Woman: Have Her Arrested! TSA Agent Molested Me!

[epicSocialism4tw]

<EMBED height=390 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=640 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/kVAB20IR0cA?version=3 allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">

[schaaf]

The **** is the matter with people these days? Dumb bitch

[Rohirrim]

American sheep too timid to end this fascist crap. That's okay. It's only the beginning. They want you to get used to the water before you take the full plunge.

[TheReverend]

Soooooooooooo... did it really happen or not?

[Spider]

at my age , you have to pay extra for that kind of action

[peacepipe]

glad I am not a TSA agent. I would've slap the **** out of her, thrown her out of the airport & tell her to drive to her destination.

[Hamrob]

It had probably been..........a long, long time.........since anyone had touched that bitch! She freaked out. :-)

[broncocalijohn]

at my age , you have to pay extra for that kind of action

Some reason I thought of this movie clip and it was right in the first 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMupw1ICDfA&feature=related

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mMupw1ICDfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Spider]

Some reason I thought of this movie clip and it was right in the first 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMupw1ICDfA&feature=related

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mMupw1ICDfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

what movie was that ? ......

[Rohirrim]

Does anybody find it odd that Americans are willing (without question) to allow government agents to touch their genitals? Our revolutionary ancestors would have put them down like the fascist dogs they are.

[Spider]

Does anybody find it odd that Americans are willing (without question) to allow government agents to touch their genitals? Our revolutionary ancestors would have put them down like the fascist dogs they are.

no , unless they demand a credit card # before they touch , then we got a problem .......

[Spider]

LOL dodgeball .......... oddly , that movie missed my top 10 movies to go see ;D

[broncocalijohn]

LOL dodgeball .......... oddly , that movie missed my top 10 movies to go see ;D

I believe they rerun it on ESPN Ocho. That is the worst alternate ending. I believe more of a joke for DVD than actually thinking that was going to be the ending. If so, at least chuck the crummy 2nd place trophy at them and tell them "wait until next year!"

[peacepipe]

here's a question,if we go back to what used to be done as as far as searches go,will anyone complain when a plane gets hijacked and flown into a building? Will they say" yeah alot of people died,but I got on my plane without a good search."

[Missouribronc]

What's the context? Did she refuse to go through the scanner? If she did, and I'm guessing she did, then she should know the searches are more invasive than in the past.

[Spider]

I believe they rerun it on ESPN Ocho. That is the worst alternate ending. I believe more of a joke for DVD than actually thinking that was going to be the ending. If so, at least chuck the crummy 2nd place trophy at them and tell them "wait until next year!"
;D ....... was the movie any good ?

[ICON]

Mr. Zadir - Night At The Roxbury -did you touch my ass?

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wzG66ETRnD8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Spider]

Mr. Zadir - Night At The Roxbury -did you touch my ass?

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wzG66ETRnD8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

oddly nother movie I missed

[broncocalijohn]

Dodgeball was a good movie to rent. Unless it has great effects that need to be seen on the big screen, I try to save the $10 and wait a few months for red box to have it.

[Spider]

Dodgeball was a good movie to rent. Unless it has great effects that need to be seen on the big screen, I try to save the $10 and wait a few months for red box to have it.

:thumbsup: thanks

[steeledude]

here's a question,if we go back to what used to be done as as far as searches go,will anyone complain when a plane gets hijacked and flown into a building? Will they say" yeah alot of people died,but I got on my plane without a good search."

Are you freakin' joking? You seriously think we're fighting the good fight in the airports? Stopping terrorists? You really think terrorism is a threat? Newsflash, they pulled off a longshot in 2001 because our agencies were asleep at the wheel. They (CIA, FBI) have even admitted had they shared info they could have pieced together the plan and stopped it. Not in so many words of course, they'd never admit they could've stopped it. But they had the info, the opportunity to stop it--WITHOUT some lame ass patriot act.

On top of that the dudes took the planes over with box cutters. You think people wouldn't rush these fools now that they know what the M.O. of terrorists are? You realize cockpits are locked right?

You want to give away all your rights for a hint of safety then go live somewhere else.

Americans. It's far more dangerous to get behind the wheel of your car, but they do that every day while eating, chatting on the phone, dressing in the car, etc. But oh my god, terrorists might pull off an attack from across the ocean. Grope me please.

[Lolad]

I don't think they're going after people with knives... But the male/female with a bomb in their pants. If just 1 bomb gets by and blows up a plane what do you think will happen to the travel industry

[Spider]

so whats a lil foreplay ?

[Tombstone RJ]

here's a question,if we go back to what used to be done as as far as searches go,will anyone complain when a plane gets hijacked and flown into a building? Will they say" yeah alot of people died,but I got on my plane without a good search."

simple profiling could stop this but there's no way that will ever happen, not in the PC-GONE-WRONG culture we live in.

instead, everyone suffers for the actions of a few radicals.

[Spider]

You want to give away all your rights for a hint of safety then go live somewhere else.

.

where should he go so real merkians like you wont be bothered ?

[HILife]

Someone needs to shut her up. Clam down, it's just a pat down. **** doesn't even phase me.

[HILife]

Some reason I thought of this movie clip and it was right in the first 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMupw1ICDfA&feature=related

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mMupw1ICDfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some some strange reason, I don't remember the movie ending that way.

[TheReverend]

Some some strange reason, I don't remember the movie ending that way.

You should double check the definition of "alternate"

[HILife]

You should double check the definition of "alternate"

Oops, didn't see the title of the clip.

[jhns]

Are you freakin' joking? You seriously think we're fighting the good fight in the airports? Stopping terrorists? You really think terrorism is a threat? Newsflash, they pulled off a longshot in 2001 because our agencies were asleep at the wheel. They (CIA, FBI) have even admitted had they shared info they could have pieced together the plan and stopped it. Not in so many words of course, they'd never admit they could've stopped it. But they had the info, the opportunity to stop it--WITHOUT some lame ass patriot act.

On top of that the dudes took the planes over with box cutters. You think people wouldn't rush these fools now that they know what the M.O. of terrorists are? You realize cockpits are locked right?

You want to give away all your rights for a hint of safety then go live somewhere else.

Americans. It's far more dangerous to get behind the wheel of your car, but they do that every day while eating, chatting on the phone, dressing in the car, etc. But oh my god, terrorists might pull off an attack from across the ocean. Grope me please.

LOL

Give away all your rights.... Wtf?

You don't have to be molested. Go through the scanner and be on your way. Flying isn't a right. You can drive if you don't like it.

[Dudeskey]

Does anybody find it odd that Americans are willing (without question) to allow government agents to touch their genitals? Our revolutionary ancestors would have put them down like the fascist dogs they are.

I'd be willing if they'd buy me a couple drinks first...™

[DenverBrit]

Replace the TSA goons with a few bomb sniffing K9s.

We wouldn't have to take our shoes off and who doesn't enjoy a crotch sniff from a friendly hound.

[schaaf]

Replace the TSA goons with a few bomb sniffing K9s.

We wouldn't have to take our shoes off and who doesn't enjoy a crotch sniff from a friendly hound.

I do! I do! :)

[OrangeSe7en]

LOL

Give away all your rights.... Wtf?

You don't have to be molested. Go through the scanner and be on your way. Flying isn't a right. You can drive if you don't like it.

It's not that simple. The gvt has limits to it's rights too. This is as much about what the gvt is or should be allowed to do and whether or not it violates the 4th amendment (for example).

[tsiguy96]

just an example of people handing over their fundamental american rights in the name of "safety". for those of you saying flying is a privilege, maybe so. the TSA is a govt organization, however, and they are the ones who feel they can do whatever they want to anyone who wants to get on a plane. "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing when entering an airport, everyone is presumed guilty until you get patted down or scanned.

“ 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.


sad. and some of you support it.

[Rohirrim]

What's the context? Did she refuse to go through the scanner? If she did, and I'm guessing she did, then she should know the searches are more invasive than in the past.

Yeah. Because the scanner isn't invasive enough already. :oyvey:

[Crushaholic]

Well, she might have been molested as a child, and had flashbacks. Still, she should have acted a bit more mature...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Are you freakin' joking? You seriously think we're fighting the good fight in the airports? Stopping terrorists? You really think terrorism is a threat? Newsflash, they pulled off a longshot in 2001 because our agencies were asleep at the wheel. They (CIA, FBI) have even admitted had they shared info they could have pieced together the plan and stopped it. Not in so many words of course, they'd never admit they could've stopped it. But they had the info, the opportunity to stop it--WITHOUT some lame ass patriot act.

On top of that the dudes took the planes over with box cutters. You think people wouldn't rush these fools now that they know what the M.O. of terrorists are? You realize cockpits are locked right?

You want to give away all your rights for a hint of safety then go live somewhere else.

Americans. It's far more dangerous to get behind the wheel of your car, but they do that every day while eating, chatting on the phone, dressing in the car, etc. But oh my god, terrorists might pull off an attack from across the ocean. Grope me please.

The really disconcerting part of it all is that these younger generations (25 and below) have already been conditioned that they need to hand over rights to be able to do the things that they want to do...and they're okay with that trade off.

The United States is already moving far down the slippery slope.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah. Because the scanner isn't invasive enough already. :oyvey:

Sheesh.

These people don't know what they're losing.

[baja]

American sheep too timid to end this fascist crap. That's okay. It's only the beginning. They want you to get used to the water before you take the full plunge.

54321..... until Meck jumps it to let you knew you are an un-american piece of shiit coward bastard punk.

Love it or leave it beaitch

[Spider]

I'd be willing if they'd buy me a couple drinks first...™

SLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

[Missouribronc]

Yeah. Because the scanner isn't invasive enough already. :oyvey:

What right do you lose when you go through the scanner?

You choose to go on an airplane. You pay to go on an airplane by choice. What right are you losing?

[tsiguy96]

What right do you lose when you go through the scanner?

You choose to go on an airplane. You pay to go on an airplane by choice. What right are you losing?

4th amendment.

[Missouribronc]

Because of unfortunate events, you have certain choices after you CHOOSE to fly. A.) Go through the scanner. B.) Be frisked thoroughly.

It's a choice to fly. Not a right.

[Missouribronc]

4th amendment.

No. That stops unreasonable searches of your home and personal property without your consent.

Not searches of your person if you CHOOSE to fly.

By CHOOSING to fly you've gone out of the realm of the 4th Amendment.

[tsiguy96]

Because of unfortunate events, you have certain choices after you CHOOSE to fly. A.) Go through the scanner. B.) Be frisked thoroughly.

It's a choice to fly. Not a right.

you can make that same argument for literally everything.

its a choice to have a job, not a right. so you will do WHATEVER you are asked regardless of legality because you know what, you dont NEED a job after all.


just because people want to fly doesnt mean they should be subject to whatever unconstitutional restrictions are placed on them as a result.

[tsiguy96]

No. That stops unreasonable searches of your home and personal property without your consent.

Not searches of your person if you CHOOSE to fly.

By CHOOSING to fly you've gone out of the realm of the 4th Amendment.

100% wrong again.

reread the 4th amendment:
“ 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.

get over this "flight is optional" argument, its bull****. EVERYTHING beyond your own life and death is optional, EVERYTHING. doesnt mean its right. drivers licenses are optional. should you be subject to getting molested everytime you want to get in your car?

[Missouribronc]

100% wrong again.

reread the 4th amendment:


get over this "flight is optional" argument, its bull****. EVERYTHING beyond your own life and death is optional, EVERYTHING. doesnt mean its right. drivers licenses are optional. should you be subject to getting molested everytime you want to get in your car?

If you don't want to go through the scanner or get searched, you don't have to fly. That's the bottom line. It's not an illegal search by any means. And I'm not 100 percent wrong.

Unfortunately a group of radical Muslims killed thousands of Americans when they hijacked planes. That's the reality. And I'm perfectly fine with having to go through a scanner because of it.

[Fedaykin]

Because of unfortunate events, you have certain choices after you CHOOSE to fly. A.) Go through the scanner. B.) Be frisked thoroughly.

It's a choice to fly. Not a right.


Hey bub, you're going where? Better let me see your pap^H^H^ err license and registration -- your passengers too!

[Missouribronc]

Hey bub, you're going where? Better let me see your pap^H^H^ err license and registration -- your passengers too!

Please.

[baja]

Does anybody find it odd that Americans are willing (without question) to allow government agents to touch their genitals? Our revolutionary ancestors would have put them down like the fascist dogs they are.

....and everyone here except you and me are calling out the women because she happens to be heavy. Like it fine to grope fat people because you know they are fat and don't count as real people.

My generation and the one following are guilty of raising a ship of fools

[baja]

Are you freakin' joking? You seriously think we're fighting the good fight in the airports? Stopping terrorists? You really think terrorism is a threat? Newsflash, they pulled off a longshot in 2001 because our agencies were asleep at the wheel. They (CIA, FBI) have even admitted had they shared info they could have pieced together the plan and stopped it. Not in so many words of course, they'd never admit they could've stopped it. But they had the info, the opportunity to stop it--WITHOUT some lame ass patriot act.

On top of that the dudes took the planes over with box cutters. You think people wouldn't rush these fools now that they know what the M.O. of terrorists are? You realize cockpits are locked right?

You want to give away all your rights for a hint of safety then go live somewhere else.

Americans. It's far more dangerous to get behind the wheel of your car, but they do that every day while eating, chatting on the phone, dressing in the car, etc. But oh my god, terrorists might pull off an attack from across the ocean. Grope me please.

They are testing the waters constantly and will invade the privacy of all Americans just as far as the people allow them to.

[baja]

Yeah. Because the scanner isn't invasive enough already. :oyvey:

and hazardous to your health until proven otherwise. Radiation accumulates in your body and never goes away.

[Fedaykin]

Please.

Driving is just as optional as flying.

[Fedaykin]

and hazardous to your health until proven otherwise. Radiation accumulates in your body and never goes away.

Radiation doesn't accumulate in your body. Radioactive materials (e.g. radioactive iodine) do, but not the radiation itself.

[Missouribronc]

Driving is just as optional as flying.

True. Do you have problems providing your proof of insurance and driver's license while driving too?

How many people can you blow up with a car?

[baja]

It's amazing how well the grand plan has worked.

Scare them and they will agree to anything

[baja]

Radiation doesn't accumulate in your body. Radioactive materials (e.g. radioactive iodine) do, but not the radiation itself.

The end result is the same.

This equipment has been rushed into service and is not fully tested.

[Missouribronc]

It's amazing how well the grand plan has worked.

Scare them and they will agree to anything

The boogie man is after you! LOL

[Fedaykin]

True. Do you have problems providing your proof of insurance and driver's license while driving too?


Nope, but I would have a problem with the officer searching my vehicle, my person or doing the same to my passengers without cause -- all things which are unconstitutional.

The government has no right to search your person or your property without cause just because of the particular type of travel conveyance you chose.

It does have the legal authority to verify that you are a legally licensed and insured driver.


How many people can you blow up with a car?

Ask Tim McVeigh -- he's a better source.

[Inkana7]

I got the TSA patdown last weekend. It was....not a big deal at all.

[Fedaykin]

I got the TSA patdown last weekend. It was....not a big deal at all.

Some people are OK with complete strangers groping them in public. I'm not here to judge =P

[Inkana7]

Some people are OK with complete strangers groping them in public. I'm not here to judge =P

Hahaha. But really. It took like a minute and I was barely touched.

[elsid13]

100% wrong again.

reread the 4th amendment:


get over this "flight is optional" argument, its bull****. EVERYTHING beyond your own life and death is optional, EVERYTHING. doesnt mean its right. drivers licenses are optional. should you be subject to getting molested everytime you want to get in your car?

You waive that right when you purchase the ticket and agree to go through security. You need to read the fine print on those tickets.

[DomCasual]

Someone needs to smack her for being crazy and loud.

[OrangeSe7en]

You waive that right when you purchase the ticket and agree to go through security. You need to read the fine print on those tickets.

The tickets are issued at the airport when you arrive. When people purchase tickets, its often online and there's nothing about this.

And no, you don't waive that right by simply being a consumer.

[TheReverend]

Someone needs to smack her for being crazy and loud.

I tend to lean this way.

Quite frankly, I don't believe her. If that TSA agent wanted to molest a woman, I guarantee thousands of more attractive options were available that day.

Kinda ****ty to say, but let's be real.

[baja]

Someone needs to smack her for being crazy and loud.

Ya like they did with that jew beatch just because she didn't want to take a train ride.

Don't you see you are being trained. Today a simple pat down for safety's sake- tomorrow??? but you are more conditioned to accept whatever it is.

[elsid13]

[QUOTE=OrangeSe7en;3196377]The tickets are issued at the airport when you arrive. When people purchase tickets, its often online and there's nothing about this.

And no, you don't waive that right by simply being a consumer.[/QUOTE

Yes you do. You agree to follow all regulations and laws associated with this method of travel.

[barryr]

When I see TSA feeling around a baby a week or 2 ago for crying out loud, that tells me this system is idiotic. I think this woman or even the family decided to make a point since they had the camera going just at the right time, but checking underwear just means the terrorists will pick a different way.

I want to know if the boxes and packages that are being put in cargo on planes are really being checked that thoroughly. I have doubts.

[baja]

If I was a terrorist leader I would try to get an expendable on a plane with a bomb up his ass just to see what TSA's next move would be.

Free colostomies for everyone???

[baja]

When I see TSA feeling around a baby a week or 2 ago for crying out loud, that tells me this system is idiotic. I think this woman or even the family decided to make a point since they had the camera going just at the right time, but checking underwear just means the terrorists will pick a different way.

I want to know if the boxes and packages that are being put in cargo on planes are really being checked that thoroughly. I have doubts.

The part many here are missing is these checks are not about safety the're about getting you used to submission for a "greater good" and by reading here I see it's working like a charm.

[barryr]

If I was a terrorist leader I would try to get an expendable on a plane with a bomb up his ass just to see what TSA's next move would be.

Free colostomies for everyone???

LOL, or if they can somehow swallow a device that can be detenated later in flight.

[barryr]

The part you guys are missing is these checks are not about safety the're about getting you used to submission for a "greater good" and by reading here I see it's working like a charm.

Well, I am all for safety, but this stuff is just plain stupid. Many countries do not even make you take your shoes off much less everything else.

[enjolras]

No. That stops unreasonable searches of your home and personal property without your consent.

Not searches of your person if you CHOOSE to fly.

By CHOOSING to fly you've gone out of the realm of the 4th Amendment.

What about when you choose to drive? What about when you choose to leave your house and walk down the street? What about when you choose to get on a boat? What about when you choose to go to work? What about when you choose to go to church? What about when you choose to go get ice cream with your kids?

By your logic the 4th amendment only applies to your home and to people in jail. I'm having trouble coming up with any other instances where you're not actively choosing to engage in something.

Seriously...this is jaw dropping in its lunacy.

[enjolras]

Well, I am all for safety, but this stuff is just plain stupid. Many countries do not even make you take your shoes off much less everything else.

That list includes Israel for crying out loud.

[Missouribronc]

What about when you choose to drive? What about when you choose to leave your house and walk down the street? What about when you choose to get on a boat? What about when you choose to go to work? What about when you choose to go to church? What about when you choose to go get ice cream with your kids?

By your logic the 4th amendment only applies to your home and to people in jail. I'm having trouble coming up with any other instances where you're not actively choosing to engage in something.

Seriously...this is jaw dropping in its lunacy.

So, who killed thousands of Americans by getting some ice cream? I missed that one. Walking down the street? Spontaneous combustion? Too many X-men movies?

If you want to fly, you have to go through a scanner. No one is losing their rights because of it. Jeesh.

[gyldenlove]

If you don't want to go through the scanner or get searched, you don't have to fly. That's the bottom line. It's not an illegal search by any means. And I'm not 100 percent wrong.

Unfortunately a group of radical Muslims killed thousands of Americans when they hijacked planes. That's the reality. And I'm perfectly fine with having to go through a scanner because of it.

I can replace fly with anything then, if you want to breath you have to accept being patted down, if you want to be outside your house you have to accept going through scans, if you want to drive you have accept body cavity searches, if you choose to work you have to accept having your phone tabbed.

There is no clause in the 4th ammendment making excepting flying, the 4th ammendment should protect all Americans in America from searches unless a proper cause exists.

More than 30.000 Americans die each year in traffic, so should we have the TSA pat down every single driver every morning?
More than 15.000 are murdered every year, so should we have pat downs every time you go out of house?
More than 10.000 people are killed with a gun every year, so should we have pat downs for all people who enter and exit a store that sells guns, ammo or gun related accessories?

If you are willing to give up your right in the name 4000 deaths, then at least be consistent.

[Missouribronc]

We should have two types of flights. One where there's no security at all, and one where there's security.

Which one would you choose.

[Fedaykin]

We should have two types of flights. One where there's no security at all, and one where there's security.

Which one would you choose.

That's absolutely a false dilemma.

[Missouribronc]

That's absolutely a false dilemma.

According to most in this thread its not. They don't want any security to get on the plane. No scans, no pat downs, nothing.

I don't want to fly on that plane. Do you?

[enjolras]

According to most in this thread its not. They don't want any security to get on the plane.

No one said anything close to that...c'mon... you're better than that.

[steeledude]

LOL

Give away all your rights.... Wtf?

You don't have to be molested. Go through the scanner and be on your way. Flying isn't a right. You can drive if you don't like it.

Would you be so ignorant as to believe this only extends to flight passengers?

[baja]

According to most in this thread its not. They don't want any security to get on the plane. No scans, no pat downs, nothing.

I don't want to fly on that plane. Do you?

Just go back to the system in place before 9/11.

I mean I can't take my own drinking water on the plane for Christ's sake. Do really don't see the stupidity in this?

The rest of the world does.

[steeledude]

100% wrong again.

reread the 4th amendment:


get over this "flight is optional" argument, its bull****. EVERYTHING beyond your own life and death is optional, EVERYTHING. doesnt mean its right. drivers licenses are optional. should you be subject to getting molested everytime you want to get in your car?

It's the same reason you don't have to hand over anything to a store employee who accuses you of theft. People just don't understand...

[OrangeSe7en]

The tickets are issued at the airport when you arrive. When people purchase tickets, its often online and there's nothing about this.

And no, you don't waive that right by simply being a consumer.[/QUOTE

Yes you do. You agree to follow all regulations and laws associated with this method of travel.

No you don't. Theres nothing your forced to acknowledge when making the purchase of a ticket. Furthermore, your purchasing of a ticket establishes an agreement between you and the airline. The gvt is a seperate entity.

[Missouribronc]

No you don't. Theres nothing your forced to acknowledge when making the purchase of a ticket. Furthermore, your purchasing of a ticket establishes an agreement between you and the airline. The gvt is a seperate entity.

The airline must adhere to regulations, making it part of the process. I guarantee its in the fine print somewhere.

[DomCasual]

I don't see it as a violation of my rights at all. It is possibly a little overly-cautious. It's definitely irritating, when I'm in a hurry. But the people completely freaking out about it (like the drama queen in the video) are being too sensitive, IMO.

Maybe I'm just missing something.

The only thing worse than getting patted down would be getting patted down while having to listen to that crazy ass whine.

[OrangeSe7en]

The airline must adhere to regulations, making it part of the process. I guarantee its in the fine print somewhere.

Not when you make the purchase. And btw, some people have to travel for their jobs so your point about not needing to travel is not correct.

[jhns]

Not when you make the purchase. And btw, some people have to travel for their jobs so your point about not needing to travel is not correct.

This country put a lot of work and money into it's railroads...

[DomCasual]

Ya like they did with that jew beatch just because she didn't want to take a train ride.

Don't you see you are being trained. Today a simple pat down for safety's sake- tomorrow??? but you are more conditioned to accept whatever it is.

Sorry, man, but I don't see it. It's an inconvenience. If the current system had been in place on 9/11, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. That works for me.

[OrangeSe7en]

This country put a lot of work and money into it's railroads...

You'd lose too many man hours if places of business started having employees ride trains.

[OrangeSe7en]

Sorry, man, but I don't see it. It's an inconvenience. If the current system had been in place on 9/11, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. That works for me.

If they would have locked the cockpit doors on 9-11, it wouldnt have happened.

[baja]

Sorry, man, but I don't see it. It's an inconvenience. If the current system had been in place on 9/11, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. That works for me.

If the government agencies that we fund with billions of tax dollars had done their job there would have been no 9/11 either.

[baja]

This country put a lot of work and money into it's railroads...

Can you tell me when the next train to Lisbon Portugal leaves?

[ZachKC]

I don't see it as a violation of my rights at all. It is possibly a little overly-cautious. It's definitely irritating, when I'm in a hurry. But the people completely freaking out about it (like the drama queen in the video) are being too sensitive, IMO.

Maybe I'm just missing something.

The only thing worse than getting patted down would be getting patted down while having to listen to that crazy ass whine.

Exactly. But you don't understand. THEY ARE SAVING YOU FORM YOURSELF YOU SHEEP!

ROFL!

Because bitching and being a drama queen on a message board is truly courageous.

[ZachKC]

Ya like they did with that jew beatch just because she didn't want to take a train ride.

Don't you see you are being trained. Today a simple pat down for safety's sake- tomorrow??? but you are more conditioned to accept whatever it is.

You see that?

There it is. Classic baja and tsi.

The information as it is makes them look too ridiculous so they rely on events that are complete outliers, drama queen rhetoric, and things that literally have not even happened.

[baja]

You see that?

There it is. Classic baja and tsi.

The information as it is makes them look too ridiculous so they rely on events that are complete outliers, drama queen rhetoric, and things that literally have not even happened.

Enjoy your sleep cause the wake up call is going to be a beatich for you.

[baja]

The difference between you and I is I remember what freedom is like in the USA and it was grand.

[ZachKC]

The difference between you and I is I remember what freedom is like in the USA and it was grand.

Sounds like your life sucks.

Sorry bro!

[baja]

Sounds like your life sucks.

Sorry bro!

My life is great, I'd like it to remain that way.

[ZachKC]

My life is great, I'd like it to remain that way.

If it does it will be because of you.

If it doesn't it will be because of you.

It has always been like that no matter how much people try to blame others or the big bad government for their unhappiness or failures.

[baja]

If it does it will be because of you.

If it doesn't it will be because of you.

It has always been like that no matter how much people try to blame others or the big bad government for their unhappiness or failures.

Freedom to the pursuit of happiness is not a birth right it must be zealously guarded.

[RhymesayersDU]

I don't see it as a violation of my rights at all. It is possibly a little overly-cautious. It's definitely irritating, when I'm in a hurry. But the people completely freaking out about it (like the drama queen in the video) are being too sensitive, IMO.

Maybe I'm just missing something.

The only thing worse than getting patted down would be getting patted down while having to listen to that crazy ass whine.

Agreed here. Don't get me wrong, taking off my watch and shoes and belt, and taking my laptop out of my bag, it's annoying. But I know the rules, I'm prepared for them, and in general it's not that difficult to get through airport security.

At the very least, with all the other stuff going on in the world, I don't think this is worth getting worked up about.

[baja]

Agreed here. Don't get me wrong, taking off my watch and shoes and belt, and taking my laptop out of my bag, it's annoying. But I know the rules, I'm prepared for them, and in general it's not that difficult to get through airport security.

At the very least, with all the other stuff going on in the world, I don't think this is worth getting worked up about.

Nobody is complaining about that stuff

[RhymesayersDU]

I'm just talking about the whole process. I've only been pat down once, but it wasn't that big of a deal, along with the rest of the stuff.

[Lolad]

Just go back to the system in place before 9/11.

I mean I can't take my own drinking water on the plane for Christ's sake. Do really don't see the stupidity in this?

The rest of the world does.

You can, you just have to buy it once you are in the terminal. I see no problem with that. In 3rd world countries they glue the cap back on and put dirty water in bottles making it look like it was never opened.

Consider what can be put in a water bottle and carried on a plane.

[tsiguy96]

You can, you just have to buy it once you are in the terminal. I see no problem with that. In 3rd world countries they glue the cap back on and put dirty water in bottles making it look like it was never opened.

Consider what can be put in a water bottle and carried on a plane.

consider how many times in history people have tried to smuggle stuff on a plane thats dangerous to others in a water bottle. hint: not many.

for those who would give up freedom in the name of "safety", you have some serious soul searching to do.

[ZachKC]

consider how many times in history people have tried to smuggle stuff on a plane thats dangerous to others in a water bottle. hint: not many.

for those who would give up freedom in the name of "safety", you have some serious soul searching to do.

Those who only base their takes on small quaint phrases with no depth deserve the lack of respect people associate with their opinions.

[ZachKC]

No quaint phrases are dramatic language is gong to change the fact that you don't have to fly and can lead a happy life avoiding all of this if you choose...or the fact that it isn't that big of deal.

This is a great country...you have all the rights in the world to be a marginalized fringe message board poster. Enjoy it!

[Garcia Bronco]

Some people just can't handle being frisked.

[tsiguy96]

No quaint phrases are dramatic language is gong to change the fact that you don't have to fly and can lead a happy life avoiding all of this if you choose...or the fact that it isn't that big of deal.

This is a great country...you have all the rights in the world to be a marginalized fringe message board poster. Enjoy it!

as said earlier, you do not need to own a house, have a job or drive on public highways either. but when you do these things your 4th amendment rights stay in tact. however when you fly, you are automatically assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

[alkemical]

American sheep too timid to end this fascist crap. That's okay. It's only the beginning. They want you to get used to the water before you take the full plunge.

Does anybody find it odd that Americans are willing (without question) to allow government agents to touch their genitals? Our revolutionary ancestors would have put them down like the fascist dogs they are.

That's very unamerican Ro, you must be a terrorist.

/sarcasm.

[alkemical]

Yeah. Because the scanner isn't invasive enough already. :oyvey:

What does a scanner see? Into the head? Into the heart? Does it see into me? Clearly? Or darkly? - A Scanner Darkly

[alkemical]

No. That stops unreasonable searches of your home and personal property without your consent.

Not searches of your person if you CHOOSE to fly.

By CHOOSING to fly you've gone out of the realm of the 4th Amendment.


So, you can outsource and get around the constitution?

[alkemical]

The boogie man is after you! LOL

Irony....

Yet you are FOR these things because you are scared of, what again?

[alkemical]

If I was a terrorist leader I would try to get an expendable on a plane with a bomb up his ass just to see what TSA's next move would be.

Free colostomies for everyone???

Hell no, that's gov't healthcare...we can't have that!

[alkemical]

The part many here are missing is these checks are not about safety the're about getting you used to submission for a "greater good" and by reading here I see it's working like a charm.

Well, you have kids now-a-days growing up with getting security checks at schools, CCTV, no privacy.

It's pretty easy when you break 'em in young.

[alkemical]

What about when you choose to drive? What about when you choose to leave your house and walk down the street? What about when you choose to get on a boat? What about when you choose to go to work? What about when you choose to go to church? What about when you choose to go get ice cream with your kids?

By your logic the 4th amendment only applies to your home and to people in jail. I'm having trouble coming up with any other instances where you're not actively choosing to engage in something.

Seriously...this is jaw dropping in its lunacy.

....And not even then (home)....

(recently two states ruled police can enter a home without a warrant)

[alkemical]

I'm just talking about the whole process. I've only been pat down once, but it wasn't that big of a deal, along with the rest of the stuff.

What about having to show ID and get a pat down to enter a concert?

Starscape Prep Guide This Saturday Starscape Festival is Back! from 2pm - 6am ... be subject to a thorough bag check and pat down for security at the gate. ...

[ZachKC]

as said earlier, you do not need to own a house, have a job or drive on public highways either. but when you do these things your 4th amendment rights stay in tact. however when you fly, you are automatically assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

All of the things listed above happen in things that you own. Your property. An airplane isn't that.

Aside from that.

If you want to actually enact change instead of being a know nothing Broncos fan boy who gets owned in football discussions and google's old tired expressions you should organize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf), there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

Alot of this also has to do with implied consent.

At the security checkpoint once you submit your luggage to the airline agent to be loaded onto the aircraft, you put your bag on the xray conveyer belt, or you walk through the detector you are implying that it is "ok" that the TSA search you and your property. The TSA would have not one right to search your belongings if you did not give the implied consent. When you buy your ticket you know of the TSA and that you are subject to screening before you enter the gate area, every airline is mandated to let you know and if they do not you should bring it up to them. You could walk around the airport a hundred times and the TSA can not bother you before the check point. They are also limited in their searches. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds which has been backed up by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley in a case were some guys got in trouble for having fake passports. That was shown as a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

Implied consent is used for anyone who goes to a Broncos game. Look at it right there on the back of your ticket and the terms you agree to and rights you waive by purchasing the ticket and entering Invesco.

[ZachKC]

- A Scanner Darkly

Oh hey! More people backing themselves up with ridiculous simple platitudes. Now we are using movie quotes!

[baja]

Oh hey! More people backing themselves up with ridiculous simple platitudes. Now we are using movie quotes!

You seem to be getting angry about your right to be patted down maybe you need to be touched more? ;D

[alkemical]

Oh hey! More people backing themselves up with ridiculous simple platitudes. Now we are using movie quotes!

I read the book too.


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaTwdZ4MEWqmiWgxPuJx8YGrepkmZyr qJKdSwlGkCALSwGUsbynw

[alkemical]

You seem to be getting angry about your right to be patted down maybe you need to be touched more? ;D

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1X9SdFab0nwBmycmwWTCeqgSCV6mbh UApNZaUAl-Y4ZH78lJgdw

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXS11kiOtZuI6lLET_4whFNVAcp3S7T ZspF6cDYl5fFJDYQ4fHAw

[Beantown Bronco]

What about having to show ID and get a pat down to enter a concert?


The only time you get ID'd at a concert is when you're buying an alcoholic beverage or picking up tix at will call, which is obviously necessary. Do you disagree with this?

[alkemical]

The only time you get ID'd at a concert is when you're buying an alcoholic beverage or picking up tix at will call, which is obviously necessary. Do you disagree with this?

Wasn't that way this weekend, show ID at the gate, receive your pat down to the left. Then show ID again to get "over 21 bracelet".

Baltimore PD also had their helicopter and boats watching everyone as well.

All for 10k "ravers" and hippies dancing from 2p-6a.

Wild.

[TheReverend]

Thread is hilarious.

Great opportunity for hyper liberals to claim America has liberty problems because you have to walk through a scanner when you fly.

You can't make this stuff up...

[alkemical]

Or scanners in schools, CCTV's in schools, CCTV's everywhere, pat down's at any local big event (Broncos games, concerts, etc).

[Phantom]

simple profiling could stop this but there's no way that will ever happen, not in the PC-GONE-WRONG culture we live in.

instead, everyone suffers for the actions of a few radicals.

This ... it's quite simple really. But we must appease the kooks.

[Beantown Bronco]

Wasn't that way this weekend, show ID at the gate, receive your pat down to the left. Then show ID again to get "over 21 bracelet".

Baltimore PD also had their helicopter and boats watching everyone as well.

All for 10k "ravers" and hippies dancing from 2p-6a.

Wild.

I guess I don't understand. What was the point in showing the ID the first time? What was the reasoning they gave?

[alkemical]

I guess I don't understand. What was the point in showing the ID the first time? What was the reasoning they gave?

"You want in, show your ID" -

Female pat downs also had security going up under the underwire and labial touching. (At the concert)

[Phantom]

I've never been selected to go through the scanner.
My wife has big hooties - she gets selected EVERY time, not most of the time, EVERY time.
Yeah they're doing their job, looking for terrorists and all...

[alkemical]

I've never been selected to go through the scanner.
My wife has big hooties - she gets selected EVERY time, not most of the time, EVERY time.
Yeah they're doing their job, looking for terrorists and all...

I once asked to get patted down, and had a joke made about "ending up on a list".

Sometimes, you have to pick your battles. which sucks.

[Garcia Bronco]

The problem I have with the scanners and their health concerns on the people walking through them.

[Beantown Bronco]

"You want in, show your ID" -


Again, I just don't see what purpose this serves at a concert, unless it's an 18+ show. Was it? If not, then I guess this is not a question for you....just thinking out loud.

Whether or not I agree with it, I understand why they do the pat downs. It serves a purpose. It's clear why you need an ID when you're picking up tickets at the will call. It's also clear why IDs are asked for at the "21+" bracelet area. I don't, however, understand why you need an ID just to enter a concert.....unless it's an 18+ show as I mentioned above. What potential danger or crime do you prevent by making someone produce an ID? What if the person simply doesn't have one? Plenty of people don't. Should you not be allowed to see a concert because you don't have a driver's license or passport?

[alkemical]

Again, I just don't see what purpose this serves at a concert, unless it's an 18+ show. Was it? If not, then I guess this is not a question for you....just thinking out loud.

Whether or not I agree with it, I understand why they do the pat downs. It serves a purpose. It's clear why you need an ID when you're picking up tickets at the will call. It's also clear why IDs are asked for at the "21+" bracelet area. I don't, however, understand why you need an ID just to enter a concert.....unless it's an 18+ show as I mentioned above. What potential danger or crime do you prevent by making someone produce an ID? What if the person simply doesn't have one? Plenty of people don't. Should you not be allowed to see a concert because you don't have a driver's license or passport?

It was an 18+, obviously if you don't have an ID you won't be able to drink - that stuff i understand have no issues with. But they asked to see them. They weren't swiped, etc - so i don't know if they were "looking" for someone, etc. Either way, bogus.

[alkemical]

The problem I have with the scanners and their health concerns on the people walking through them.

Just like my fist!

:)

[Beantown Bronco]

It was an 18+, obviously if you don't have an ID you won't be able to drink - that stuff i understand have no issues with. But they asked to see them. They weren't swiped, etc - so i don't know if they were "looking" for someone, etc. Either way, bogus.

You just answered the question. It's not bogus to check IDs at an 18+ event. How else are you going to enforce the 18+ aspect of the show if they don't check IDs at the gate?

[alkemical]

You just answered the question. It's not bogus to check IDs at an 18+ event. How else are you going to enforce the 18+ aspect of the show if they don't check IDs at the gate?

This wasn't the bracelet line, this was the line where you gave your ticket. After that, you got patted down, and then at the next step you showed your ID again to get your over 21 bracelet.

[Beantown Bronco]

This wasn't the bracelet line, this was the line where you gave your ticket. After that, you got patted down, and then at the next step you showed your ID again to get your over 21 bracelet.

Two different things.

Prove you're 18 to get in.
Prove you're over 21 to get the drinking bracelet.

You need both. If you didn't have that first line, what's to stop a 15 year old from getting in?

[alkemical]

Two different things.

Prove you're 18 to get in.
Prove you're over 21 to get the drinking bracelet.

You need both. If you didn't have that first line, what's to stop a 15 year old from getting in?

From starscape's web page - it was 16+_

[alkemical]

Look man, it's cool if YOU think you have to show your ID to do anything/everything. I personally find it bull****.

Justify it all you want, just not kosher with me.

[TheReverend]

Look man, it's cool if YOU think you have to show your ID to do anything/everything. I personally find it bull****.

Justify it all you want, just not kosher with me.

Lol

Sounds like an absolutely terrible inconvenience. How long will it take you to recover from the psychological distress? Have you scheduled a psychiatry session for a PTSD diagnosis yet?

[Beantown Bronco]

Look man, it's cool if YOU think you have to show your ID to do anything/everything. I personally find it bull****.

Justify it all you want, just not kosher with me.

Ummmm, no. I don't. But I do understand that if I'm going into a concert or a club that is 18+ (or 16+ in this particular case), that I should assume I'm going to have to prove I am of the required age to get in.

Now if it's an all ages club or concert? No ID should be required (unless I want to drink).

See the difference?

[tsiguy96]

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”


from your own article, fyi. no one is complaining about having to go through some sort of security checkpoint. people are complaining because what is happening now is leading to a point of being "more intrusive than necessary". where does it stop? its gone from metal detectors and pat downs to full body xray like scanners, whats next?

[TheReverend]

from your own article, fyi. no one is complaining about having to go through some sort of security checkpoint. people are complaining because what is happening now is leading to a point of being "more intrusive than necessary". where does it stop? its gone from metal detectors and pat downs to full body xray like scanners, whats next?

See bolded sentence frags.

That's the issue.

You're invoking quotes from revolutionary war heroes and founding fathers in times of true oppression over....

...A quick walk through a scanner at an airport?

Get ****ing real. You're literally complaining over nothing AND inventing problems (see bolded sections of your post). You guys are literally the college kids that have nothing serious (war, civil rights, etc) to protest over so they protest over some minor inconvenience in the schools policy and think they're MLK jr.

http://energizer2.com/pix/fun/jesus_gtfo.gif

[jhns]

Oh no! I had to walk through a scanner! The horror!

Some of you are such little girls. You cry about the dumbest ****.

[ZachKC]

from your own article, fyi. no one is complaining about having to go through some sort of security checkpoint. people are complaining because what is happening now is leading to a point of being "more intrusive than necessary". where does it stop? its gone from metal detectors and pat downs to full body xray like scanners, whats next?

I think tsi thought he was making a point with this post.

Obviously you have a different opinion of what reasonable is from what TSA and the government see as reasonable.

Which is fine. Just showing you the information behind all of this and the court rulings that have led to the current system that is in place.

Sorry to take away from your empty posts with actual information.

[bowtown]

See bolded sentence frags.

That's the issue.

You're invoking quotes from revolutionary war heroes and founding fathers in times of true oppression over....

...A quick walk through a scanner at an airport?

Get ****ing real. You're literally complaining over nothing AND inventing problems (see bolded sections of your post). You guys are literally the college kids that have nothing serious (war, civil rights, etc) to protest over so they protest over some minor inconvenience in the schools policy and think they're MLK jr.

http://energizer2.com/pix/fun/jesus_gtfo.gif

To this day, I won't give my college a dime until I get those tapestries back.

[TheReverend]

Oh no! I had to walk through a scanner! The horror!

Some of you are such little girls. You cry about the dumbest ****.

"WHERE DOES IT END?!?!?!?!"

:spit:

..........well, where does it begin really?

[ZachKC]

"WHERE DOES IT END?!?!?!?!"

:spit:

..........well, where does it begin really?

They can't go a post without trying to sell fear based on something that hasn't happened.

[alkemical]

Lol

Sounds like an absolutely terrible inconvenience. How long will it take you to recover from the psychological distress? Have you scheduled a psychiatry session for a PTSD diagnosis yet?

I just don't find it necessary to be carded to go and dance.

[alkemical]

Ummmm, no. I don't. But I do understand that if I'm going into a concert or a club that is 18+ (or 16+ in this particular case), that I should assume I'm going to have to prove I am of the required age to get in.

Now if it's an all ages club or concert? No ID should be required (unless I want to drink).

See the difference?

I don't see the point in carding me twice. When it's a controlled cattle herd through one checkpoint to the next.

[alkemical]

They can't go a post without trying to sell fear based on something that hasn't happened.

Well, i'm glad you trust the government to return anything it takes away.

[ZachKC]

Well, i'm glad you trust the government to return anything it takes away.

Excuse me. I am trying to google some movie quotes to refute this post. Give me a moment.

[alkemical]

Excuse me. I am trying to google some movie quotes to refute this post. Give me a moment.

did you see two states ruled that the police can enter your home without a warrant?

Precedence is being set. Of course, I don't expect you to have a problem with it.

[ZachKC]

When I was a bar tender I had the same outlook on IDs as alkemical. I tried to cut someone open to count their rings but they wouldn't let me and I got fired.

DAMN THE MAN!

[bowtown]

did you see two states ruled that the police can enter your home without a warrant?

I didn't see that. I'd like to know the details.

[tsiguy96]

I think tsi thought he was making a point with this post.

Obviously you have a different opinion of what reasonable is from what TSA and the government see as reasonable.

Which is fine. Just showing you the information behind all of this and the court rulings that have led to the current system that is in place.

Sorry to take away from your empty posts with actual information.

you apparently dont understand anyones argument other than your own. multiple people on this message board seem to understand that when you give up absolute power to the authority over you, there is no one to keep them in check. if you want to call the 4th amendment an "empty post" then by all means, but it doesnt change the fact that words are twisted in order to get around the true meaning of the law.

by going through an airport you are automatically assumed to be guilty and are subject to essentially whatever screening they want to put you through, until noted otherwise. ive gone through multiple airports the last 2 years and i havent had a real problem with it, its been fast and not too big a hassle. the issue i have it is the same issue i have with most of this stuff, increasing government influence and power over everyday matters that should be handled at the state or local level, and the subsequent burden that comes along with that ie debt levels, raising costs with stagnant pay rates etc.

but apparently directly quoting the constitution is still just an empty post when it comes to an argument you dont agree with.

[alkemical]

When I was a bar tender I had the same outlook on IDs as alkemical. I tried to cut someone open to count their rings but they wouldn't let me and I got fired.

DAMN THE MAN!

Your logic is as failed as your football team.

[TheReverend]

Well, i'm glad you trust the government to return anything it takes away.

Sooooooooooo you think the government was running security at this hippie rave?

[enjolras]

*sighs*

This just doesn't make any sense. The staunchest defenders of government pat-downs and intrusive security are also the ones who are most fervent in their desire for "small government" and "getting government out of our lives."

[TheReverend]

*sighs*

This just doesn't make any sense. The staunchest defenders of government pat-downs and intrusive security are also the ones who are most fervent in their desire for "small government" and "getting government out of our lives."

What?

[ZachKC]

did you see two states ruled that the police can enter your home without a warrant?

Precedence is being set. Of course, I don't expect you to have a problem with it.

In unique circumstances. This isn't police just randomly going into places for no reason. That is still illegal aside from the public relations legal ramifications being too great not to use carefully.

Basically it said that if an altercation is being seen outside and they go inside they have reasonable cause to go inside and act where previously a warrent would be needed.

I don't have a problem with that.

[Beantown Bronco]

I don't see the point in carding me twice. When it's a controlled cattle herd through one checkpoint to the next.

Only those that are 21 and want to drink should be carded twice. Anyone between the ages of 16 and 20 should only go through the first line. Once past that, I assume they could simply go to their seats. Having only one line attempting to do both jobs would unnecessarily hold up the works for everyone. Only smaller clubs and shows can do both jobs at the same checkpoint efficiently.

The only other solution is to have both sets of lines next to each other at the same gate (one for 21+, one for 16-20), but this is not possible at all venues.

[alkemical]

I didn't see that. I'd like to know the details.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/indiana-high-court-rules-people-resist-illegal-entry-police-homes/

Indiana High Court Rules People Cannot Resist Illegal Entry by Police Into Homes

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Thursday's decision was the court's second ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13scotus.html

“Aren’t we just simply saying they can just walk in whenever they smell marijuana, whenever they think there’s drugs on the other side?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, considering what a decision against the defendant would signal to the police. “Why do we even bother giving them a warrant?”

[TheReverend]

you apparently dont understand anyones argument other than your own. multiple people on this message board seem to understand that when you give up absolute power to the authority over you, there is no one to keep them in check. if you want to call the 4th amendment an "empty post" then by all means, but it doesnt change the fact that words are twisted in order to get around the true meaning of the law.

by going through an airport you are automatically assumed to be guilty and are subject to essentially whatever screening they want to put you through, until noted otherwise. ive gone through multiple airports the last 2 years and i havent had a real problem with it, its been fast and not too big a hassle. the issue i have it is the same issue i have with most of this stuff, increasing government influence and power over everyday matters that should be handled at the state or local level, and the subsequent burden that comes along with that ie debt levels, raising costs with stagnant pay rates etc.

but apparently directly quoting the constitution is still just an empty post when it comes to an argument you dont agree with.

So you're saying going through a scanner at an airport is giving "absolute power"?

Gonna have to disagree, but whatever

[alkemical]

In unique circumstances. This isn't police just randomly going into places for no reason. That is still illegal aside from the public relations legal ramifications being too great not to use carefully.

Basically it said that if an altercation is being seen outside and they go inside they have reasonable cause to go inside and act where previously a warrent would be needed.

I don't have a problem with that.

...and the ruling in KY that they only need to "smell" something....

[alkemical]

Only those that are 21 and want to drink should be carded twice. Anyone between the ages of 16 and 20 should only go through the first line. Once past that, I assume they could simply go to their seats. Having only one line attempting to do both jobs would unnecessarily hold up the works for everyone. Only smaller clubs and shows can do both jobs at the same checkpoint efficiently.

The only other solution is to have both sets of lines next to each other at the same gate (one for 21+, one for 16-20), but this is not possible at all venues.

This is a different question, but I want to ask this:

If you go to buy a bottle of booze (here in my state, it's at a state controlled liquor store) - should your license be swiped and recorded for purchase?

[enjolras]

What?

The comment makes perfect sense.

[Beantown Bronco]

This is a different question, but I want to ask this:

If you go to buy a bottle of booze (here in my state, it's at a state controlled liquor store) - should your license be swiped and recorded for purchase?

No.

This is the 2nd time I've seen a reference to "swiping" a license in this thread. Are there only certain places and/or states that do this? (I assume by swiping, you mean they go through a machine like a credit card would.) I've literally never seen this or even heard of it before now. I don't believe Massachusetts has any concept of this.

[alkemical]

Sooooooooooo you think the government was running security at this hippie rave?

Baltimore PD was the majority of security at the event. Unless I missed something, Baltimore PD is an extension of a local government.

[ZachKC]

...and the ruling in KY that they only need to "smell" something....

That is all it takes for probable cause to search a vehicle.

Why would the police be there in the first place would be my question? This isn't a proactive ruling it is based on reaction.

The police aren't going door to door to come in an eat your food and taze your butthole.

[alkemical]

No.

This is the 2nd time I've seen a reference to "swiping" a license in this thread. Are there only certain places and/or states that do this? (I assume by swiping, you mean they go through a machine like a credit card would.) I've literally never seen this or even heard of it before now. I don't believe Massachusetts has any concept of this.

A few states south does.

[bowtown]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/indiana-high-court-rules-people-resist-illegal-entry-police-homes/

Indiana High Court Rules People Cannot Resist Illegal Entry by Police Into Homes



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13scotus.html


I don't really have a problem with the first one. It doesn't make it legal for an office to enter without a warrant, it just moves the fight from your doorstep to the courts. If you were illegally arrested on the street or illegally searched, the same rules would apply. It doesn't override the 4th Amendment.


I do have issues with the second.

[Beantown Bronco]

A few states south does.

Huh. Learn something every day. I'm not against swiping if all it does is verify the authenticity of a license and date of birth. Visual inspection is obviously an imperfect system. But if it stores and tracks info, activity and purchases? Hell no.

[bowtown]

That is all it takes for probable cause to search a vehicle.

Why would the police be there in the first place would be my question? This isn't a proactive ruling it is based on reaction.

The police aren't going door to door to come in an eat your food and taze your butthole.

Meh... I wouldn't put it past some of them.

[alkemical]

That is all it takes for probable cause to search a vehicle.

Why would the police be there in the first place would be my question? This isn't a proactive ruling it is based on reaction.

The police aren't going door to door to come in an eat your food and taze your butthole.


Why are you for/pro no privacy?

Also, with the increased militarization of the police, and the expansive increase in taser use, i'd beg to differ.

[ZachKC]

Huh. Learn something every day. I'm not against swiping if all it does is verify the authenticity of a license and date of birth. Visual inspection is obviously an imperfect system. But if it stores and tracks info, activity and purchases? Hell no.

I have seen it a few times. Mostly in efforts to curb underage drinking.

[alkemical]

I don't really have a problem with the first one. It doesn't make it legal for an office to enter without a warrant, it just moves the fight from your doorstep to the courts. If you were illegally arrested on the street or illegally searched, the same rules would apply. It doesn't override the 4th Amendment.


I do have issues with the second.

I find the increasing expansion of powers to be concerning.

[alkemical]

Huh. Learn something every day. I'm not against swiping if all it does is verify the authenticity of a license and date of birth. Visual inspection is obviously an imperfect system. But if it stores and tracks info, activity and purchases? Hell no.

I'm concerned, not only on a civil rights issue - but also on an issue of privacy.

We've seen how companies such at Sony can't secure data, and I know the IT staff in my state, and well....it wouldn't be that hard.

[Tombstone RJ]

So you're saying going through a scanner at an airport is giving "absolute power"?

Gonna have to disagree, but whatever

actually tsiguy96 is saying that our constitutional rights are being violated by these proceedures at the airport and I agree with him. However, until the people (en masse) of this country take action against these security proceedures, we are all gonna have to suffer. Unfortunately there are still people like you who bend over and then scream "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?!".

[ZachKC]

tsiguy threw it to the ground....

he's not part of your system!

HE'S AN ADULTTTTT

<object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/ovYI7ZF7gZYZDS7o7v4X7w"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/ovYI7ZF7gZYZDS7o7v4X7w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="288" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

[TheReverend]

Baltimore PD was the majority of security at the event. Unless I missed something, Baltimore PD is an extension of a local government.

Yup, you missed something.

"Ultraworld productions" put this "show" together. And from the website YOU cited earlier:

"We strive to make Starscape a fun and safe experience for everyone who comes, which does mean there are certain rules that everyone must abide by, mostly related to what is or is not allowed into the event.

All patrons entering the event will be subject to a thorough bag check and pat down for security at the gate. Anyone attempting to bring prohibited items into the event may be subject to anything from a simple disposal of the items before entry to a complete denial of entry. Anyone attempting to bring a weapon into the event will immediately be turned over to the Baltimore City Police, who work closely with us and our security team."

-------------------------

Your "problem" is with the production company.

[steeledude]

See bolded sentence frags.

That's the issue.

You're invoking quotes from revolutionary war heroes and founding fathers in times of true oppression over....

...A quick walk through a scanner at an airport?

Get ****ing real. You're literally complaining over nothing AND inventing problems (see bolded sections of your post). You guys are literally the college kids that have nothing serious (war, civil rights, etc) to protest over so they protest over some minor inconvenience in the schools policy and think they're MLK jr.

http://energizer2.com/pix/fun/jesus_gtfo.gif


I've said it before, and I'll say it again--this about far more than airports. Airports are a symptom of the larger problem. The depths of the patriot act should have every American outraged, but people don't say a thing. Why is that? Because they're too lazy to look at it and see what it entails, and on top of that, a huge majority of it is classified so we can't see it. Concerning our rights, and we can't see a majority of what they're allowed to do to violate those rights.

We know warrants and probable cause have been removed from your list of rights if they suspect you are a terrorist. This is a far greater problem than the sleeping populace seems to understand.

[ZachKC]

Why are you for/pro no privacy?

Also, with the increased militarization of the police, and the expansive increase in taser use, i'd beg to differ.

I reject your characterization.

[JJG]

I dont have a problem with airport security. I choose to fly and I know whats involved. The full body scan wouldn't bother me at all from a health stand point or personal privacy reasons.

Honestly being a TSA agent in charge of full body scans or the pat down would be an awful job. Look around next time you fly, would you really want to see them naked or frisk them?

Having said that, I think it's all a giant show. It has little, if any, impact on the actual safety of flying. It keeps honest people honest, and thats all. If someone really wants to do something, there are plenty of ways around it. and they will find out how

[TheReverend]

actually tsiguy96 is saying that our constitutional rights are being violated by these proceedures at the airport and I agree with him. However, until the people (en masse) of this country take action against these security proceedures, we are all gonna have to suffer. Unfortunately there are still people like you who bend over and then scream "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?!".

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSFeWa5V4awjQEtTYzyO3NugUppYmMH Ht94sWsWK877KZSMEQcew&t=1

Lol, you're ****ing ridiculous. I haven't seen overreactions this big since I can even remember.

...and it's also not unconstitutional, ftr:

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.

[ZachKC]

This thread is kind of tough to keep track of. Drama Queens keep getting actual information thrown in their face and they keep trying to jump to different issues or different versions of issues to change the goal posts.

This is fun.

[TheReverend]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--this about far more than airports. Airports are a symptom of the larger problem. The depths of the patriot act should have every American outraged, but people don't say a thing. Why is that? Because they're too lazy to look at it and see what it entails, and on top of that, a huge majority of it is classified so we can't see it. Concerning our rights, and we can't see a majority of what they're allowed to do to violate those rights.

We know warrants and probable cause have been removed from your list of rights if they suspect you are a terrorist. This is a far greater problem than the sleeping populace seems to understand.

So why aren't you complaining about something worth complaining about?

Instead, people are throwing **** fits over scanners in airports.

The funny thing is, I'm the only one in this thread that even asked if the woman in the OP was being truthful or not. Everyone else seemed to take the thread title and run with whatever their preconceived biases were.

So be it. You guys are cute.

[RhymesayersDU]

HEY GUYZ, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. FIGHT THE POWER.

[DomCasual]

This is the 9/11 process, as I see it:

9/11, and shortly after: "Holy crap! I can't believe this is happening. There were people jumping from the top of the WTC, for God's sake! We have to stop this! What could be next? Poisoning our water supplies? A suicide bomb at a concert/sporting event? A bomb at a mall? I never even considered how vulnerable we are!"

2-4 years post-9/11: "Man, I can't believe we haven't had any other incidents. Kudos to the intelligence community, for helping thwart further incidents. Screw the terrorists! America is tougher than you thought, you little bastards!"

5-8 years post-9/11: "Guantanamo? Waterboarding? This is making me feel a little uncomfortable. The Bush administration and the intelligence community have taken things a little too far. This all seems like an overreaction!"

Current: "9/11 was a fluke. We made a complete mountain out of a molehill. I can't believe they are worried about bad people taking bad things on airplanes. What about our rights as Americans? This extra half-hour I have to spend getting on a plane is ridiculously-inconvenient! RAPE! MOLESTATION! ARREST HER! I can't believe they killed bin Laden - he wasn't even armed! When did America give up on the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty?'"

Watch now as the pendulum swings back the other direction. Then, let's repeat the process, all over again.

[alkemical]

This thread is kind of tough to keep track of. Drama Queens keep getting actual information thrown in their face and they keep trying to jump to different issues or different versions of issues to change the goal posts.

This is fun.

I know you do.

[TheReverend]

This is the 9/11 process, as I see it:

9/11, and shortly after: "Holy crap! I can't believe this is happening. There were people jumping from the top of the WTC, for God's sake! We have to stop this! What could be next? Poisoning our water supplies? A suicide bomb at a concert/sporting event? A bomb at a mall? I never even considered how vulnerable we are!"

2-4 years post-9/11: "Man, I can't believe we haven't had any other incidents. Kudos to the intelligence community, for helping thwart further incidents. Screw the terrorists! America is tougher than you thought, you little bastards!"

5-8 years post-9/11: "Guantanamo? Waterboarding? This is making me feel a little uncomfortable. The Bush administration and the intelligence community have taken things a little too far. This all seems like an overreaction!"

Current: "9/11 was a fluke. We made a complete mountain out of a molehill. I can't believe they are worried about bad people taking bad things on airplanes. What about our rights as Americans? This extra half-hour I have to spend getting on a plane is ridiculously-inconvenient! RAPE! MOLESTATION! ARREST HER! I can't believe they killed bin Laden - he wasn't even armed! When did America give up on the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty?'"

Watch now as the pendulum swings back the other direction. Then, let's repeat the process, all over again.

The funny thing is it only takes that 30 mins at PEAK travel times and dates. Otherwise it literally costs you extra seconds.

People just want to feel like victims to rationalize

[steeledude]

So why aren't you complaining about something worth complaining about?

Instead, people are throwing **** fits over scanners in airports.

The funny thing is, I'm the only one in this thread that even asked if the woman in the OP was being truthful or not. Everyone else seemed to take the thread title and run with whatever their preconceived biases were.

So be it. You guys are cute.

Well ultimately that would be another thread. This is but a symptom of the patriot act, how they treat you in airports. There are plenty of other things we could talk about. But the issue here is about the airport security being too invasive and how no one is saying anything.

Let me say this, if a country grows oppressive, they key word is "grows". It doesn't just happen all at once. You lose little things here and there, and a few big things like searching your home without warrants, illegal wire tapping. But since most Americans think that will only happen to other races, since our country is growing increasingly xenophobic of other cultures, we allow these rights to happen. Because we're not islamic it will never happen to us, right? But these things continue to pile, and no one says a word. No one knows how to fight something like this.

I'll agree those people who say armed revolution is the answer are pushing it, but short of that what else is there? We as citizens are unequipped to fight this fight on legal grounds. You can even vote a President in who says he is against all of these things, and then he just continues to renew and add onto the patriot act. What recourse is there until the majority wakes up?

Edit: And it's not for us to decide if she was being truthful. It's for a court to decide her innocence or guilt.

And for added measure--I served in Guantanamo Bay in support of the Joint Task Force there. I saw how those people were treated, and I saw them released after years because of no evidence. But the assumption that water boarding was the worst we did is absolutely false. I was absolutely sickened by how some of my fellow soldiers inflicted pain on the prisoners and derived pleasure from it, and if you tried to blow the whistle on it the answer from up top would be: Are you terrorist sympathizer? Do you want to end up in a cell with them?

So you watch them tortured, put through terrible pain until one day someone says "hey, it's been three years, sorry about all that, you can go home." Then we're shocked when these guys turn up fighting us later.

[enjolras]

What about our rights as Americans?

That you would so flippantly trivialize that statement is deeply disturbing to me. We're talking about the fundamental idea of what it is to be an American here.

[alkemical]

Well ultimately that would be another thread. This is but a symptom of the patriot act, how they treat you in airports. There are plenty of other things we could talk about. But the issue here is about the airport security being too invasive and how no one is saying anything.

Let me say this, if a country grows oppressive, they key word is "grows". It doesn't just happen all at once. You lose little things here and there, and a few big things like searching your home without warrants, illegal wire tapping. But since most Americans think that will only happen to other races, since our country is growing increasingly xenophobic of other cultures, we allow these rights to happen. Because we're not islamic it will never happen to us, right? But these things continue to pile, and no one says a word. No one knows how to fight something like this.

I'll agree those people who say armed revolution is the answer are pushing it, but short of that what else is there? We as citizens are unequipped to fight this fight on legal grounds. You can even vote a President in who says he is against all of these things, and then he just continues to renew and add onto the patriot act. What recourse is there until the majority wakes up?

Edit: And it's not for us to decide if she was being truthful. It's for a court to decide her innocence or guilt.

Yep, i don't believe in pitchforks and fire... but i do agree with being a little paranoid about their intentions. LOL, i mean - the gov't never repeals a tax... ;)

[sirhcyennek81]

You can even vote a President in who says he is against all of these things, and then he just continues to renew and add onto the patriot act. What recourse is there until the majority wakes up?


You are aware of this thing called congress, right? The ones who actually craft and pass legislation?

:Broncos:

[ZachKC]

I know you do.

That an awkward response that almost made sense.

Sort of like when someone says "I will see you tomorrow" and you respond "you too!"

[steeledude]

This is the 9/11 process, as I see it:

9/11, and shortly after: "Holy crap! I can't believe this is happening. There were people jumping from the top of the WTC, for God's sake! We have to stop this! What could be next? Poisoning our water supplies? A suicide bomb at a concert/sporting event? A bomb at a mall? I never even considered how vulnerable we are!"

2-4 years post-9/11: "Man, I can't believe we haven't had any other incidents. Kudos to the intelligence community, for helping thwart further incidents. Screw the terrorists! America is tougher than you thought, you little bastards!"

5-8 years post-9/11: "Guantanamo? Waterboarding? This is making me feel a little uncomfortable. The Bush administration and the intelligence community have taken things a little too far. This all seems like an overreaction!"

Current: "9/11 was a fluke. We made a complete mountain out of a molehill. I can't believe they are worried about bad people taking bad things on airplanes. What about our rights as Americans? This extra half-hour I have to spend getting on a plane is ridiculously-inconvenient! RAPE! MOLESTATION! ARREST HER! I can't believe they killed bin Laden - he wasn't even armed! When did America give up on the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty?'"

Watch now as the pendulum swings back the other direction. Then, let's repeat the process, all over again.

Bin Laden deserved to die. I haven't heard many argue against it. Maybe some of us were against the notion of celebrating the death in the streets. Obama handled that just right, in and out, dumped his body into the ocean.

[KO5K]

What's wrong with the scanners?

I don't think we have a choice over here in the UK and I've never heard anyone talk about risks associated with the scanners.

[ZachKC]

What's wrong with the scanners?

I don't think we have a choice over here in the UK and I've never heard anyone talk about risks associated with the scanners.

Google quotes of the US founders and post them here. Then...and only then will you understand.
:thumbsup:

[alkemical]

That an awkward response that almost made sense.

Sort of like when someone says "I will see you tomorrow" and you respond "you too!"

You side step more than a crab.

[steeledude]

You are aware of this thing called congress, right? The ones who actually craft and pass legislation?

:Broncos:

Yes, I understand how congress works. How it was a compromise between the northern and southern colonies who argued against whether states with larger populations should have more power in the congress than smaller states. So the congress was broken in two, the senate and the house, one to give all states equal voting measures, the other based on population.

That is not the point I am making. The President has the power to veto. And he won't.

[TheReverend]

Well ultimately that would be another thread. This is but a symptom of the patriot act, how they treat you in airports. There are plenty of other things we could talk about. But the issue here is about the airport security being too invasive and how no one is saying anything.

Let me say this, if a country grows oppressive, they key word is "grows". It doesn't just happen all at once. You lose little things here and there, and a few big things like searching your home without warrants, illegal wire tapping. But since most Americans think that will only happen to other races, since our country is growing increasingly xenophobic of other cultures, we allow these rights to happen. Because we're not islamic it will never happen to us, right? But these things continue to pile, and no one says a word. No one knows how to fight something like this.

I'll agree those people who say armed revolution is the answer are pushing it, but short of that what else is there? We as citizens are unequipped to fight this fight on legal grounds. You can even vote a President in who says he is against all of these things, and then he just continues to renew and add onto the patriot act. What recourse is there until the majority wakes up?

Edit: And it's not for us to decide if she was being truthful. It's for a court to decide her innocence or guilt.

And for added measure--I served in Guantanamo Bay in support of the Joint Task Force there. I saw how those people were treated, and I saw them released after years because of no evidence. But the assumption that water boarding was the worst we did is absolutely false. I was absolutely sickened by how some of my fellow soldiers inflicted pain on the prisoners and derived pleasure from it, and if you tried to blow the whistle on it the answer from up top would be: Are you terrorist sympathizer? Do you want to end up in a cell with them?

So you watch them tortured, put through terrible pain until one day someone says "hey, it's been three years, sorry about all that, you can go home." Then we're shocked when these guys turn up fighting us later.

I just want to highlight a discussion about airport scanners has now fully elevated to this...

Jesus Christ people...

[sirhcyennek81]

What's wrong with the scanners?


This I dont get either. A country with 200 million cellphones with cameras and alot of those people send pictures of themselves in various stages of undress are upset that a scanner will show some stranger their semi nude body.

Crazy.

:Broncos:

[ZachKC]

You side step more than a crab.

lol. I have been quite clear.

Stating exactly why I think the things you do and even offering up the laws on the books that show why things are the way they are.

Hell while you were posting movie quotes I even suggested the exact law that should be fought to change things in a way that lean towards your particular feelings on the issue.

You know people read these threads right? You can't just reject reality and insert your own.

[TheReverend]

What's wrong with the scanners?

I don't think we have a choice over here in the UK and I've never heard anyone talk about risks associated with the scanners.

Whats to be expected from the people imposing taxation without representation!?!

/psycho hippies ITT

[steeledude]

I just want to highlight a discussion about airport scanners has now fully elevated to this...

Jesus Christ people...

I want to highlight that you asked why people are so upset about scanners, and I elaborated, and you then realized you had no way to answer.

[DomCasual]

That you would so flippantly trivialize that statement is deeply disturbing to me. We're talking about the fundamental idea of what it is to be an American here.

What is more of a threat to my rights as an American?

1) 9/11, and the subsequent worry about all the horrible things terrorists would have liked to have done as a follow-up; or

2) having to go through an occasional metal detector, pat-down, etc to avoid 1)?

Every now and then, I watch YouTube videos of the live news coverage from 9/11 - just to remind myself of how scared and insecure I felt that day. I blame the terrorists for the fact that life in the US has changed a little. I don't see the inconveniences we experience now as any sort of a master government plot to take away our rights. I see it as simple cause and effect. If there is anything I expect from the federal government, it is that they protect our borders from our enemies. Within reason, I would rather they err on the side of caution, if it means we never have to go through that again.

[sirhcyennek81]

Yes, I understand how congress works. How it was a compromise between the northern and southern colonies who argued against whether states with larger populations should have more power in the congress than smaller states. So the congress was broken in two, the senate and the house, one to give all states equal voting measures, the other based on population.

That is not the point I am making. The President has the power to veto. And he won't.


Uhh...ok.

You made the assertion that the president alone adds or takes things out of the Patriot Act. He can't. That would violate the seperation of powers and usurp congress' role in government.

If you are that upset about it, vote for congressmen and senators who oppose the law and would actually have a hand in not passing it for renewal.

:Broncos:

[ZachKC]

And I am the one side stepping. lol

But the scanners and stuff!
Was given up and changed to...

But but police getting in your place without warrants!
Was given up and changed to...

But um...what about in the other state?
Was given up and changed to...

I don't know. What is next? What more do you guys have to bring up, concede, and change the subject to?

[TheReverend]

I want to highlight that you asked why people are so upset about scanners, and I elaborated, and you then realized you had no way to answer.

Okay, so I asked the question and the natural response was armed revolution...

:spit:

Gtfo

[alkemical]

lol. I have been quite clear.

Stating exactly why I think the things you do and even offering up the laws on the books that show why things are the way they are.

Hell while you were posting movie quotes I even suggested the exact law that should be fought to change things in a way that lean towards your particular feelings on the issue.

You know people read these threads right? You can't just reject reality and insert your own.

Oh, so you're just trolling.

Cool! See ya later ****tard.

[DomCasual]

Bin Laden deserved to die. I haven't heard many argue against it. Maybe some of us were against the notion of celebrating the death in the streets. Obama handled that just right, in and out, dumped his body into the ocean.

You missed some of the threads on here, right after his death.

[ZachKC]

Oh, so you're just trolling.

Cool! See ya later ****tard.

Tap out acknowledged.

[alkemical]

And I am the one side stepping. lol

But the scanners and stuff!
Was given up and changed to...

But but police getting in your place without warrants!
Was given up and changed to...

But um...what about in the other state?
Was given up and changed to...

I don't know. What is next? What more do you guys have to bring up, concede, and change the subject to?

It's about precedence as to the steps taken the remove/impede civil liberties. I'm sorry, i didn't realize that unreasonable invasions and abuses didn't count.

My bad.


Tap out acknowledged.

I acknowledge your tap out.

Have a good day Zach!

[Jetmeck]

I don't think they're going after people with knives... But the male/female with a bomb in their pants. If just 1 bomb gets by and blows up a plane what do you think will happen to the travel industry

Exactly, it's the world we live in. A few crazy zealots could still kill a bunch of innocent people with a bomb and so we all must indure these searches until there is a better way . I don't like it either but whats the alternative..........................

Don't fly if you can't deal with it cause I don't want to die so you wont be offended !

[alkemical]

You missed some of the threads on here, right after his death.

I was fine with him being assassinated. Some people have to die, it is what it is.

I just don't like some of the draconian bull****. I don't like "torture" or whatever the **** they call it these days. I don't like bull**** wars...OR just bull**** reasons for wars. Just be upfront, be honest and lay it out.

[alkemical]

Exactly, it's the world we live in. A few crazy zealots could still kill a bunch of innocent people with a bomb and so we all must indure these searches until there is a better way . I don't like it either but whats the alternative..........................

Don't fly if you can't deal with it cause I don't want to die so you wont be offended !

do you think these measures should be applied to:

All forms of mass transit: Trains, buses, etc?

Do you agree with roving/rolling DUI checkpoints? (i'm torn on this personally)

[RhymesayersDU]

Do you agree with roving/rolling DUI checkpoints? (i'm torn on this personally)

From an effectiveness standpoint, with the way people communicate (text, email, etc) with each other to avoid them, some police say DUI checkpoints are becoming obsolete.

[alkemical]

From an effectiveness standpoint, with the way people communicate (text, email, etc) with each other to avoid them, some police say DUI checkpoints are becoming obsolete.

In my state, they have "roaming/roving" - no longer "fixed" checkpoints:

In an effort to promote public safety and to help protect the motoring public from intoxicated drivers, the Pennsylvania State Police from Troop R, Dunmore will be conducting DUI Sobriety Checkpoints and DUI Roving Patrols this upcoming weekend on the roadways within Lackawanna County because they have been experiencing a high rate of DUI related offenss and DUI related crashes. To prevent and deter drinking and driving, the Pennsylvania State Police Sobriety Checkpoints and Roving Patrols will be conducted with a zero tolerance enforcement policy.


The "funny" part of it is - my state "sells the booze". Or their motto: "Buy more, but drink less"

[RhymesayersDU]

In my state, they have "roaming/roving" - no longer "fixed" checkpoints:




The "funny" part of it is - my state "sells the booze". Or their motto: "Buy more, but drink less"

What exactly is "roaming/roving?" Is that where they look out for people driving erratically, swerving, etc? The police here have said that tactic is more effective, but we're still doing the fixed checkpoints.

[DomCasual]

I was fine with him being assassinated. Some people have to die, it is what it is.

I just don't like some of the draconian bull****. I don't like "torture" or whatever the **** they call it these days. I don't like bull**** wars...OR just bull**** reasons for wars. Just be upfront, be honest and lay it out.

I don't disagree. But I do think there are a lot of moving parts with some of that. I have a lot of respect for Obama for what he did to get bin Laden. If something goes wrong, he looks like a complete fool. It took some serious guts to sign off on it.

It's stuff like that that completely turns me off with much of the political discussion in this country (which is why I generally avoid WRP, but I digress). When it came on the news that Osama was dead, I was with a bunch of my in-laws - all very conservative (I'm mostly conservative, too - but I like to think I am extremely open-minded). The FIRST THING that anyone says when the news report comes on is, "Oh great! Watch how Obama takes credit for this one!" I'm thinking, "Well, am I missing something? Doesn't he deserve at least some of the credit?"

On the other side, you have people on the left saying, "Well, we finally get someone smarter than a chimp in the White House, and we get bin Laden! What a surprise!"

It all seems so ridiculous and ignorant. Nothing in life is that simple. Apparently, people who look at each issue outside of a right or left-tainted vacuum are just not interesting enough to be on television or talk radio. The extremists get ratings, and stay on the air. As a result, our country is becoming more and more extreme - too stupid to understand that the extreme way is almost never the best way.

[steeledude]

Uhh...ok.

You made the assertion that the president alone adds or takes things out of the Patriot Act. He can't. That would violate the seperation of powers and usurp congress' role in government.

If you are that upset about it, vote for congressmen and senators who oppose the law and would actually have a hand in not passing it for renewal.

:Broncos:

Or vote for the dude who could veto the whole thing? Or vote for congress people who say they will help, then do nothing? Every prospective congressperson says they're against it. Then every one gets in the system and does nothing. Get real.

[steeledude]

Uhh...ok.

You made the assertion that the president alone adds or takes things out of the Patriot Act. He can't. That would violate the seperation of powers and usurp congress' role in government.

If you are that upset about it, vote for congressmen and senators who oppose the law and would actually have a hand in not passing it for renewal.

:Broncos:

And the assertion that I said the President could change it was to say he could get rid of the damn thing, you put your own words in there for me though, so thanks.

[steeledude]

Okay, so I asked the question and the natural response was armed revolution...

:spit:

Gtfo

Where did I say that was a good thing?

[alkemical]

What exactly is "roaming/roving?" Is that where they look out for people driving erratically, swerving, etc? The police here have said that tactic is more effective, but we're still doing the fixed checkpoints.

They have a X # of police in an area that basically have a loop they drive in "area x" - then if say an event, or something is letting out - they will setup check point at location X, but then shift the roaming around the alternate routes.

I'm torn on it personally - I don't like DD's on the road - but at the same time - i've been pulled over for "fitting the description".

[alkemical]

I don't disagree. But I do think there are a lot of moving parts with some of that. I have a lot of respect for Obama for what he did to get bin Laden. If something goes wrong, he looks like a complete fool. It took some serious guts to sign off on it.

It's stuff like that that completely turns me off with much of the political discussion in this country (which is why I generally avoid WRP, but I digress). When it came on the news that Osama was dead, I was with a bunch of my in-laws - all very conservative (I'm mostly conservative, too - but I like to think I am extremely open-minded). The FIRST THING that anyone says when the news report comes on is, "Oh great! Watch how Obama takes credit for this one!" I'm thinking, "Well, am I missing something? Doesn't he deserve at least some of the credit?"

On the other side, you have people on the left saying, "Well, we finally get someone smarter than a chimp in the White House, and we get bin Laden! What a surprise!"

It all seems so ridiculous and ignorant. Nothing in life is that simple. Apparently, people who look at each issue outside of a right or left-tainted vacuum are just not interesting enough to be on television or talk radio. The extremists get ratings, and stay on the air. As a result, our country is becoming more and more extreme - too stupid to understand that the extreme way is almost never the best way.


I love punk music, love it. There's a band called NOFX -

It's not the right time to be sober
Now the idiots have taken over
Spreading like a social cancer
Is there an answer?

MENSA membership exceeding
Tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson it's really elementary, the industrial revolution
Has a flipped a bitch on evolution
The benevolent and wise are being cornered, ostracized, what a bummer
The world keeps getting dumber
Insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason

Darwin's rolling over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing, and it's worsening
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
Now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, it's the rule
And I'm starting to feel a lot like Charlton Heston
Stranded on a primate planet
Apes and orangutans that ran to the ground
were generals and the armies that obey them
Followers following fables
Philosophies that enable them to rule without regard

There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred
Majority rule, don't work in mental institution
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions

What are we left with?
A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it's their duty to populate their homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity via simpleton culture

The idiots are taking over
The idiots are taking over
The idiots are taking over

Now, I find their "onesided" side of just the conservatives to be silly - but some of the context is pretty much dead on. (They do make fun of liberals too, and hipsters - in a punk song you only have so long to make a point). :)

I don't understand how the extremist mentality became the modality for everyday life here. I don't understand the either/or mentality.

I also don't understand how similar people are, yet how galvanized people are to not understanding they are saying/doing the same things.

[Tombstone RJ]

ah yes, the old DUI/DWI crap. This is another law/situation were a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Just another way for big government to "protect" us stupid citizens. Hey, I hate drunk drivers as much as the next guy but IMHO the reason PD's are sooooo eager to catch the drunk driver is because it's a freaking cash cow for the governement.

[alkemical]

ah yes, the old DUI/DWI crap. This is another law/situation were a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Just another way for big government to "protect" us stupid citizens. Hey, I hate drunk drivers as much as the next guy but IMHO the reason PD's are sooooo eager to catch the drunk driver is because it's a freaking cash cow for the governement.

Like I said, it's an issue i'm sort of torn on - but I don't really support at all.

I won't deny the cash cow comment. Here in my state, it's a racket. Do you guys have an Accelerated Release Program? basically a class you pay a few thousand for to say you learned and won't do it again?

[TailgateNut]

ah yes, the old DUI/DWI crap. This is another law/situation were a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Just another way for big government to "protect" us stupid citizens. Hey, I hate drunk drivers as much as the next guy but IMHO the reason PD's are sooooo eager to catch the drunk driver is because it's a freaking cash cow for the governement.

This has to rate as one of the dumbest comments I've read on the mane. How about they want to get the dumbasses from behind the wheel. I used to be one of those dumbasses, and am glad I never hurt anyone.

[alkemical]

This has to rate as one of the dumbest comments I've read on the mane. How about they want to get the dumbasses from behind the wheel. I used to be one of those dumbasses, and am glad I never hurt anyone.

See, for me I find it funny that my state, sells it, then "fights" it.

[tsiguy96]

ah yes, the old DUI/DWI crap. This is another law/situation were a citizen is guilty until proven innocent. Just another way for big government to "protect" us stupid citizens. Hey, I hate drunk drivers as much as the next guy but IMHO the reason PD's are sooooo eager to catch the drunk driver is because it's a freaking cash cow for the governement.

i agree to an extent. if you get pulled over for DUI, there needs to be no proof of DUI in order for them to atleast punish you. if you dont want to blow, thats almost considered proof that you refuse to give evidence against yourself, and you are essentially considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

[Tombstone RJ]

This has to rate as one of the dumbest comments I've read on the mane. How about they want to get the dumbasses from behind the wheel. I used to be one of those dumbasses, and am glad I never hurt anyone.

Here in Wyoming there are people who have had like 15 DUI's. Again, if the local governments really wanted to stop a person with 14 previous arrests from driving drunk again all they have to do is lock is ass away for like 10 years or so and permanently revoke his driver's license. Right?

Instead, the courts let the guy walk and now instead of the state dishing out money to feed this low-life in prison, they get to make a few more green backs off of him when they catch him again!!

Now most states are passing a law that if you blow a like .06 or .07 or something like that you are legally intoxicated. That means if I drink one beer with dinner I'm considered drunk and I can't drive. Really? Seriously? I'm that big of a threat?

I'm not buying it. IMHO it's about making $.

Hey, it's all about protecting the general public from drunk drivers right? Or is it?

[TheReverend]

Here in Wyoming there are people who have had like 15 DUI's. Again, if the local governments really wanted to stop a person with 14 previous arrests from driving drunk again all they have to do is lock is ass away for like 10 years or so and permanently revoke his driver's license. Right?

Instead, the courts let the guy walk and now instead of the state dishing out money to feed this low-life in prison, they get to make a few more green backs off of him when they catch him again!!

Now most states are passing a law that if you blow a like .06 or .07 or something like that you are legally intoxicated. That means if I drink one beer with dinner I'm considered drunk and I can't drive. Really? Seriously? I'm that big of a threat?

I'm not buying it. IMHO it's about making $.

Hey, it's all about protecting the general public from drunk drivers right? Or is it?

...Do you weigh 30 lbs?

[TheReverend]

Where did I say that was a good thing?

Doesn't matter... it simply has NOTHING to do with this conversation. Period.

[Tombstone RJ]

...Do you weigh 30 lbs?

just my balls :wiggle:

[TheReverend]

just my balls :wiggle:

I dont really see the concern... .06 is like 6+ drinks for a 200 lb male, I think. At that point, if you're giving the officer a reason to believe you're intoxicated by blatantly ignoring traffic laws after having a few or swerving around the road, then sure, someone deserves it just on account of being stupid imo.

[sirhcyennek81]

And the assertion that I said the President could change it was to say he could get rid of the damn thing, you put your own words in there for me though, so thanks.


You said the president should "add in, take out". So this means two things. The first is you have no understanding of how American government works; the second is that you dont actually have a fully formed opinion on the topic and prop up a weak argument with "the system sucks".

Lame.

If you feel the patriot act should not be renewed, either inform your current reps that they should not have voted for it, and in 2012 vote for people who will not renew it. You have to take their word for it that they mean it. If they dont...dont vote for them next time. Its simple, really.

:Broncos:

[Tombstone RJ]

I dont really see the concern... .06 is like 6+ drinks for a 200 lb male, I think. At that point, if you're giving the officer a reason to believe you're intoxicated by blatantly ignoring traffic laws after having a few or swerving around the road, then sure, someone deserves it just on account of being stupid imo.

Really? I think it's a whole lot less than that. I'm talking about eating a meal and drinking a 12oz beer all within 1 hour's time. I think a 200lbs male could blow a .06 but I may very well be wrong. In any case, I'm not taking a chance if I'm driving and yes I weigh about 2 bills, balls included.

[RhymesayersDU]

Really? I think it's a whole lot less than that. I'm talking about eating a meal and drinking a 12oz beer all within 1 hour's time. I think a 200lbs male could blow a .06 but I may very well be wrong. In any case, I'm not taking a chance if I'm driving and yes I weigh about 2 bills, balls included.

Yeah I'm with this; I'll preface it by saying I don't know how BAC works, etc, but I was always under the impression that even 1 beer could make you blow over the limit.

Maybe I'm under that impression due to scare tactics, who knows.

[TheReverend]

Really? I think it's a whole lot less than that. I'm talking about eating a meal and drinking a 12oz beer all within 1 hour's time. I think a 200lbs male could blow a .06 but I may very well be wrong. In any case, I'm not taking a chance if I'm driving and yes I weigh about 2 bills, balls included.

Yeah I'm with this; I'll preface it by saying I don't know how BAC works, etc, but I was always under the impression that even 1 beer could make you blow over the limit.

Maybe I'm under that impression due to scare tactics, who knows.

Good news! I just looked it up for both of you.

Maintaining your at dinner analogy, at 200 lbs, you would have to slam 3 beers and be pulled over all well within 40 minutes to even be on the threshhold of .06.

Also, dropping it to .06 makes the US still one of the most lax nations in the world as far as drinking and driving are concerned:

Zero tolerance - it is illegal to have any alcohol in your blood while driving in these countries

Since there is always some amount of alcohol even in non-drinkers' bodies, they have to have some legal guidelines for determining what behavior is illegal. Often that guideline is something like impairment in driving to any degree that can be shown to be probably caused by recent alcohol consumption.

Czech Republic
Slovakia
Romania (beyond 0.08% drivers will not only receive a fine and have their license suspended, the offense will also be added to their criminal records.)
Russia
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Brazil
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Hungary
Canada - new drivers undergoing graduated licensing in Ontario, Quebec, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; drivers under the age of 22 in Ontario[6]

0.02%

China
Estonia
Poland
Norway (road vehicles and sea vessel over 15 m)[7]
Netherlands (for drivers in their first five years after gaining a driving license[8])
Sweden
Puerto Rico (for drivers 18–20 years old)[9]

0.03%

India (note: In the State of Kerala, a policy of zero tolerance has developed.)[10]
Serbia
Japan[11]
Uruguay[12] (0.00% for truck/taxi/bus drivers)[13]

0.04%

Lithuania (0.02% for drivers in their first two years after gaining a driving license)
Canada: Saskatchewan - provincial offense

0.05%

Argentina (0.02% for motorbikes, 0.00% for truck/taxi/bus drivers)
Australia (0.00% for Australian Capital Territory learner, probationary & convicted DUI drivers (changed down from 0.02% on December 1, 2010), 0.02% for truck/bus/taxi, 0.00% for learner drivers, provisional/probationary drivers (regardless of age), truck and bus drivers, driving instructors and DUI drivers in all other states)
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada: British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick - provincial offence
Costa Rica[14]
Croatia
Denmark
Finland
France (0.025% for bus drivers)[15]
Germany (0.00% for learner drivers, all drivers 18-21 and newly licensed drivers of any age for first two years of licence; also, if the BAC exceeds 0.03%, driving is illegal if the driver is showing changes in behavior ("Relative Fahruntüchtigkeit"))
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland (0.02% for learner drivers and professional drivers) [16]
Israel (240μg/L of air. 50μg/L of air for drivers under 24 and professional drivers)
Italy
Latvia (0.02% for drivers in their first two years after gaining a driving license)
Luxembourg
Macedonia (0.00% for drivers in their first two years after gaining a driving license)
Netherlands (0.02% for drivers in their first five years after gaining a driving license)[8]
Peru
Portugal
Slovenia (0.00% for drivers in their first two years after gaining a drivers licence, drivers under 21 and common drivers, such as buses, trucks...)
South Africa
Spain (0.03% for drivers in their first two years after gaining a driving license and common carriers, such as buses, trucks...)
Switzerland
Thailand
Taiwan
Turkey

[Tombstone RJ]

Good news! I just looked it up for both of you.

Maintaining your at dinner analogy, at 200 lbs, you would have to slam 3 beers and be pulled over all well within 40 minutes to even be on the threshhold of .06.

Also, dropping it to .06 makes the US still one of the most lax nations in the world as far as drinking and driving are concerned:

fair enough, but also realize this: even if I drive fine and a cop has no reason to pull me over, I can still get a DUI and have to pay all the fines. If another person hits me (if someone else causes an accident I'm involved in) and the cop says he smells beer on my breath, he can arrest me for a DUI even if I've done nothing wrong.

If I drink 2 beers and still blow a .06 (because everyone is a little different) then I'm screwed. I didn't do anything wrong but legally I'm intoxicated so now the state gets me to dance like a clown and pay out my ass for something beyond of my control.

Anyhow, I think that the whole DUI thing is a sensitive issue. Sure, back in the day there were a bunch of drunk baffoons on the roads and yes, they killed a lot of people. Organizations like MADD got envolved and changed the laws and kudos to them for doing that. I just think some if it is overkill and a simple way for the municipalities to make money.

[TheReverend]

fair enough, but also realize this: even if I drive fine and a cop has no reason to pull me over, I can still get a DUI and have to pay all the fines. If another person hits me (if someone else causes an accident I'm involved in) and the cop says he smells beer on my breath, he can arrest me for a DUI even if I've done nothing wrong.

If I drink 2 beers and still blow a .06 (because everyone is a little different) then I'm screwed. I didn't do anything wrong but legally I'm intoxicated so now the state gets me to dance like a clown and pay out my ass for something beyond of my control.

Anyhow, I think that the whole DUI thing is a sensitive issue. Sure, back in the day there were a bunch of drunk baffoons on the roads and yes, they killed a lot of people. Organizations like MADD got envolved and changed the laws and kudos to them for doing that. I just think some if it is overkill and a simple way for the municipalities to make money.

...and as long as we're playing with unrealistic but possible fantasies, what if you get struck by lightning?

[steeledude]

You said the president should "add in, take out". So this means two things. The first is you have no understanding of how American government works; the second is that you dont actually have a fully formed opinion on the topic and prop up a weak argument with "the system sucks".

Lame.

If you feel the patriot act should not be renewed, either inform your current reps that they should not have voted for it, and in 2012 vote for people who will not renew it. You have to take their word for it that they mean it. If they dont...dont vote for them next time. Its simple, really.

:Broncos:

Nope, I said "renew, and add onto" which is a poor choice of words for you I guess. I should say "renew, and add to the problem" to be more clear in my message. I think we all completed the same 8th grade social studies class where we learned about checks and balances, how our government was broken into three, the president is the executive, the congress is legislative, and judiciary interprets law.

And the way our system has changed from the initial vision of the founders, your representatives don't do a thing for you. Do a little investigation into how bills get passed and how many congresspeople at one point or another said "I am against losing rights for Americans", but then go on to push that legislation through. And then look at all the Presidential candidates who say we can't give away for freedom for anything, that is what our country is built on, and look at how the last two Presidents then ignore those statements and stamp the new versions of the Patriot Act as it comes across their desks. Congress has become a useless function, and now it seems the ballless executive has as well.

[Los Broncos]

Wow, what a cry baby bitch.

[sirhcyennek81]

Nope, I said "renew, and add onto" which is a poor choice of words for you I guess. I should say "renew, and add to the problem" to be more clear in my message. I think we all completed the same 8th grade social studies class where we learned about checks and balances, how our government was broken into three, the president is the executive, the congress is legislative, and judiciary interprets law. .


I know I did. I am unsure about you.

A president cannot pass a bill. He can't change or add anything to a bill on his desk. He can't renew it by himself. You made it seem like he can. And again, if you dont like your reps change them when the time comes. You seem to have a hard time grasping this concept. If the new guys dont do what you want, go into politics yourself.

:Broncos:

[steeledude]

Doesn't matter... it simply has NOTHING to do with this conversation. Period.

Except that you guys are all like "quit whining on a message board and do something about it." So it has SOMETHING to do with it. I just pointed out there weren't any true options.