Found by What?

  1. deowll says:

    #20 Unreasonable search and seizure is unreasonable and for this to be reasonable the courts will have to conclude, based on sound evidence, that there is a real and pressing need to search everyone using any form of mass transit and remove any item that strikes the searchers as being a potential weapon which in practice is everything including implants and stomach contents.

    I say all forms of mass transit because other forms of mass transit such as trains have been targeted and yet the Department of homeland insecurity is pretending that only planes are potential targets.

    If this is your best answer, the only thing you are going to achieve is to completely stop all mass transit or do full body X-rays on everyone every time they get near mass transit and have them travel naked. Of course frequent users of mass transit would all die of cancer.

    The department of homeland security has not even begun to make an effort to sort out those people who actually may be a threat and need searching from those who are, as witness the insanity of giving a pilot a loaded gun then searching them for weapons or letting people who work with the planes through after casually swiping a card with no search at all. This is ludicrous behavior.

    They last I heard the TSA was putting everyone who had the same name as somebody on the suspected persons list through the wringer even if they were a three year old! They simply didn’t have any method in place of sorting things out any better than that in a timely manner.

    So, yes, the TSA is crapping all over the Constitution as well as engaging in wasteful, unproductive, and in absolute terms, insane behavior and if you can’t figure that one out without me explaining it I think you need a keeper.

  2. Rider says:

    It’s not unreasonable search and seizure. The right to fly is not guaranteed therefore enforcing restrictions on it is fine. You are free to not, you are free to leave and not go through security. No is forcing people to be searched.

  3. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    do-ill==while you are quite foolish, I will indulge you/me because, ….. because ……. well, because I obviously am quite foolish as well. Damn, I made reality my friend, and she gave me VD!

    So what you are now not expressly admitting is that the constitution does not say that you cannot be molested before using mass transit, and further you don’t expressly recognize such a determination can only be made by the courts, but then you affirmatively imagine your fetid ravings will be the position of the court?

    Ha, ha. Foolish indeed, just as Rider explains. Whew, thats a relief, not two fools arguing, but rather one fool failing to learn from two wise knowledge providers. Or should I say three?

    Kudo’s to ggore’s appreciation that the mass of people don’t care. I heard the same thing in the gulags in 1930. Seems the only thing the inhabitants complained about was the long line to get their daily ration of bread and cabbage soup. Being patted down was a matter of course. ((I joke. sarcasm/off.))

    Do-ill, when is the last time you accepted the notion you “might be” wrong?

  4. The_Tick says:

    @ #32 Thanx, I was aware that it wasn’t Huxley, (though to be honest I wasn’t aware it was Eliot). The Huxley comment had more to do with the thread itself and the net in general. We are so flooded with stories of gross injustices to the point where few see the need to fight for their rights, let alone actually going out and doing it. I once trusted that the gun nuts would keep the faith,,,, but their inaction to this point shows they are too girly to shoot at anything that shoots back so they watch their rights drift away with the rest of us, lib and rep alike. In my relatively short life I have watched the us become comfortable with torture, prison without charge legal council or basic human rights. Warrentless wire taps don’t raise an eyebrow and even when your media has obscenities thrown in their face, they refuse to report on anything other than the color change of the celeb of the week’s hair. So basically, who the authors were isn’t nearly as important to me as what they trying to warn us of.

  5. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    Tick Me Off==its self excusing BS such as yours that is causing the decline of the various rights you erstwhile protest.

    You actually “knew” it wasn’t Huxley, but said it anyway? Who else lies like that and claims it serves a higher purpose==all when the telling the truth is everybit as good?

    “This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.”
    by: I forget who, and don’t care to look it up.

    Great Ideas can be communicated without lying. Errors can be admitted to without bs’ing yourself. See, you only BS’ed yourself. None of us bought your shit.

  6. The_Tick says:

    Bobbo, your need to hear yourself talk once again makes you appear a true intelectual, (someone educated beyond their intelligence). Don’t know who said that, don’t care, because if you, like me took, the time to understand what the author was saying, you might have noticed that I said that I don’t worry about keeping track of who says it , instead concentrating on what they say. As evidenced by the fact that I have even agreed with you in the past….haha A different author once said an empty drum makes the most noise, now go ahead and prove them correct too.

  7. legendinmyownmind says:

    Point well made. So IMHO if searching everyone was considered reasonable, picking 1 out of 100 to search is most certainly not reasonable and therefore not constitutional.

  8. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    #39–Tick Me Off==ha, ha. My,My, how resistive you are to any self review. Its like Shakespeare said: “My god, its like throwing pearls before swine!” Keep that up and as Huxley said: “Its not going to turn out well for you.” But as Betrand Russell said: “Let’s parse what was just said.”

    You, Thor, God of Thunder said:

    1. Bobbo, your need to hear yourself talk /// I don’t even subvocalize when I read. As the Great Newscaster Ted Baxter once said: “What you talking bout Willis?”

    2. once again makes you appear a true intelectual, /// I’ve never worked at Intel.

    3. (someone educated beyond their intelligence). /// Is that the rub? You think correct attribution of words and ideas is intellectual? Ha, ha. No. Any honest person can do it. As Brett Harte said: “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.”

    4. Don’t know who said that, /// Fair enough given the volume of what has been said

    5. don’t care, /// Well, thats where you go too far. As Einstein said: “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance.”

    6 because if you, like me took, the time to understand what the author was saying, you might have noticed that I said that I don’t worry about keeping track of who says it , instead concentrating on what they say. /// Thats the whole point. Be Honest. If you don’t know, just say so. As my Great Aunt Putrid said: “Easy Peasy”

    7. As evidenced by the fact that I have even agreed with you in the past /// Just as you should now. As Bruce Lee said: “Learn little grasshopper”

    8. ….haha A different author once said an empty drum makes the most noise, now go ahead and prove them correct too. /// Easy Peasy. Re read this thread.

    Is there any greater false intellectualism/baneful pride than to make untrue statements and when corrected argue for the wrong outcome? As Kurt Vonnegut said: “No, I don’t think so.”

    But, to each his own.

  9. The_Tick says:

    And you’ve removed all doubt.

  10. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    Ha, ha. I love homemade eggnog.

    So, Tick Me Off==you are advocating that when you cite a quote, it is totally proper to attribute that quote to any name you conjure up?

    While I advocate that if you don’t actually remember, its better to simply not attribute the quote.

    Is that our relative positions or would you phrase it some other way?

  11. The_Tick says:

    I advocate that who said things doesn’t matter as much as what they say. If more quotes were anonymous less idiots would end up following flawed and dangerous dogmas and perhaps spend more time pondering good ideas. As far as credit, the agents of these authors takes every chance to whittle away at my rights through ridiculous laws so in a nut shell, fuck em. In my eyes, they have, like most corporations, declared war on my class. Your assessment of our relative positions fails only in that you assume I knew who the quote was by in the first place. To be honest I only skimmed brave new world because it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to grasp the broad strokes and in reality, wasting time on the subtleties is like beating your head against a wall in a world with so very many truths.

  12. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    Tick Me Off==good, NOW we are making progress.

    You said you “Knew” the quote DID NOT COME from Huxley. But Huxley is deservedly respected for warning against totalitarian soul sucking governmental systems, so you attribute the quote to him anyway in order to gain some of that luster? So you are right: you are appealing to idiots. But readers of Huxley, who know what he is respected for, know him pretty well. There really is no need to make yourself an idiot simply to appeal to idiots. So, why didn’t you make the quote anonymous? Thats what you recommend and indeed that is my position that you argue against.

    You know, Huxley DID say: “The pleasures of ignorance are as great, in their way, as the pleasures of knowledge.” /// The emphasis there certainly is on “in their way” for I could never take pleasure in lying to other people, even when I consider them to be idiots. Further, there is a special delight to be had in learning you are wrong about something. On that recognition, you become a wiser/more informed/more correct person.

    Is being accurate in what is communicated a good idea? Compared to telling known inaccuracies? Which is the better “idea” that you think anonymous attribution supports?

    What rights of yours where whittled upon by the agents of TS Eliot or Huxley? Do you think correcting an errant fact uttered by you is the action of law or the action of other people exercising the same FREEDOM of speech rights that you want to protect?

    What “class” do you consider your promotion of lying and misinformation to form?

    Wasting time on the Subtleties?? Ha, ha. Sounds like what a Firefighter from Fahrenheit 451 would say. But, returning to our reference: you appear to be a bit hyped up. More a Clockwork Orange adolescent rage against authority of any kind, rather than a soma depressed citizen of an over homogenized world.

    Not the worst then. All you need to do is direct that energy inwards.

    Fat chance?

  13. The_Tick says:

    I will not discuss this further, because as sigmund freud once cautioned, the abyss may gaze into me…..haha Tick out.

  14. bobbo, it takes two fools to have an argument says:

    No, Freud never said that. Close, but no cigar. But even with that, you move towards the light.

    Ha, ha.

  15. Maricopa says:

    #47 The_Tick
    When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.

    Friedrich Nietzsche >not< Sigmund Freud

  16. ben_franklinov says:

    In reply to:
    “Rider said, on December 27th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    It’s not unreasonable search and seizure. The right to fly is not guaranteed therefore enforcing restrictions on it is fine. You are free to not, you are free to leave and not go through security. No is forcing people to be searched.”

    You are literally NOT guaranteed the right to
    walk down the public street. So should the police be allowed to frisk you and detain you whenever they want? That’s WHY we have a Constitution and the only reason planes, trains, and automobiles are not specifically mentioned is because they didn’t exist. The right to travel freely and without molestation by public officials is implied. Our Founding Fathers would puke at your post.

  17. The_Tick says:

    Cigar indeed. haha

  18. nightstar says:

    Regarding anything written by bobbo Shakespeare said it best.

    “it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

  19. Animby says:

    #33 – #49, etc – You are correct, there is no guarantee to free travel in the Consitution but it WAS in the Articles of Confederation and the Supremes have said they believe it to be such a foolishly simple concept that the founders simply didn’t think it needed to be stated. However, since they (SCOTUS) have ruled it, it is true. Now, I maintain that the forefathers could not have conceived of JetBlue but. nevertheless, no matter the METHOD of travel, we as free citizens of the US of good ole A should not be restricted in our free movements. But that’s just me… and SCOTUS!

    1858 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.”‘

  20. Animby says:

    Re my previous post. Please disregard the 1858 – that was a footnote number. Saenz v Roe was 1999.

  21. bobbo, words have a meaning and a context says:

    Animby the scholor==well done. Nice to see a reference on point to a current SCOTUS opinion: the only way to understand the Constitution.

    Sad that such a fine feather display is irrelevant? The right to travel is not in question. At issue is the legality of having to submit to a search prior to accessing commercial air transport? And for that there are many many cases regarding “REASONABLE” search and seizure cases. Reasonable, as is reasonable, VARIES based on the amount of intrusion and the harm being addressed. I don’t even think reasonable men would differ on the reasonableness of inspecting people prior to them boarding a manned missle capable of killing thousands of people.

    Does anyone here think that people should be allowed to board aircraft without an appropriate search for weapons?

    So silly to confuse/conflate embrassment/discomfort with a “right” to be free from same.

    Silly Hoomans.

  22. Animby says:

    #54 – Bobbo – I was merely trying to correct the assertion agin a right to travel. As for the rest, one could make a case that TSA random searches, by definition, are unreasonable because there is no specific reason to suspect a random individual. Which is why the metal detectors would probably pass muster. EVERY passenger is required to pass through them. Xraying carry on bags? EVERY passenger must submit. But random? I think there is a case to be made they are not reasonable. However, it’s a mute point since the TSA fully intends for every passenger to pose nude. Possibly by the end of next year.

    “By the end of next year, 1,000 X-ray machines will be operational, accounting for roughly half of the nation’s 2,000 lanes of security checkpoints.” op cit #21

  23. Drake says:

    bobbo, telling shit from shinola said,

    Bhah….bhah…..munch munch…..

  24. nevergonnaflyagain says:

    In this great facist state we now live in, I’ll probably be marked and placed on a list somewhere. But, things like this, not matter how stupid they appear. They only show that the fucking terrorists have won this round.

    We give up our rights for a simalcrum of security. We allow thugs and brigands to run the place. WE end up dying the small deaths.

    Never will I fly. Never.


  25. Brian says:

    Not a fan of TSA but I flew out of ABIA to AMA on the 23rd and came back on 28th. The Line at ABIA took maybe 5 minutes. No Scanners, no pat downs to be seen. Got in a talk with the TSA guy they show first in video and he was a nice guy and we joked a bit about the current news.

    There was no line at all at AMA on return trip. Turns out an old friend is with TSA in AMA and we talked a bit. He is just as frustrated as we are with the current state of things. Not able to profile is his #1 complaint. He talked about the videos of the 911 guys they all train with and all of them stuck out like sore thumbs. “If we were able to profile we could not bother the regular flying public” was his comment. All that said he is a manager and not one of the HS dropouts on a power trip.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5526 access attempts in the last 7 days.