My 2008 Tour experience great but...

Biss

doin'the-evolution wrote:

well in Canada the police can't search you unless they have reasonable grounds to... however, sometimes that gets a bit too lenient, as in, if the police were to find a dead body in your trunk the police would be in the wrong for having no reason to search your trunk in the first place, just that they happened to stumble upon it randomly...

but in your case i think it was a bit excessive. especially since it was probably obvious that you were tourists... again, i'm not ragging on police in general here... but just because someone has authority doesn't mean they have the right to be brutal assholes - if it really was how you described it I think its disgusting how the police acted.

typical power tripping authoritative macho-ism :rolleyes:
shame you came across that, we found that some of hte friendliest and most helpful people when we were lost were the police in NY... too bad you ran into the nasty ones!

You know what is the most funny thing?
That the one that was more nasty was a woman! She was really BAD!

Maybe she needs a boyfriend...

Heineken Helen

nimsu8 wrote:

yeah.. the fascism your relatives faced is similar to not being able to bring a cookie into a concert

True... the facists had nothing against cookies

Biss

Heineken Helen wrote:

True... the facists had nothing against cookies

I guess you must read the entire stories #1 & #2...

Heineken Helen

jimc3 wrote:

Oh I see, Americans aren't "free" anymore because they can't bring cookies (for ligitimate purposes or not) into private venues and they can't drive the wrong way down a one-way street?

so basically, anarchy is the only true freedom?

You fools. Freedom allows you to post whatever you want on this message board. In some other countries you would be jailed and possibly hung for the very things you are saying about the police and the government here.

Jim... have you read the board rules recently? You can't actually post whatever you want... and some of your posts here have actually broken board rules (e.g 'you fools', you can't say that)... so I'm afraid YOU could be banned for saying what you want here. Not quite the same as jail or being hanged... BUT, in a country (the US) where your government can spy on everything you do... where your neighbour could report you to the authorities for having arab looking guests... where racial discrimination is allowed, but only against arab/muslim looking people... well I just see your post about freedom as very very hypocritical. We don't have those laws yet so legally our government can't spy on us... but that's only a matter of time.

Heineken Helen

Biss wrote:

I guess you must read the entire stories #1 & #2...

I did. I guess you must learn sarcasm

Biss

Heineken Helen wrote:

I did. I guess you must learn sarcasm

Eheheh, sorry but I'm still in "heads-up" for attack like the one of Jimc3...sorry

You are completely right, for example, I'm working in telecommunication (I' m GSM/GPRS/UMTS spec. & SysAdm) and you know why US doesn't have the GSM standard? Because they didn't accept the voice algorithm of encryption...can you imagine why?!!? Ehehehe...

Heineken Helen

Biss wrote:

Eheheh, sorry but I'm still in "heads-up" for attack like the one of Jimc3...sorry

You are completely right, for example, I'm working in telecommunication (I' m GSM/GPRS/UMTS spec. & SysAdm) and you know why US doesn't have the GSM standard? Because they didn't accept the voice algorithm of encryption...can you imagine why?!!? Ehehehe...

You may as well have said that in Italian :eek: what the hell?

No probs.

U R A Crazy Breed

Biss wrote:

you know why US doesn't have the GSM standard? Because they didn't accept the voice algorithm of encryption...can you imagine why?!!? Ehehehe...

they want to make sure there is a back door for the NSA.

but with systems like ECHELON,no one has privacy in any country.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

Biss

Heineken Helen wrote:

You may as well have said that in Italian :eek: what the hell?

No probs.

It means: "We don't want you cellular phone standard because we are not able to listen you conversation very easily..."

So it's more understandable...

Heineken Helen

Biss wrote:

It means: "We don't want you cellular phone standard because we are not able to listen you conversation very easily..."

So it's more understandable...

Ahhhhhhhhhhh... I see :(

Thanks!

meistereder

jimc3 wrote:

look, son, you're just way out of your element here.

for the last time. the venue is a private company. they can do whatever they want WITHIN THE LAW. period. I've said that several times. it's illegal to not let people with blond hair. that's why they can't do that. the show is not "public". that is simply inaccurate.

"they can do whatever they want WITHIN THE LAW"

Just wanted to point out that this statement means nothing. Anyone can do whatever they want within the law. If you want to talk about whether the venue is subject to the constitution, the issue is whether there is any state action involved, which there probably is. If the state partially owns the land, leases it, subsidizes the venue, shares revenues, has an easement on the land, owns the parking lot, owns the street leading into the parking lot, maintains the parking lot, maintains the street leading to the lot, provides police for the events, provides fire control for the events, etc. (which is almost always the case in any large public venue like this), you have state action. At that point, you are subject to the 4th Amendment, and the entire Constitution. It's very rare to have an organization with any size that is completely private with no state influences, where they can ignore constitutional directives. Even things like private country clubs have at times been found to violate the constitution for discrimination, just because they get tax benefits. That's enough state action right there.

But you are getting caught up on sort of a tangent anyway, because as I said earlier, if there is a valid reason for the "discrimination" that outweighs the drawback for it, it is probably OK. Things like public health and public safety are always going to trounce the rules against discrimination. If the discrimination is necessary to protect the public, you are done. It is OK.

There is no end to this debate, but I see a lot of people claiming to be constitutional experts when they have no idea. Before you attack me, yes, I am a lawyer. Not a constitutional expert myself, but I know enough from my education to see that much of this argument is dwelling on a bunch of red herrings and loose knowledge of some concepts. Enough to have an informed debate, but not enough to hit most of the real constitutional issues.

U R A Crazy Breed

meistereder wrote:

"they can do whatever they want WITHIN THE LAW"

Just wanted to point out that this statement means nothing. Anyone can do whatever they want within the law. If you want to talk about whether the venue is subject to the constitution, the issue is whether there is any state action involved, which there probably is. If the state partially owns the land, leases it, subsidizes the venue, shares revenues, has an easement on the land, owns the parking lot, owns the street leading into the parking lot, maintains the parking lot, maintains the street leading to the lot, provides police for the events, provides fire control for the events, etc. (which is almost always the case in any large public venue like this), you have state action. At that point, you are subject to the 4th Amendment, and the entire Constitution. It's very rare to have an organization with any size that is completely private with no state influences, where they can ignore constitutional directives. Even things like private country clubs have at times been found to violate the constitution for discrimination, just because they get tax benefits. That's enough state action right there.

But you are getting caught up on sort of a tangent anyway, because as I said earlier, if there is a valid reason for the "discrimination" that outweighs the drawback for it, it is probably OK. Things like public health and public safety are always going to trounce the rules against discrimination. If the discrimination is necessary to protect the public, you are done. It is OK.

There is no end to this debate, but I see a lot of people claiming to be constitutional experts when they have no idea. Before you attack me, yes, I am a lawyer. Not a constitutional expert myself, but I know enough from my education to see that much of this argument is dwelling on a bunch of red herrings and loose knowledge of some concepts. Enough to have an informed debate, but not enough to hit most of the real constitutional issues.

constitution?what constitution? the fucking patriot act and the Military Commissions Act killed that "goddamn piece of paper" as Bush so eloquently called it.this is now a dictatorship with the illusion of freedom.

meistereder

Crazy Breed wrote:

constitution?what constitution? the fucking patriot act and the Military Commissions Act killed that "goddamn piece of paper" as Bush so eloquently called it.this is now a dictatorship with the illusion of freedom.

The constitution is strong enough to withstand 8 years of chaos. It's been through worse. I hear you though.

haffajappa

Biss wrote:

You know what is the most funny thing?
That the one that was more nasty was a woman! She was really BAD!

Maybe she needs a boyfriend...

actually i find it easy to believe that... i think that women in authority often go on power trips... i see it more often than not... i always find the meanest border guards etc the women... :rolleyes:

JaneNY

doin'the-evolution wrote:

actually i find it easy to believe that... i think that women in authority often go on power trips... i see it more often than not... i always find the meanest border guards etc the women... :rolleyes:

I would agree with this unfortunately. However I don't think it is to do with women on power trips. My interpretation is that it is women working in a job that is mostly men (police, or border guard), so maybe they feel like they need to be extra tough or they won't be taken seriously enough. (And that may be true)

haffajappa

JaneNY wrote:

I would agree with this unfortunately. However I don't think it is to do with women on power trips. My interpretation is that it is women working in a job that is mostly men (police, or border guard), so maybe they feel like they need to be extra tough or they won't be taken seriously enough. (And that may be true)

never thought of it that way... its a good theory though.

Urban Hiker

Sorry to hear about your bummer experience.

I'm hypoglycemic and my husband is diabetic. We haven't had any trouble with security, yet. In fact, in Hawaii, they ushered us through a different door. It didn't really seem to make a difference, but we were happy that they were at least sympathetic.

I'm convinced that MSG is the greatest concert venue in the world. I thought for sure I would have to ship my extra backpack home before attending the show there, but I asked three security guards about it. All three said it would be fine and it was.