Posted on 06/01/2008 1:37:57 PM PDT by big black dog
A police officer and the TSA are VERY different, as you know.
There you go changing the discussion yet again.
So now we’re back to the TSA who like the FAA (based on YOUR views) has an unconstitutional relationship with the airlines.
I believe the FAA was brought into the conversation by you.
And you have brought it up again.
What do you know about the TSA? I’ll gather not that much.
“I believe the FAA was brought into the conversation by you.
And you have brought it up again.
What do you know about the TSA? I’ll gather not that much.”
I brought up the FAA since YOU claimed that the TSA is the ONLY one with an “unconstitutional relationship” with the airlines which you have been proven wrong again.
And it’s obvious that you know very little as evidenced by your hysterical rants.
Only the ‘name caller’ in this conversation shows signs of hysteria. How can you defend tyranny? Bigger government is never an ally of freedom, and under this president the federal government has become a bloated expensive threat to our Constitutional rights and government. There was absolutely no constitutional or logical need for Bush to create the countless governmental agencies and public/private partnerships and corporations to be funded by the American citizen at a horrific expense, that he has done.
No son of liberty would ever ever defend what is happening in this country, and the change that has come to our government.
You whine about what President Bush has done but overlook the far more damaging effects of what the democrats have done over the past 50 years.
What Constitutional rights have been lost? Come on list ALL of them that have been lost, and spare me the alex jones BS while your at it.
And you're right about the “name caller” being hysterical since it is YOU who is labeling me as a “indoctrinated” tyrant because you can't defend your views.
Calling you a moron would be namecalling. Stating that your posts are hysterical or paranoid in nature is an observation. Since you couldn't defend the hypocrisy of your massah ron paul, you change the subject to the TSA violating privacy in public places.
When you refused to admit that airport terminals are indeed public places you change the subject to the TSA having an unconstitutional relationship with the airlines, when I called you out on that, you yet again change the subject to it being a matter of surveillance.
Then when you painted yourself into a corner because police officers conduct surveillance as part of their patrols, you change the subject back to the TSA.
Now you play the victim card.
What measure was introduced as such that Paul voted against? What was the House bill number?
Jobs go there or foreigners come here either way Americans lose jobs.
If they're losing jobs to foreigners on their own soil, that means Americans will get the incentive to work harder and keep those jobs. We have a nursing shortage right now, and there are thousands of highly-qualified Filipinos who can take those. Would you rather have them come over here or these jobs disappear?
Not all states have tough laws, and not when these freaks cross state lines.
Both the states and the feds have harsh pedophile and child porn laws. There is no need to duplicate processes or expand the bureaucracy.
You’ll care when you end up having to pay more for it than you do now.
If someone wants to shoot up and ruin their lives, that's their problem and not mine.
Funny but a vast majority of Americans say it is.
Vast majority, where? Only to the RINO bootlickers who actually haven't heard what Paul really said and took his remarks out of context like libs.
And you're putting posts in my mouth, like you just did now.
I have many relatives who have or still fighting in Iraq and Afgan. so you can sit on your ass and bash those who have the courage to fight the enemy.
I did no such thing.
Only the ‘name caller’ in this conversation shows signs of hysteria. How can you defend tyranny? Bigger government is never an ally of freedom, and under this president the federal government has become a bloated expensive threat to our Constitutional rights and government. There was absolutely no constitutional or logical need for Bush to create the countless governmental agencies and public/private partnerships and corporations to be funded by the American citizen at a horrific expense, that he has done.
No son of liberty would ever ever defend what is happening in this country, and the change that has come to our government.
65 posted on Monday, June 16, 2008 9:58:22 PM by hedgetrimmer" You mentioned President Bush in your above reply. And in your above reply you whine ONLY about what President Bush has done when you completely ignore known FACTS that democrats have done far more damage than what even President Bush has done. And in your earlier post you accused me of calling YOU names and now when I pointed out your own hypocrisy you go into full spin cycle claiming that it isn't name calling. Hi pot, meet kettle.
He’s come out and said that he’s against those measures.
Not all states have tough laws against pedophiles.
It is your problem when those people who shoot up then drives a car and kills your family. Or breaks into your house or car so they can pawn your belongings off for drug money.
It is your problem when your home, car and health insurance premiums go up because of the drug feinds.
There is a town in northern CA that has seen a 300% increase in crime since the legalization of marajuana under Prop 215.
RINO bootlickers? Oh you must be talking about yourself and your fellow ron paul supporters since your beloved false idol ron paul IS a RINO.
FYI the act of buying the ticket and checking in for the flight means that you give consent to be searched.
You don’t want to be searched at the airport, then don’t fly.
It’s that simple.
“In what earthly epoch, other than President Bush’s America, does the act of purchasing a ticket to go somewhere become a consent to be searched?”
It’s been that way since BEFORE President Bush became President.
People wishing to travel and paid their fares, were put in machines by United Airlines, that show them naked , to be examined by United Airlines employees, before Bush became president? Proof please.
THE SEARCHING HAS BEEN GOING ON BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.
BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE THEY WOULD LOOK IN YOUR BAGS.
BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE YOU HAD TO WALK THROUGH METAL DETECTORS.
BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE YOUR CARRY ONS WERE X-RAYED
BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE IF YOU SET OFF THE METAL DETECTOR, YOU GOT WANDED AND IF YOU STILL SET OFF THE WAND YOU GOT FRISKED.
GET IT THROUGH YOUR DERAINGED HEAD YET?
BETTER YET, GO ON OVER TO DAILYKOS OR DU WHERE YOU’LL FIT RIGHT IN WITH THE OTHERS SUFFERING FROM BDS.
THE TICKET IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.
FROM DELTA AIRLINES "CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE":
"RULE 35: REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
A.) Government Request or Regulations Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulations, directives, or instructions; or to comply with any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection with the national defense, or whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond its control (including but without limitation, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, or disturbances) actual, threatened, or reported.
B) Search of Passenger or Property When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items.
C) Proof of Identity When a passenger refuses on request to produce positive identification; provided, however, that Delta shall have no obligation to require positive identification of persons purchasing tickets and/or presenting tickets for the purpose of boarding aircraft.
D). Travel Across International Boundaries When a passenger is traveling across any international boundary if: 1) the travel documents of such passenger are not in order; or 2) such transportation would be unlawful
E) Failure to Comply with Delta’s Rules or Contract of Carriage
RULE 40: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Passengers and their baggage are subject to inspection with an electronic detector with or without the passenger's consent or knowledge.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN DON'T FLY!
END OF DISCUSSION.
after bush took office, the TSA was created as government ‘security guards’ to protect the property of commerical air carriers.
after bush took office, machines that literally see through clothing, aka strip searchers, are being put in airports to be conducted on people at ‘random’, not on based on profiling bad guys or any other reasonable suspicion.
after bush took office, airlines stopped being able to make their own decisions about who could fly on their planes, and the government took over, with the TSA.
after bush took office, innocent people are pulled out of the line to be searched at ‘random’ by the government through the TSA. this is a violation of constitution
if you accept all this, you accept tyranny.
What part of END OF DISCUSSION did you not understand?
I’ll say it S L O W L Y for you.....
E N D O F D I S C U S S I O N.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.