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.

 

TSA staff jet blew it : Boxcutters taken on JFK Airliner

page: 3
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
You know the worst part about this story, DD? It is we the people who will suffer for their failure.
They will sure enough double or triple their intimidation, groping and molestation tactics after this.

Passengers beware. It's about to get a whole lot worse.

whether or not the story is true is irrelevant.
It was a tool used to take more freedoms away.
Had enough of the BS yet America ???
I refuse to fly anymore. My own personal
boycott of TPTB.

If everybody felt the way I did,
there would be no airlines.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

Agreed. And I won't fly either. I refuse to go near an airport. However, some people don't have a choice. But as I've said before. Those who do have a choice, should choose not to fly. IMHO.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
If TSA has been taking our rights away, can someone provide me a list? I mean, you guys keep going on and on about how they keep taking rights away, yet I don't see any rights being taken away.

I want an actual list. I want the real names of each and every right, and a full description of what that right allows me to do, and a full description of exactly how it was taken away.

I GUARANTEE NOT A SINGLE PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO. IF NOT, THEN I AM CORRECT IN CALLING YOU SHEEP.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
If TSA has been taking our rights away, can someone provide me a list? I mean, you guys keep going on and on about how they keep taking rights away, yet I don't see any rights being taken away.


I am supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. They are assaulting me with unreasonable search and if I have a bottle of water - they seize it (very unreasonable). Why is it unreasonable? Because the chance of having a "terrorist" issue is about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000. Sorry if you feel you are "safe" being stripped of you protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I absolutely do NOT.


I want an actual list. I want the real names of each and every right, and a full description of what that right allows me to do, and a full description of exactly how it was taken away.


"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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Or is the Bill of Rights not good enough for you?


I GUARANTEE NOT A SINGLE PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO. IF NOT, THEN I AM CORRECT IN CALLING YOU SHEEP.


Um... Bad guarantee. You are not at all correct. In fact... I suspect you might be the sheep here.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Unreasonable searches? What makes it unreasonable to search someone for boarding a plane? Seriously, can you honestly say you think it's unreasonable to be searched before you board a plane?

Is it your property that you are flying on? No.
Are there dozens of other people around you? Yes.

So because you do not own the plane in any possible bit, and because it's a public place, getting searched is not unreasonable.

You have the right to refuse service to someone if you own a business. You also have the right NOT TO BUY A TICKET KNOWING YOU ARE GOING TO GET SEARCHED. You are clearly, knowingly, buying a ticket that will require a search to be able to fully use it.

Again, is the plane your property? Is the airport? Do you own a single centimeter of the it?

Back to the quote you provided: I've already covered that in my earlier post. You notice how I say there's more than one single perspective on what someone might view being secure in their person might be? I bet you didn't. There's other people who want to feel secure traveling. If no one cared, there would be no driving laws. Yet, however, because people do actually like to live not in fear, we implement laws and enforce them for the general benefit of the society. Not for some temporary safety.

Do you honestly expect every single person on board with you to think just like you? If so, you are way ignorant. Those people might be freaking out of their minds. Not everyone feels safe being around a bunch of people. Do you always feel secure on every bus you take? Regular people get out of hand with each other on buses, it actually does happen. People fight and kill each other on buses, and it can happen on planes. Some people might even have a heart attack knowing that someone brought an item such as box-cutters on board. Think of the havoc that would cause.

With a planet that has billions of people on it, there are going to be more and more confrontations happening each and every day. Or we could just drive drunk and not care.

If you were, say, to be searched in your own without a warrant, that would unreasonable. That's in your privacy, not out in public. Even in public, we still have our privacy, though we lose that privacy as the public body is squeezed together. It's inevitable. You can't ride a bus and say someone can't sit here because you are uncomfortable with them sitting there. It's not your bus, or your seat. You're just using a service that someone else is providing.

Edit: If you were searched before boarding your own private jet, that would be unreasonable. Is the jumbo plane your private jet? Please answer.
edit on 4-3-2011 by Gnarly because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


Boy, talk about the epitome of irony.

You're actually DEFENDING the TSA's right to fondle and take nude pictures of american citizens, and calling US sheep?!?

LMAO!!!

I suppose next you'll be trying to convince us all how fantastic it will be for them to expand their operations onto trains , cars and public venues too, eh? Such as they have concluded they want to?

epic.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
Unreasonable searches? What makes it unreasonable to search someone for boarding a plane? Seriously, can you honestly say you think it's unreasonable to be searched before you board a plane?


Yes.


Is it your property that you are flying on? No.
Are there dozens of other people around you? Yes.


Not sure what the point of these statements is.


So because you do not own the plane in any possible bit, and because it's a public place, getting searched is not unreasonable.


Um... It is NOT a "public" plane. It is a plane owned by a corporation. If the CORPORATION was paying the millions (or likely, billions) to do searches, fine, but then I would not use that airline. Right now, *I* am paying to have my body assaulted against the Bill of Rights.


You have the right to refuse service to someone if you own a business. You also have the right NOT TO BUY A TICKET KNOWING YOU ARE GOING TO GET SEARCHED. You are clearly, knowingly, buying a ticket that will require a search to be able to fully use it.


True. But it's the GOVERNMENT doing the searching for the CORPORATION. And, actually, I, personally DON'T buy a ticket. I refuse to be assaulted by my GOVERNMENT.


Again, is the plane your property? Is the airport? Do you own a single centimeter of the it?


Not the plane. Nor does the GOVERNMENT own it. The airport? I suspect I own a stake in it as a tax-payer... But that still does not give the GOVERNMENT the right to strip me of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights trumps the GOVERNMENT.


Back to the quote you provided: I've already covered that in my earlier post. You notice how I say there's more than one single perspective on what someone might view being secure in their person might be? I bet you didn't. There's other people who want to feel secure traveling. If no one cared, there would be no driving laws. Yet, however, because people do actually like to live not in fear, we implement laws and enforce them for the general benefit of the society. Not for some temporary safety.


Lessee... Secure from unreasonable searches and seizures... It is NOT just "secure." It is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. What could that mean...? Oh. It means that the GOVERNMENT cannot search me or seize my property unreasonably. And we get RID of 'laws" that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL - or we should if we are to support the foundations of the US of A.


Do you honestly expect every single person on board with you to think just like you? If so, you are way ignorant. Those people might be freaking out of their minds. Not everyone feels safe being around a bunch of people. Do you always feel secure on every bus you take? Regular people get out of hand with each other on buses, it actually does happen. People fight and kill each other on buses, and it can happen on planes. Some people might even have a heart attack knowing that someone brought an item such as box-cutters on board. Think of the havoc that would cause.


Of course I don't expect others to think as I do. But that is irrelevant to the fact that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the GOVERNMENT to search me and seize my property unreasonably. I have a RIGHT, and it is stripped from me.


With a planet that has billions of people on it, there are going to be more and more confrontations happening each and every day. Or we could just drive drunk and not care.


What data can you provide that all of a sudden society will have an upswing of more and more confrontations happening each and every day? And why does that make it right to eviscerate the Bill of Rights? Again, Benny Franklin would see you as undeserving of either liberty or safety.


If you were, say, to be searched in your own without a warrant, that would unreasonable. That's in your privacy, not out in public. Even in public, we still have our privacy, though we lose that privacy as the public body is squeezed together. It's inevitable. You can't ride a bus and say someone can't sit here because you are uncomfortable with them sitting there. It's not your bus, or your seat. You're just using a service that someone else is providing.


Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that I am protected against unreasonable searches and seizures ONLY at home. It says I have that right PERIOD. The GOVERNMENT cannot do that and uphold our Constitution. You want to shred the Constitution so that you feel safe??? Benny is rolling in his grave.


Edit: If you were searched before boarding your own private jet, that would be unreasonable. Is the jumbo plane your private jet? Please answer.


If the GOVERNMENT searches me - and *I* pay for that search, with the odds of a problem being lower than winning the lottery... THAT IS UNREASONABLE.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Its been said already on this thread:-

Whenever these things happen its normally just before more legislation is rushed through to make the actions of the TSA (or similar agency) acceptable, or to actually give them more powers ot fight this new "Increased" risk.

A complete joke and not just something that happens in the states. I remember last year British airways and several large airline operators in the USA were calling on customs restrictions to be lifted due to there being no threat anymore, 2 days later BING - 2 photocopier bombs were found on the way form Yemen, what a joke.

There were no photocopier bombs, there were no bombs at all, but hey ho it took the airlines requests to ease customs off the table.

Amazing that those extra vigilant customs guards just happened to check the 2 things on two different planes that were bombs - shock horror. Wonder how many photocopiers have been shipped worldwide that werent bombs, but they just happened to find the two that were.

The whole things a complete joke now, the people believe whatever theyre told by the MSM, and we accept losing our freedoms for increased security. Only our security was never under threat.

Funny how this like the above case with the airlines has happened the same week that Texas is trying to pass legislation to stop the TSA operating.

REMEMBER - You NEED the TSA, you NEED them on that Wall, You WANT them on that wall. If for nothing else but to protect you from boxcutter wielding maniacs.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Gnarly
 


Boy, talk about the epitome of irony.

You're actually DEFENDING the TSA's right to fondle and take nude pictures of american citizens, and calling US sheep?!?

LMAO!!!

I suppose next you'll be trying to convince us all how fantastic it will be for them to expand their operations onto trains , cars and public venues too, eh? Such as they have concluded they want to?

epic.org...


DD, if I could give you a hundred stars, I would.

This one is very unclear on the concept of what our founding documents (documents (s)he would likely claim to be willing to die for) mean. A sheep, indeed.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by gemineye
 


Oops, forgot about the pilot's bathroom needs. They should definitely have their own private depository rooms away from the passengers regardless of if they remodel the doors. Opening the door to the cockpit during a flight is just like setting a pie on an open window sill, it's just asking a "terrorists" to try and take it. Though, when I was little I remember getting to go into the cockpit during the flight to meet the pilots. It was awesome, they let me look out the front window and gave me that little clip on pair of gold wings, which I proudly wore the rest of the day.

The food isn't that big of deal to me at least. Airline food isn't that great, especially now. Only on long flights would they pilots need a full meal. Put a mini fridge and pantry of snacks in the cockpit for the pilots.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I always Wondered how someone could do Severe Life Threating Bodily Harm to another Person with a Boxcutter . I mean , it could Only be used as a Slashing Weapon and Not a Stabbing Weapon . How long would it take to Slash someone to death ? Multiple Slashes would be needed in order to cause Excessive Bleeding , maybe in the order of 40 or 50 well placed Slashes eh ? Makes you also Question how anyone could commandeer a Jet Liner with Only that as a Weapon of Threat .......

edit on 4-3-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Do you not understand what public means?

Here you go.

Notice how it says group of people.




Um... It is NOT a "public" plane. It is a plane owned by a corporation. If the CORPORATION was paying the millions (or likely, billions) to do searches, fine, but then I would not use that airline. Right now, *I* am paying to have my body assaulted against the Bill of Rights.


There are dozens of other people sitting in the seats right next to you on that plane. It's a public place by definition. When you stress the word "I", I do not understand. Yet, you are PAYING to be searched, not assaulted.

In case you don't know what the word means.

See how the word says attacked? Physically attacked? If the TSA agents were assaulting people, there would be lawsuits. People would actually do something about it. Since these agents don't actually assault people, we don't hear of such news, now do we?




True. But it's the GOVERNMENT doing the searching for the CORPORATION. And, actually, I, personally DON'T buy a ticket. I refuse to be assaulted by my GOVERNMENT.


So, who buys the ticket for you? You could always choose another way to travel. You have that right. You are not forced to board a plane. You still have that right.




Not the plane. Nor does the GOVERNMENT own it. The airport? I suspect I own a stake in it as a tax-payer... But that still does not give the GOVERNMENT the right to strip me of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights trumps the GOVERNMENT.


So you DON'T own the plane. The government doesn't own the plane, but they sure as hell own the space they fly in. So they kind of get to make sure their airspace is how they see fit. Do you have any stocks in the air company you are using? Well, you are a customer and get to use a seat for a few hours, I'll give you that much. They don't have the right to strip you of your rights. You choose to get searched on your own free will.

Do you know what that word means?

You get to choose to board the plane. It's your choice, your right whether you want to or not.




Lessee... Secure from unreasonable searches and seizures... It is NOT just "secure." It is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. What could that mean...? Oh. It means that the GOVERNMENT cannot search me or seize my property unreasonably. And we get RID of 'laws" that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL - or we should if we are to support the foundations of the US of A.


Is it unreasonable to think that people could hijack a plane and drive it into a building to kill people? No. It may be unlikely, but it's not unreasonable. History has shown that people kill other people, for whatever reason that may be.




What data can you provide that all of a sudden society will have an upswing of more and more confrontations happening each and every day? And why does that make it right to eviscerate the Bill of Rights? Again, Benny Franklin would see you as undeserving of either liberty or safety.


Do you understand probability? As the population increases, there is lass space between each person. More and more people, less and less space. With less space, the activity that happens is happening in a smaller and smaller space. Thus increasing the probability that one motion is going to interact with another motion, whatever the result is. As more and more nations develop, more and more enemies are made. If we were the only nation, we wouldn't have threats from other nations. There is about a hundred-ninety-five countries in the world. Conflict is GOING to happen as it is HUMAN NATURE.




Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that I am protected against unreasonable searches and seizures ONLY at home. It says I have that right PERIOD. The GOVERNMENT cannot do that and uphold our Constitution. You want to shred the Constitution so that you feel safe??? Benny is rolling in his grave.


Do you understand what privacy means? You have the right to privacy in your home, yes. You don't have the full right to privacy outside. You don't lose the entire right, just some of it. You pay taxes, don't you? You give up privacy by doing that. Apply for a job? You give up privacy for that. Ride a plane? Uh oh, you can't have full privacy! Don't you also give up privacy rights when you go see the doctor? Or why should I have to give up my right to be secure in my person to be secure in my person!??!?




If the GOVERNMENT searches me - and *I* pay for that search, with the odds of a problem being lower than winning the lottery... THAT IS UNREASONABLE.


The word you are looking for is unlikely.

Unreasonable.

Unlikely.

Notice how one deals with reasoning, and the other deals with probability?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Do you not understand what public means?

Here you go.

Notice how it says group of people.


What's that got to do with its being UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably?





Um... It is NOT a "public" plane. It is a plane owned by a corporation. If the CORPORATION was paying the millions (or likely, billions) to do searches, fine, but then I would not use that airline. Right now, *I* am paying to have my body assaulted against the Bill of Rights.


There are dozens of other people sitting in the seats right next to you on that plane. It's a public place by definition. When you stress the word "I", I do not understand. Yet, you are PAYING to be searched, not assaulted.


When damaging particles are shot at me, that is assault. When a stranger puts his/her hands on me uninvited, that's assault. But this is irrelevant to the fact that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably.


In case you don't know what the word means.

See how the word says attacked? Physically attacked? If the TSA agents were assaulting people, there would be lawsuits. People would actually do something about it. Since these agents don't actually assault people, we don't hear of such news, now do we?


Yes, I am attacked (if I try to travel freely by plane) by the TSA. I do not invite damaging particles nor strangers' hands. And, FYI, there are indeed lawsuits. The news doesn't report them, I wonder why....

articles.cnn.com...:TRAVEL

www.kristv.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

blogs.westword.com...

I could go on.





True. But it's the GOVERNMENT doing the searching for the CORPORATION. And, actually, I, personally DON'T buy a ticket. I refuse to be assaulted by my GOVERNMENT.


So, who buys the ticket for you? You could always choose another way to travel. You have that right. You are not forced to board a plane. You still have that right.


I do not fly. Note the word "personally." Other times when I use "I" I am speaking for all citizens.





Not the plane. Nor does the GOVERNMENT own it. The airport? I suspect I own a stake in it as a tax-payer... But that still does not give the GOVERNMENT the right to strip me of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights trumps the GOVERNMENT.


So you DON'T own the plane. The government doesn't own the plane, but they sure as hell own the space they fly in. So they kind of get to make sure their airspace is how they see fit. Do you have any stocks in the air company you are using? Well, you are a customer and get to use a seat for a few hours, I'll give you that much. They don't have the right to strip you of your rights. You choose to get searched on your own free will.


Um... No they don't. The GOVERNMENT regulates the airspace WE own. Regardless, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably.




Lessee... Secure from unreasonable searches and seizures... It is NOT just "secure." It is secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. What could that mean...? Oh. It means that the GOVERNMENT cannot search me or seize my property unreasonably. And we get RID of 'laws" that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL - or we should if we are to support the foundations of the US of A.


Is it unreasonable to think that people could hijack a plane and drive it into a building to kill people? No. It may be unlikely, but it's not unreasonable. History has shown that people kill other people, for whatever reason that may be.


Given the odds (and given that 9/11 was an inside job), I will NOT destroy my liberty for some perceived safety. I will not destroy the Constitution. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably. By your same thinking, maybe we would be better off if we all just wore dog collars that kept watch on every one of us 24/7. One of us might kill someone (in fact, I have a higher chance of being killed on the street than in an airplane).





What data can you provide that all of a sudden society will have an upswing of more and more confrontations happening each and every day? And why does that make it right to eviscerate the Bill of Rights? Again, Benny Franklin would see you as undeserving of either liberty or safety.


Do you understand probability? As the population increases, there is lass space between each person. More and more people, less and less space. With less space, the activity that happens is happening in a smaller and smaller space. Thus increasing the probability that one motion is going to interact with another motion, whatever the result is. As more and more nations develop, more and more enemies are made. If we were the only nation, we wouldn't have threats from other nations. There is about a hundred-ninety-five countries in the world. Conflict is GOING to happen as it is HUMAN NATURE.


It is NOT Human nature. You have a very skewed perspective. Maybe we should STOP MAKING ENEMIES, eh? Be all this as it may... It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably.





Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that I am protected against unreasonable searches and seizures ONLY at home. It says I have that right PERIOD. The GOVERNMENT cannot do that and uphold our Constitution. You want to shred the Constitution so that you feel safe??? Benny is rolling in his grave.


Do you understand what privacy means? You have the right to privacy in your home, yes. You don't have the full right to privacy outside. You don't lose the entire right, just some of it. You pay taxes, don't you? You give up privacy by doing that. Apply for a job? You give up privacy for that. Ride a plane? Uh oh, you can't have full privacy! Don't you also give up privacy rights when you go see the doctor? Or why should I have to give up my right to be secure in my person to be secure in my person!??!?


What's privacy got to do with anything? The RIGHT is unalienable. Do YOU know what THAT means???





If the GOVERNMENT searches me - and *I* pay for that search, with the odds of a problem being lower than winning the lottery... THAT IS UNREASONABLE.


The word you are looking for is unlikely.


No... Astronomically unlikely odds, making search and seizure UNREASONABLE. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably



Notice how one deals with reasoning, and the other deals with probability?


Notice how one deals with the odds and the other deals with what we do based on those odds. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search and seize unreasonably. And based on those odds, the search and seizure is UNREASONABLE.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Gnarly
If TSA has been taking our rights away, can someone provide me a list? I mean, you guys keep going on and on about how they keep taking rights away, yet I don't see any rights being taken away.


I am supposed to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. They are assaulting me with unreasonable search and if I have a bottle of water - they seize it (very unreasonable). Why is it unreasonable? Because the chance of having a "terrorist" issue is about 1 in 1,000,000,000,000. Sorry if you feel you are "safe" being stripped of you protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I absolutely do NOT.


I want an actual list. I want the real names of each and every right, and a full description of what that right allows me to do, and a full description of exactly how it was taken away.


"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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Or is the Bill of Rights not good enough for you?


I GUARANTEE NOT A SINGLE PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO. IF NOT, THEN I AM CORRECT IN CALLING YOU SHEEP.


Um... Bad guarantee. You are not at all correct. In fact... I suspect you might be the sheep here.


"YOU want a list: "You want"..Perhaps nobody cares what the terminally blind won't take the time discover on their ownThe TSA IS A RESULT OF THIS CRAP:
open your ears and eyes close your trap you might learn something


the nsa is openly siphoning everything off theweb,
fbi agents can write their own search warrants; go through your bank accounts/safe deposit box; your home and work place. and gag anybody from mentioning them even in federal court.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I might presume that was addressed to Gnarly...

(S)he was the one who asked for lists, I do believe. [smile]



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I still don't have a list. I have someone not realizing their own ammunition is a double-edged sword with links that just say how four people filed a lawsuit(all of which seem to have not gone anywhere), and claim sexual harassment. I don't have a single bit of respect for Ventura. He seems like a baby to me.

The other person just posts a video of a speech. Nice list, guys. I'm convinced the TSA program was created, spending millions of dollars, just to employ random people to sexually harass people. Is that why TSA was created? Or was it "fear"? To "control" the population?

I guess none of these people want to protect this country. Just like everyone in the FBI, the CIA, let's just include everything, including the army. Cops are bad guys, firefighters are bad guys.

If these people really wanted to sexually assault you, they would. They don't go around raping men and women and hitting little children. Again, people would die for that.

Your right to travel freely hasn't been violated. You can still choose to buy that ticket. (It's funny how you said when you say "I", you mean everyone. That's just freaking hilarious. Go learn what "I" means.)You might get your arms, legs, stomach and back lightly frisked, but that's it. No one is going to be raping you. You don't have to be scared.

Hasn't that been around, though? Can't get through the metal detector, and they gotta check you out? Guess we should remove those. Just forget about all security measures taken, let people do things how they see fit. If they wanna bring up live grenades, let them! See what happens then.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
I still don't have a list.


Oh, give it up, sweetheart. I gave you the only list you need (and you did not claim "no list" when you first responded). I begin to suspect you of having an agenda here.


I guess none of these people want to protect this country. Just like everyone in the FBI, the CIA, let's just include everything, including the army. Cops are bad guys, firefighters are bad guys.


What is this country but the principles upon which it is founded?!?!?! I mean, really. It is YOU (who never chooses to address your support of shredding the Constitution in the name of "this country"
) who does not protect this country, love.
edit on 3/4/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join