.

I doubt anyone who reads my posts thinks I'm confused by the difference between private and government action. That is, unless of course, they suffer from the same reading comprehension issues as you.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
I wonder how funny he'd think it is if it was his family going through the pat downs? I bet he wouldn't be laughing then.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


Whats with you and this suggesting everyone but yourself as ignorant? None of your " conclusions " on this thread has merit, you have done nothing but preach your bitterness, in hopes to change others thought process, not to mention, make your self look like a complete ass in the process?

Sorry, but it is you, whom is ignorant, with all of your speeches, and opinions , which btw have had no evidence to substantiate any of your claims. Reading comprehension, nor Factual understanding is not your strongest suit..run along child..run along~



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


This has already been covered. And there was more too my post that shows what I actually meant. But again...nice try


Edited to add: post by ~Lucidity

And no...shame on you three times...one for believing I wasn't aware of what I was comparing, two for not taking the time to read the entire thread (or if you had for not taking the time to understand), and three for taking my quote entirely out of context. But par for the course for some here.
edit on 1/27/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 




Really? Why this distinction? On what basis is that made? What's the legal theory? As I said previously, why not trains...buses...box-stores...malls...interstates...high-rise buildings?


And I am the one with comprehension problems? Do I need to point out the lack of attempts /attacks on the above mentioned methods of transportation and buildings? I would think they theory behind the increase would at MINIMUM would understood, maybe not agreed upon, but understood.. I stand corrected.

Again... How dare you question my comprehension...


The truth is there is nothing reasonable about the 'unwashed masses' having the choice between potential damaging radiation exposure by insufficiently calibrated Backscatter X-ray machines or having their genitals fondled by a government official.


Too slow to even pick upon the most obvious option.. DON'T FLY! They are a private company, you are electing to use their service. They have the option of denying you service, if you will not follow their rules.

Again - Do you really not understand this? I could understand if your stance was complete disapproval of this rule. You are making it sound like it breaks the 4th amendment...You can argue that it is wrong (I think it is wrong also) But my opinion does not change the facts, nor can I force my opinions to change the facts.

I suggest you boycott all searches... So, next time you get a ticket and are walking into the court, make sure to take a stand. Let all of us know how that works out for you!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


What you are failing to realize, yet again, is yes they are private organizations, but, they are operating on DHS property. Which further suggests the USG along with the TSA to implement rules that do in FACT infringe on the public. Its not about whether its a right to fly or not, or the choice to do so...its about control over the people, on federal property. Knowing full well, that the Fed's have unconstitutionally implemented rules/regulations under the premise of " National Security".



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


*sigh*




Originally posted by Resurrectio
How dare you question my comprehension...


Because it is obviously faulty.


I have no clue why you seem to be lost in private/public or private/commercial distinctions in the context of this thread. I'm certainly not confused about it.

As I have already posted:




Airports Who Opt out of TSA Screening are Still Regulated by TSA

There has been a lot of confusion after a recent report that the Orlando Sanford Airport (SFB) has requested to opt out of TSA screening.

Any commercial airport can apply to TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which has been around since the inception of TSA. After approval from TSA and a competitive bidding process, SPP allows airports to transition to private screeners while maintaining TSA oversight and the corresponding increased level of security implemented since 9/11.

So… if an airport applies and is accepted into the SPP program, they receive the same screening from a private company instead of TSA officers. That’s the only difference. All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by TSA or private companies. So TSA’s policies – including advanced imaging technology and pat downs – are in place at all domestic airports.



Are there too many words for you in that passage?



Originally posted by Resurrectio
Too slow to even pick upon the most obvious option.. DON'T FLY! Again - Do you really not understand this? I could understand if your stance was complete disapproval of this rule. You are making it sound like it breaks the 4th amendment...You can argue that it is wrong (I think it is wrong also) But my opinion does not change the facts, nor can I force my opinions to change the facts.

I suggest you boycott all searches... So, next time you get a ticket and are walking into the court, make sure to take a stand. Let all of us know how that works out for you!



More gibberish. And you call me slow????



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


This has already been covered. And there was more too my post that shows what I actually meant. But again...nice try


Edited to add: post by ~Lucidity

And no...shame on you three times...one for believing I wasn't aware of what I was comparing, two for not taking the time to read the entire thread (or if you had for not taking the time to understand), and three for taking my quote entirely out of context. But par for the course for some here.
edit on 1/27/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


I read your post and it was no better than you comparing the death of 100,000 people to a Pat Down for security. Unreal, man....unreal. What happened to this site?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


If you did read it you got stuck on something relatively trivial. Just saying.

Let me summarize for you in words you may be able to understand. "Humor is hard and politicians should probably avoid it."

Hope that helps.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join