and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
Not yet, anyway...
so you agree the current structure of the pat downs are not random...thanks...
honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
^excellent point.
It's not that I'd be supportive of the patdowns. I wouldn't, or at least not the "enhanced" variety by private business either-- unless of course, I'm getting felt up by hot chicks -- a solution, that technically only the private sector could offer in a society that values property rights! But all half-joking aside, if the TSA were to disappear tomorrow, I don't know for certain whether the airlines would abandon all current forms of "abusive" security, but I think most of them, given the level of dissatisfaction with the current procedures would find other ways of doing things-- but, ultimately it is a job for the airlines, and not the government, since it is illegal for good reason that the government cannot simply decide to search our persons for no good reason. Some might tout the fact that they offer the greatest security possible by checking every person thoroughly with enhanced pat-downs. Others might not. Some might use the scanners, others might not. Some might settle for metal detectors. Some might come up with different options for trusted frequent fliers that always gives them a pass-- maybe a customer card with biometric data on it? Maybe some would profile, something the government is prohibited from doing, and has NOT openly done since 9/11, but owners of private property and enterprise, should, in theory, be allowed to do. And by profile, I do not necessarily mean focus on a specific subset of people, although that is certainly possible, but rather leaving babies and grandma alone. Some airlines may be actually motivated by the fact that many people at present are NOT happy with the level of security, and use that motivation to create a method that far surpasses anything that has been discussed so far. The TSA mandates stifle any real creativity to make this system better and more efficient. The fact is, I'm not an airline professional, and neither is the government. None of the airlines want problems on their flights, terrorism or other-- why WOULDN'T they want to provide their passengers with a safe flight and compete to guarantee that their customers are afforded exactly that? To say that airline security would disappear without the TSA would be way off. Passengers value security, and as entities ultimately liable for the security of their passengers, the airlines are should be responsible, and will act accordingly, even if and only if their only motivation was simply to profit.
The libertarian position is always one that gets pigeonholed as disregarding the law, and mistrusting of government. I see it as having the highest respect for the highest law, the Constitution, which protects us from having government search us any way that they see fit.
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
Not yet, anyway...
so you agree the current structure of the pat downs are not random...thanks...
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
^excellent point.
It's not that I'd be supportive of the patdowns. I wouldn't, or at least not the "enhanced" variety by private business either-- unless of course, I'm getting felt up by hot chicks -- a solution, that technically only the private sector could offer in a society that values property rights! But all half-joking aside, if the TSA were to disappear tomorrow, I don't know for certain whether the airlines would abandon all current forms of "abusive" security, but I think most of them, given the level of dissatisfaction with the current procedures would find other ways of doing things-- but, ultimately it is a job for the airlines, and not the government, since it is illegal for good reason that the government cannot simply decide to search our persons for no good reason. Some might tout the fact that they offer the greatest security possible by checking every person thoroughly with enhanced pat-downs. Others might not. Some might use the scanners, others might not. Some might settle for metal detectors. Some might come up with different options for trusted frequent fliers that always gives them a pass-- maybe a customer card with biometric data on it? Maybe some would profile, something the government is prohibited from doing, and has NOT openly done since 9/11, but owners of private property and enterprise, should, in theory, be allowed to do. And by profile, I do not necessarily mean focus on a specific subset of people, although that is certainly possible, but rather leaving babies and grandma alone. Some airlines may be actually motivated by the fact that many people at present are NOT happy with the level of security, and use that motivation to create a method that far surpasses anything that has been discussed so far. The TSA mandates stifle any real creativity to make this system better and more efficient. The fact is, I'm not an airline professional, and neither is the government. None of the airlines want problems on their flights, terrorism or other-- why WOULDN'T they want to provide their passengers with a safe flight and compete to guarantee that their customers are afforded exactly that? To say that airline security would disappear without the TSA would be way off. Passengers value security, and as entities ultimately liable for the security of their passengers, the airlines are should be responsible, and will act accordingly, even if and only if their only motivation was simply to profit.
The libertarian position is always one that gets pigeonholed as disregarding the law, and mistrusting of government. I see it as having the highest respect for the highest law, the Constitution, which protects us from having government search us any way that they see fit.
I just have to say that your explanation here is pretty impressive. I like it.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
Right, and if we go there, why wouldn't we set up random TSA checkpoints along highways and randomly inspect car travelers? It's a slipperly slope once you start trading in your freedom in the name of security. Heck, why stop there? Let's expand the TSA to have major checkpoints that cover the walking populace in bigger metropolitan areas like New York City.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
Right, and if we go there, why wouldn't we set up random TSA checkpoints along highways and randomly inspect car travelers? It's a slipperly slope once you start trading in your freedom in the name of security. Heck, why stop there? Let's expand the TSA to have major checkpoints that cover the walking populace in bigger metropolitan areas like New York City.
The idiocy of TSA knows no bounds. Further proof of that (not that anyone should need further proof), is that TSA security now looks at people who complain about.......TSA security. Didn't the gestapo think it was a good idea to place people under observation if a person complained about them?
... and then accuse me of "hysterics."
If you want to have a reasonable conversation, fine. When you start comparing security searches at the airport to Nazi secret police, you have lost the argument before it's even begun.
His point was that "rules are rules" is a dumb argument, and cited some very dumb rules, ie "it isn't okay to be gay" to prove it.
I see.
Well while we're on the subject of "dumb arguments," then...
I don't always like to be delayed by a red light. But I know that the red light is just to keep intersections safe. I also am not fond of the "random" checks that cops do around the holidays to make sure there are no drunks on the road. But they're there to keep us safe.
Someone asked "what does a terrorist look like.
Well in the case of Timothy MacVeigh, he looked like your brother in law. In the case of Bruce Edwards Ivins, he looked like your Math teacher.
We have to have security checks because it's not just dark-skinned people who can be terrorists and I'd rather be inconvenienced a few minutes than worry that freak clutching her crucifix and praying two seats down is about to blow up the plane because Rand Freaking Paul got her panties in a bunch.
While yes... some say "it's not okay to be gay" I'm pretty sure that my being gay isn't' going to crash any planes.
honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
there isn't much I can add to the responses that vinny gave on the subject but I like to write very long posts so I will add to it.
first off, Don't be silly, I wouldn't be for anyone patting down aggressively. what you did is the same as calling someone pro-choice for abortion. But i am certainly more ok with private security doing it than I am in allowing a government agency the right. Private security can do it, because it would be in the contract with the fliee(?) that the flier is going to conduct security. The government should not be given this authority.
just as an aside, I believe only 16 airports took advantage of the SPP program. Meaning about 16 contract out the screening services, where as it is still authorized by the government and they are working as government proxy with implied government authority...I believe there are many more airports than 16 in the country
That isn't ok. I don't get it on the street before boarding a bus, or a train, or a subway...The TSA is just a gov't agency...so is the FBI and CIA...so is the Secret Service...so are the many many police forces around the country, so are the state police forces, so are the county sheriffs...
It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom. I am sad to see so many are okay with it.
I realize that people think this isn't a big deal, but allowing this government agency the ability to randomly check people can easily be extrapolated out to random searches by police officers. All of it is done in the name of safety, so why shouldn't they all be allowed? Explain to me the difference. And before you say it...you are right, it is a choice to fly, but it can also be my choice to walk or drive to a convenience store in a high crime area with a ski mask on...why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/random_screening_at_gates.shtm
and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas that look like people who have committed crimes in the past?... They are both government agencies that are there to protect are they not?
I do not think the TSA was created with evil intentions, but as has been said in other threads on these types of topics...50 - 75 years from now, other people will be in charge and the era of infringing on the 4th amendment, even as slightly as some thing it is, will be 50-75 years older. People then may be able to say..."boy our airports are secure...I wonder if we should use this tactic on random citizens because after all...it is just being done to keep America safe, so unless you are crazy and terrified of being caught you should have nothing to worry about."
death by a 1000 cuts comes to mind...Liberty is just as susceptible to it as anything else.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
there isn't much I can add to the responses that vinny gave on the subject but I like to write very long posts so I will add to it.
first off, Don't be silly, I wouldn't be for anyone patting down aggressively. what you did is the same as calling someone pro-choice for abortion. But i am certainly more ok with private security doing it than I am in allowing a government agency the right. Private security can do it, because it would be in the contract with the fliee(?) that the flier is going to conduct security. The government should not be given this authority.
just as an aside, I believe only 16 airports took advantage of the SPP program. Meaning about 16 contract out the screening services, where as it is still authorized by the government and they are working as government proxy with implied government authority...I believe there are many more airports than 16 in the country
That isn't ok. I don't get it on the street before boarding a bus, or a train, or a subway...The TSA is just a gov't agency...so is the FBI and CIA...so is the Secret Service...so are the many many police forces around the country, so are the state police forces, so are the county sheriffs...
It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom. I am sad to see so many are okay with it.
I realize that people think this isn't a big deal, but allowing this government agency the ability to randomly check people can easily be extrapolated out to random searches by police officers. All of it is done in the name of safety, so why shouldn't they all be allowed? Explain to me the difference. And before you say it...you are right, it is a choice to fly, but it can also be my choice to walk or drive to a convenience store in a high crime area with a ski mask on...why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/random_screening_at_gates.shtm
and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas that look like people who have committed crimes in the past?... They are both government agencies that are there to protect are they not?
I do not think the TSA was created with evil intentions, but as has been said in other threads on these types of topics...50 - 75 years from now, other people will be in charge and the era of infringing on the 4th amendment, even as slightly as some thing it is, will be 50-75 years older. People then may be able to say..."boy our airports are secure...I wonder if we should use this tactic on random citizens because after all...it is just being done to keep America safe, so unless you are crazy and terrified of being caught you should have nothing to worry about."
death by a 1000 cuts comes to mind...Liberty is just as susceptible to it as anything else.
this is so confusing to me: "It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom".,..I though liberty and freedom where synonymous.
again, I get your slippery slope argument...I'm not as fearful as you and others...and the notion that these pat downs are random is just wrong...they are specific to those who are boarding an airplane...
anyhoo...keep fighting the fight, but I won't be joining you...as I find the rhetoric and fear-talk (i.e., sexual assault) over the top...
there isn't much I can add to the responses that vinny gave on the subject but I like to write very long posts so I will add to it.
first off, Don't be silly, I wouldn't be for anyone patting down aggressively. what you did is the same as calling someone pro-choice for abortion. But i am certainly more ok with private security doing it than I am in allowing a government agency the right. Private security can do it, because it would be in the contract with the fliee(?) that the flier is going to conduct security. The government should not be given this authority.
just as an aside, I believe only 16 airports took advantage of the SPP program. Meaning about 16 contract out the screening services, where as it is still authorized by the government and they are working as government proxy with implied government authority...I believe there are many more airports than 16 in the country
That isn't ok. I don't get it on the street before boarding a bus, or a train, or a subway...The TSA is just a gov't agency...so is the FBI and CIA...so is the Secret Service...so are the many many police forces around the country, so are the state police forces, so are the county sheriffs...
It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom. I am sad to see so many are okay with it.
I realize that people think this isn't a big deal, but allowing this government agency the ability to randomly check people can easily be extrapolated out to random searches by police officers. All of it is done in the name of safety, so why shouldn't they all be allowed? Explain to me the difference. And before you say it...you are right, it is a choice to fly, but it can also be my choice to walk or drive to a convenience store in a high crime area with a ski mask on...why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/random_screening_at_gates.shtm
and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas that look like people who have committed crimes in the past?... They are both government agencies that are there to protect are they not?
I do not think the TSA was created with evil intentions, but as has been said in other threads on these types of topics...50 - 75 years from now, other people will be in charge and the era of infringing on the 4th amendment, even as slightly as some thing it is, will be 50-75 years older. People then may be able to say..."boy our airports are secure...I wonder if we should use this tactic on random citizens because after all...it is just being done to keep America safe, so unless you are crazy and terrified of being caught you should have nothing to worry about."
death by a 1000 cuts comes to mind...Liberty is just as susceptible to it as anything else.
this is so confusing to me: "It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom".,..I though liberty and freedom where synonymous.
again, I get your slippery slope argument...I'm not as fearful as you and others...and the notion that these pat downs are random is just wrong...they are specific to those who are boarding an airplane...
anyhoo...keep fighting the fight, but I won't be joining you...as I find the rhetoric and fear-talk (i.e., sexual assault) over the top...
sorry mistyped there, replace freedom with security.
that is fine, I know you find it over the top. Do they pat down every person? do they check every persons luggage at the gate? I understand you saying that they all happen at an airport, but it says in the story random security checks on luggage at the gate. So if they aren't searching through everyone's bag they are random. Again it is no different if you or I get stopped by a cop for having 4 teens in a car in a high crime area and have our bags, car and person checked for contraband. It isn't ok to do it without probable cause in any case.
You haven't really answered my question by the way,
why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas search them without probable cause?
So to summarize....private business = acceptable under the constitution because of the inherent contracts agreed upon in the purchase of a ticket. government agency = not acceptable due to infringement on 4th amendment.
It isn't an irrational fear, it is happening. We went from the patriot act, to NDAA in just a few short years...I am glad you aren't afraid, but I am for my children and their children...so really this is all about altruism
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sorry mistyped there, replace freedom with security.
that is fine, I know you find it over the top. Do they pat down every person? do they check every persons luggage at the gate? I understand you saying that they all happen at an airport, but it says in the story random security checks on luggage at the gate. So if they aren't searching through everyone's bag they are random. Again it is no different if you or I get stopped by a cop for having 4 teens in a car in a high crime area and have our bags, car and person checked for contraband. It isn't ok to do it without probable cause in any case.
You haven't really answered my question by the way,
why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas search them without probable cause?
So to summarize....private business = acceptable under the constitution because of the inherent contracts agreed upon in the purchase of a ticket. government agency = not acceptable due to infringement on 4th amendment.
It isn't an irrational fear, it is happening. We went from the patriot act, to NDAA in just a few short years...I am glad you aren't afraid, but I am for my children and their children...so really this is all about altruism
for the record, Mike, I really like you and your style...we don't always agree, but you you're always respectful...
anyhoo...in reference to this question: "why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas search them without probable cause?"
I would say "because everything in this world is not equal and the same...folks know going in that rules are now in place whereas one may be subjected to a search prior to boarding an airplane. personally, I hate flying, but have to from time to time. perhaps it's a feel better sort of thing, but I damn sure want to know that security measures are in place to hopefully prevent some crazy fuck from bringing a weapon in the plane I'm flying in. Are those security measures perfect, of course not, I know that because nothing is perfect. As for searching folks hanging out in high-crime areas...that, to me, is not equal and subjective. Stay vigilant and don't be such a scardy cat... "
for the record, Mike, I really like you and your style...we don't always agree, but you you're always respectful...
thanks! I certainly find you get a lot more responses with vinegar, but I am just to damn sweet for that.
Stay vigilant and don't be such a scardy cat... "
someone has to be...there is a jihadist under ever bed...and a dirty bomb in every ocean container!!!
until the people realize that everyone wants to attack us all the time and that we should all walk around dongs free...we will never be safe!
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
Not yet, anyway...
so you agree the current structure of the pat downs are not random...thanks...
since you don't even know if the TSA is conducting border patrol, I'll hold my fear in my back pocket...
Oh in Tennessee they say.
^excellent point.
It's not that I'd be supportive of the patdowns. I wouldn't, or at least not the "enhanced" variety by private business either-- unless of course, I'm getting felt up by hot chicks
The libertarian position is always one that gets pigeonholed as disregarding the law, and mistrusting of government. I see it as having the highest respect for the highest law, the Constitution, which protects us from having government search us any way that they see fit.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
I just have to say that your explanation here is pretty impressive. I like it.
Right, and if we go there, why wouldn't we set up random TSA checkpoints along highways and randomly inspect car travelers? It's a slipperly slope once you start trading in your freedom in the name of security. Heck, why stop there? Let's expand the TSA to have major checkpoints that cover the walking populace in bigger metropolitan areas like New York City.
Walking IS transportation.
Honey?
But sure, reasonable conversation works with me.
It was either "Honey," "Girlfriend" or "Miss Thing."
I gave you the most gender-neutral one.
This time. :twisted:
I see.
Well while we're on the subject of "dumb arguments," then...
I don't always like to be delayed by a red light. But I know that the red light is just to keep intersections safe. I also am not fond of the "random" checks that cops do around the holidays to make sure there are no drunks on the road. But they're there to keep us safe.
Someone asked "what does a terrorist look like.
Well in the case of Timothy MacVeigh, he looked like your brother in law. In the case of Bruce Edwards Ivins, he looked like your Math teacher.
We have to have security checks because it's not just dark-skinned people who can be terrorists and I'd rather be inconvenienced a few minutes than worry that freak clutching her crucifix and praying two seats down is about to blow up the plane because Rand Freaking Paul got her panties in a bunch.
While yes... some say "it's not okay to be gay" I'm pretty sure that my being gay isn't' going to crash any planes.
there isn't much I can add to the responses that vinny gave on the subject but I like to write very long posts so I will add to it.
first off, Don't be silly, I wouldn't be for anyone patting down aggressively. what you did is the same as calling someone pro-choice for abortion. But i am certainly more ok with private security doing it than I am in allowing a government agency the right. Private security can do it, because it would be in the contract with the fliee(?) that the flier is going to conduct security. The government should not be given this authority.
just as an aside, I believe only 16 airports took advantage of the SPP program. Meaning about 16 contract out the screening services, where as it is still authorized by the government and they are working as government proxy with implied government authority...I believe there are many more airports than 16 in the country
That isn't ok. I don't get it on the street before boarding a bus, or a train, or a subway...The TSA is just a gov't agency...so is the FBI and CIA...so is the Secret Service...so are the many many police forces around the country, so are the state police forces, so are the county sheriffs...
It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom. I am sad to see so many are okay with it.
I realize that people think this isn't a big deal, but allowing this government agency the ability to randomly check people can easily be extrapolated out to random searches by police officers. All of it is done in the name of safety, so why shouldn't they all be allowed? Explain to me the difference. And before you say it...you are right, it is a choice to fly, but it can also be my choice to walk or drive to a convenience store in a high crime area with a ski mask on...why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/random_screening_at_gates.shtm
and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas that look like people who have committed crimes in the past?... They are both government agencies that are there to protect are they not?
I do not think the TSA was created with evil intentions, but as has been said in other threads on these types of topics...50 - 75 years from now, other people will be in charge and the era of infringing on the 4th amendment, even as slightly as some thing it is, will be 50-75 years older. People then may be able to say..."boy our airports are secure...I wonder if we should use this tactic on random citizens because after all...it is just being done to keep America safe, so unless you are crazy and terrified of being caught you should have nothing to worry about."
death by a 1000 cuts comes to mind...Liberty is just as susceptible to it as anything else.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this is so confusing to me: "It isn't ok to give up liberty in the name of freedom".,..I though liberty and freedom where synonymous.
again, I get your slippery slope argument...I'm not as fearful as you and others...and the notion that these pat downs are random is just wrong...they are specific to those who are boarding an airplane...
anyhoo...keep fighting the fight, but I won't be joining you...as I find the rhetoric and fear-talk (i.e., sexual assault) over the top...
sorry mistyped there, replace freedom with security.
that is fine, I know you find it over the top. Do they pat down every person? do they check every persons luggage at the gate? I understand you saying that they all happen at an airport, but it says in the story random security checks on luggage at the gate. So if they aren't searching through everyone's bag they are random. Again it is no different if you or I get stopped by a cop for having 4 teens in a car in a high crime area and have our bags, car and person checked for contraband. It isn't ok to do it without probable cause in any case.
You haven't really answered my question by the way,
why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas search them without probable cause?
So to summarize....private business = acceptable under the constitution because of the inherent contracts agreed upon in the purchase of a ticket. government agency = not acceptable due to infringement on 4th amendment.
It isn't an irrational fear, it is happening. We went from the patriot act, to NDAA in just a few short years...I am glad you aren't afraid, but I am for my children and their children...so really this is all about altruism
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
for the record, Mike, I really like you and your style...we don't always agree, but you you're always respectful...
anyhoo...in reference to this question: "why is it OK to use "random" stops in the airport to search my personal effects and not for the Minneapolis police to "randomly" stop people in high crime areas search them without probable cause?"
I would say "because everything in this world is not equal and the same...folks know going in that rules are now in place whereas one may be subjected to a search prior to boarding an airplane. personally, I hate flying, but have to from time to time. perhaps it's a feel better sort of thing, but I damn sure want to know that security measures are in place to hopefully prevent some crazy fuck from bringing a weapon in the plane I'm flying in. Are those security measures perfect, of course not, I know that because nothing is perfect. As for searching folks hanging out in high-crime areas...that, to me, is not equal and subjective. Stay vigilant and don't be such a scardy cat...
thanks! I certainly find you get a lot more responses with vinegar, but I am just to damn sweet for that.
someone has to be...there is a jihadist under ever bed...and a dirty bomb in every ocean container!!!
until the people realize that everyone wants to attack us all the time and that we should all walk around dongs free...we will never be safe!
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan