Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, Feb. 27, 2005 | Dennis Roddy

Posted on 02/27/2005 7:13:06 AM PST by TheBlackFeather

He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID

SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghpostgazette.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dramaqueens; govwatch; homelandsecurity; johngilmore; libertarians; nationalid; patriotact; privacy; tsa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 481-494 next last
To: yer gonna put yer eye out

I'm well aware that it is PC BS that causes these grannies to be searched. I'm saying that it is a waste of time and resources to do it while the known terrorists 'types' are walking on board without getting searched.

Everybody is still not being searched including the ones most likely to be the problem.


301 posted on 02/27/2005 11:42:39 AM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Mark

"The bigger more troubling question is if we need a system of internal passports. If so the debate and the regulations should be public."

Good question.

Is this an apt analogy?
The police dept has a mandate to keep the public safe. A serial killer has committed several murders.

The police chief issues an order to not speak publically about who is under investigation. He further issues and order to withold evidence about the crime. (Read, undisclosed regulations.)

Does the public have a right or even a need to know about these orders? Do we need to know who they're investigating?

What if the killer works for an airlines and the police are working with the FAA and airlines. Does the public have a right to know that they are trying to identify an employee they think might be a serial killer?

Should the police dept be required to disclose to the serial killer that they're looking at him?

We live in a time when a cab company or a pizza place may not come to a residence if they can't make an ID such as that afforded by caller ID.. No law, no disclosure ......just doing business and protecting workers. ;-)


302 posted on 02/27/2005 11:43:23 AM PST by Smartaleck (Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Badray
Well now...that does it for me!
If Badray signs off on certain countries...it's a go!

I'll get this to Bush ASAP...
303 posted on 02/27/2005 11:43:55 AM PST by yer gonna put yer eye out (Gettin' a PhD (Prettyhard on Democrats) at FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: All

Bought this little framed saying by T. Jefferson at Monticello:

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

from a letter to James Madison.

Would Jefferson be labeled a radical today?


304 posted on 02/27/2005 11:44:06 AM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
"The principle of challenge is equivalent."

The principle of challenge was based on race. I don't see that the airlines et al are discriminating and thus I don't see the equivalence.
305 posted on 02/27/2005 11:47:00 AM PST by Smartaleck (Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: no-s

"This would be a straw dog."

It comes down to this. Does the Fed. Gov't have the Constitutional authority to regulate airlines?


306 posted on 02/27/2005 11:51:02 AM PST by Smartaleck (Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: yer gonna put yer eye out

Show me the "OFF" switch in the Constitution.

I've looked and have not been able to find it. Maybe my copy is too old. It even mentions 'war', but doesn't say that the same rules still don't apply when we are at war (or using force).


307 posted on 02/27/2005 11:51:14 AM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Badray
Well you're mistaken again because everyone IS getting searched...
They ALL go through metal detectors...then some are hand wanded...and their carry on bags are xrayed and some are searched...
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the problem...the enormity of the task.
It's really easy for you and some of the others here to sit on your butts and shoot holes in other people's efforts.

I realize it takes little effort to criticize...and it's a lot harder to be positive and supportive...but try to understand what these screeners are up against.
308 posted on 02/27/2005 11:51:21 AM PST by yer gonna put yer eye out (Gettin' a PhD (Prettyhard on Democrats) at FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Badray
No off switch in the Constitution...never suggested there was or should be...but I think before you continue you should check post#204
309 posted on 02/27/2005 11:54:08 AM PST by yer gonna put yer eye out (Gettin' a PhD (Prettyhard on Democrats) at FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
Yes, the preamble. It sets up the reasoning for the subsequent articles enumerated in the Constitution.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

I don't think it a big leap in logic that the repelling of invasions is a common defense of the Republic? What do you think?
310 posted on 02/27/2005 12:01:38 PM PST by Smartaleck (Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck
... because the Feds do recognize and respect individual rights.

ROFLMAO

Do you REALLY believe that?

311 posted on 02/27/2005 12:02:25 PM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Badray

"respect individual rights."
"Do you REALLY believe that?"

I have direct personal knowledge even.

Of course I realize they're not perfect and we have the ACLU around to protect those rights. I'm sure you appreciate their efforts?


312 posted on 02/27/2005 12:06:52 PM PST by Smartaleck (Av "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level - then beat you with experience.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

This has nothing to do with militias. If it did, that would be different. And how is letting in people from enemy states repelling invasions?


313 posted on 02/27/2005 12:10:46 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: yer gonna put yer eye out
My concern is for EVERYONE on that particular flight and ALL other flights that ever happen.

Oh yes, and of course showing id, whether phony or not, will keep you and eveyone else safe from harm on the flight. A search would insure the person was not carrying anything dangerous. How would ID impact safety one way or another? It is the Government that is being stupid here in requiring ID. ID is easily faked and if you can't fake it you bribe officials to issue you one as was done in CA recently.

None of the laws and regs that have passed and are used to intimidate and harass travelers at airports today are necessary or accomplish anything, they simply deprive us, all of us, of our freedoms.

As a great man once said, if you give up your freedom in the name of safety you deserve the tyranny you will certainly end up with.

314 posted on 02/27/2005 12:10:57 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Yes, they were screaming at each other over taxes (and at a rate so incredibly low by today's standards), but until they tried to take the guns, they were still just shooting their mouths off at each other. The colonists knew that if the guns were taken, they would have nothing to back up their mouths and the taxation and regulation would get worse. And we'd still be drinking tea, or more likely, German beer and speaking German today.


315 posted on 02/27/2005 12:12:57 PM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I don't fly, and was mildly entertaining the thought of taking Amtrak. You now need current ID. I don't know about Greyhound.


316 posted on 02/27/2005 12:19:01 PM PST by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

I didn't think a "/s" tag would be necessary. I was attempting to create some cognitive dissonance in the person to whom I was responding.


317 posted on 02/27/2005 12:21:00 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: yer gonna put yer eye out

Quit being a jerk. You taken my comments out of context for your own purposes.

I was answering a specific question of another poster on a related topic.


318 posted on 02/27/2005 12:21:15 PM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck
Is this an apt analogy? ,p> No. Not even close.

Releasing the details of an investigation is totally different from a citizen being told what law he broke. Do want to be subject to arrest and not know the charges against you? Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

319 posted on 02/27/2005 12:24:55 PM PST by Badray (Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism ALWAYS generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: yer gonna put yer eye out

" To people like this life is all about their PERSONAL rights....forget everyone else's rights"

Our Republic is about PERSONAL rights not a socialistic, nanny-state, herd mentality. We as free Americans now have to prove to some bureaucrat that we're worthy to spend our hard earned money to engage in commerce with a private air carrier. We are being told what to do not asked, that tells me we are free no longer. What's worse, goverment at all levels seems intent on subjugating the citizenry. Why do we have ex-KGB and Stasi generals working ion OUR Homeland Security department? These are not the actions of a benevolent government.


320 posted on 02/27/2005 12:25:23 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 481-494 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson