Oh, geez... Not RP again.. (rolling eyes here)..

I plan to just that.

Ron Paul is no longer a kook except to the Neocons like Steve and Bob.

As many know I support and work with a Irish dance school. The other night some Christian parents that teach religious education were talking about a program called "Safe Child". I asked what that was and they said it's a program that all people who deal with kids are suppose to go through. It's to teach adults how to behave with children. Under this program giving a child a hug is wrong. Showing any type of affection or love is also wrong. Apparently though, if you are a TSA agent groping children and their private parts is alright. No "safe Child" program with these guys. Over my dead body.

Stated differently, It is now clear to all that Ron Paul was never the kook the neocons claimed he was.

DITTOS!

yes, he is still just as much of a kook. he is also becoming a more skilled attention whore with the ability to cash in on a headline. nobody was getting spooled up enough about auditing the fed, but on this one he's got Drudge doing his PR for him every day.

kook or not, auditing the FED is a good idea, as is this one.

So are you saying you disagree with RP on this? The bottom-line is, kook or not, RP was ahead of most of the Rep Old Boys Club including the last Presidential candidate we fielded, on this. Way ahead. So whether you think he's nuts or not, some grudging kudos are possibly in order for being out ahead of the crowd. (Also called "leadership" as opposed to following along like a good partisan.) Also, one might want to re-evaluate their assessment of his kookiness if RP is right on this. I mean, he might be like, right on a few other things, like auditing the Fed? Or not?

No offense, just sayin'...

Also, wasn't one of the knocks on RP that he wasn't well enough known to be effective? That he had sound ideas but had such a bad presentation and was so unknown that his ideas could never get airplay? Isn't being an attention whore a good thing in this case? Or maybe not...

I think auditing the fed is a good idea. Blind hog/acorn.

Haven't looked at the TSA bill yet....but I fly all the time so I hate the whole system already, and nobody has even tried to feel me up yet.

Cole, you don't understand the dilemma that Steve is in especially on this one. If Steve admits RP is right on this one then Steve has to admit his stalwart conservative President George W. Bush really screwed the pooch with adding a Homeland Secuirty Department and a Transportation Secuirty Agency. Steve, being the good partisan Neocon that is, isn't about to admit that to himself or any one else for that matter.

No offense is intended here toward Steve and I'm sure Steve is a good guy but politically Steve is a part of the problem not part of the solution.

I should have said that it is now clear to all reasonable people that he has never been the kook the neocons claimed he was.

It pays to be ugly, eh?

Just heard that a California DA (elect) is planning to station deputies at the airport ready to arrest TSA agents should they touch someone's crotch, breasts, or buttocks. If the touch is outside the pants, they will be charged with a misdemeanor. If inside the pants, they will be charged with a felony.

Does this bill have a number yet?

I don't know.

Do we need another law to protect a right already granted in the Constitution?

They're ignoring the Constitution. They seem to take statutory laws more seriously. It's basically a law requiring them to follow the Constitution in this instance.

Apparently, yes.

cause the congress critters will just get it wrong.
We got the scanners to begin with 'cause Chertoff saw a buck to be made. Chertoff is just another crook

Of course, the scanners had nothing to do with terrorism but everybody bought into it, well not everybody.

Oh goody, some more gov't jobs. Deputies to watch TSA agents.

the constitution really doesn't have much application to air travel.....you decide to fly commercial, you've already waived your fourth amendment right not to be searched without a warrant.

it's more an issue of reasonableness or not, and how intrusive the goons are allowed to be. of course, if you don't refuse the scanner, you don't get felt up. and if you don't fly commercial, you never have to even see a TSA guy.

TSA's regs are written by Big Sis and a bunch of bureaucrats, but they can be ordered by Congress to rewrite them, which is what I assume RP's bill attempts to do.

Steve, when did we buy into the notion that driving, flying, etc. is a privilege and not a right?
The airline and I are conducting a business transaction. The airline has a vested interest in their planes not falling out of the sky. The airline therefore has the right to put whatever stipulations I might accept into that agreement. Should those demands get too stringent, I can choose another carrier, or another mode of transportation.
But now the government has gotten themselves between me and the carrier, in our transaction. Now I have no say as to the terms of the transaction, so the government can impose whatever restrictions it likes, and I have no option but another form of transportation.
The way i see it, I should have a right to engage in any of these activities, as i see fit, without loss of basic rights, until there is a compelling and legal reason to forbid me from doing so.
Where did I go wrong?

The FAA and the TSA can condition those commercial carriers' rights to serve US airports upon their compliance with whatever security scheme is adopted by those agencies, promulgating regulations pursuant to congressional statutory authority. They don't comply, they don't fly from a US airport.

That's the situation we have now. There is no constiutional right to fly with contraband, and the regs can define what that is. Heck, it includes a bottle of water, or a shampoo bottle that holds more than 8 ounces(suspicious I suppose because ragheads don't usually use real shampoo so it's probably a bomb or something, i guess). so you got the laundry list from box cutters to Glocks to Sentex.

the agencies can then mandate reasonable procedures to find and interdict that contraband. the new full body scanners are one method, although not widely used yet, but I've been through plenty of them with no ill effects, nor do I care if some TSA dweep is getting a picture of me that looks like I'm in that Tron movie. Nobody has ever....ever....tried a pat down search. nor have I seen any.....just the wanding on limbs of people who set off the detector the first time.

the law is pretty well settled that the gov't can take whatever reasonable measurs it requires to interdict contraband, and the new regs are a bit more aggressive, or at least the agents seem to be more aggressive.

anybody with delicate sensibilities should have sworn off commercial flying about the time Panam first class went our of business, because it's all been more or less a death march since then.

You left your fourth amedment rights at the terminal door, so don't go looking there for help. commercial pressure on the carriers so that they lean on the FAA and the TSA to cut the new intrusive procedures out may help.

the real solution is to stop scanning everybody, profile the obvious and give them a really good going over, and run the rest of us through the exprss/no groping line.

The FISA court is bustling to overflowing looking a foreign nationals in bound and out bound, and at US citizens once they leave the US. There is a whole lot of stuff in the [bleep] headed out way, and these high profile irritations are a step to minimize or disrupt plots thought to be near operational.

bottom line for now.....if you fly in one of the few airports with full body scanners....is to take it like a man, or get a pat down, the thoroughness of which might be determined by the sexual orientation of the TSA operative doing the hands on.

In the last two weeks I've flown out of Hartford, Orlando, New Orleans, and Houston twice. Never saw any hassles....some had the new scanner, some didnt, and nobody seemed to give a phlying phyck one way or the other. Bidness travelers are thinking about where they are going and what they need to do and don't pay a lot of attention to TSA drama.

I am a business traveler and am concerned about the radiation from the body scanners as I may fly 8 weeks in a row.

Deputies are under county sheriffs. County sheriffs are subject to regular elections. When was the last time you cast your vote for your local TSA chief? It's called the American way.

You didn't. You said it 100% correct, except since you were speaking American, SteveNo cannot understand you. Try retyping it in neocon newspeak.

Laffin...it's a right if you pay the freight and abide by their schedules and rules,I guess.

When you get a chance from your obviously long and intensive teaching day, point out to me where in ...well anything....where you have a right to travel on private airlines.

The groping pat downs are designed to make people prefer the scanners.
They gotta get more of them in use, Chertoff needs the money

+1

That's what politics is all about my man--get the message out--speak out--use the information super highway--the internet has become a powerful tool to deliver info that the Establishment won't.....AND the internet has become a powerful tool for politicians to raise money via donations from average folks, rather than having to prostitute themselves to the large donors....

Besides, RP was a Tea Partier LONG before the Tea Party came to be.

And...contrary to your suggestions, RP has never struck me as having the kind of ego that needs to be fed via public attention. He believes, and he is willing to stand up and say what the establishment politicians don't want to say.

Yeah, yeah, I know...don't say it--RP and the Tea Partiers are the biggest threat to the establishment politicians out there--OF COURSE the status quo doesn't like RP........



Casey

Which explains why Steve's trying his best to bad mouth the man.

He believes, and he is willing to stand up and say what the establishment politicians don't want to say.
===========================

So do teenagers who haven't a clue.

Boy, you're providing me with all kinds of ammo this morning.....

The GOVERNMENT is dictating these "rules"--not private carriers. It's one thing if a private enterprise wants to require its own rules, quite another when government overreaches (by a mile).




If I, and all Americans, could excercise our Constitutional rights and carry a firearm, we would never see a TSA guy either........but...that would reduce the size of government, and we can't have that........




Patriot Act, TSA, and now you're seeing the consequences.

The Liberty Boys tried to explain this to you years ago--but you would have none of it......probably because the Red Team are the ones who created it and opened the door(s).



Casey

So do those who are attempting to preserve the status quo--and kind've like teenagers, the status quoists only believe in the moment and fool themselves into believing there are no consequences........


Casey

So do those who are attempting to preserve the status quo
==================

You're about as status quo as they come.Do nothing but whine and moan folks such as yourself epitomize status quoists.You haven't even figured that out yet,have you? It's part of your idolatry of RP and others like him. Notrhing is ever enough,even compromise, so you fellate mediocre dreamers who talk the fight but haven't a clue,the skills or even one other co-sponsor to undo 30 years of worthlessness in political office.

The statues around Washington have accomplished more than your man with only a plan....and kooky ones at that!

I'm not sure what you're arguing, Casey. You don't have a right to fly. You can buy a contract with a carrier, and fly if you follow their rules. They are and have been heavily regulated by the FAA for decades and by the TSA since its formation. All their contracts are subject to the rules and regulations under which they operate.

Those rules may be stupid, they may be ineffective, and they may be more security theater than real security....as I believe they are.

But it's sort of absurd to pretend that's not the law. Of course, you and professor Hawkeye can make up whatever you want, but those of us who live in the real world, both in courtrooms and airports, have to deal with what really exists.

I'm rather envious that guys like TRH,Casey and DD can immerse themselves in such a special place that reality has no significant hold of them. Those gents must frequently hear "check please" everytime they walk into their local breakfast diner!

I'm not sure what you're arguing, Casey.
==============

Be assured he isn't either!

What is kooky about trying to keep our public servants in line?

It was none other than the OLD singing cowboy , Tex Ritter, who was the first to come up with the idea of :

Issuing guns to those airline passengers who didn't bring their own .

Or

Make everybody fly naked .

Looks like option two is gonna win out .

FWIW ,I took my last flight on a commercial airline in 2007.

And I'm positioned to be able to stick to that statement .

Thank God .

Hmmm.....think I'll try to get a job as a 'groper'.....and possibly Dolly Parton will walk up for a flight!!

+1

Remember, Steve is a lawyer and a third tier member of the ruling class. He favors big government/big brother as it means more business for him. The Constitution be damn, it only gets in the way of making money unless he can use the Constitution to make even more money.

So far, with little under a half a day going by, you're ahead of your bff hawkie in the frazzled brains department. Keep strong as you know how much he likes going to bed having won the day on stupid.

I don't make the reality, Dude. Just report it for those of us who don't live in private fantasy worlds.

as usual, you self-designated Liberty Guys use the word "Constitutional" to mean "something I like" and "unconstitutional" to mean "something I don't like", with no clue what you're talking about in terms of real world statutory or Constitutional analysis.

Guys remember, Bob and Steve are lawyers and are members of the third tier ruling class. They both favor big government/big brother as long as the old establishment ruling class of the Republican Party are running things.

Once you understand them you can put them on ignore like I do because you know what they are going to say with even knowing. I will concede that occasional I'll look at a post from Steve when he post a news article of interest. Bob, on the other hand, only post insults about how dumb everybody in the room is, except him, when in fact the real dummy in the room is him. Bob knows little, if anything, about American history, American political history, or American politics. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion but of historical and political ignorance.

yeah, dude, I'm sure you aced your Con Law courses.....oh, wait....you never took any. but surely you did well in your Common Law history class....oh, wait, you never studied that either. But then there was federal procedure....oops, didn't ever study that, either, did you? And I guess it's the same story for Federal Regulation, right?


so when you start spouting off about American constitutional history and law and federal statutes, I will give it exactly the same level of credence vs. somebody who actually studied it, practices law, and has to take CLE courses every year as you would give to somebody who looked up some symptoms on WEB MD. com versus a real doctor.

holy chit the campfire, you learn something new everday!

i had NO idea Bob was dumb, just thought he was a little weak on football prognostication


who knew?

====================

When you can put together 3-5 sentences without making more than 3 errors then maybe I'll pay a scant bit of attention to your "I've done it all and I know things" bravado. With you, I can see the wheel moving but the mouse is dead.

Sure got the big Republican government, status quo supporters worked up this morning........and heck, I wasn't even trying hard........




Casey

You've really got the knack.

Steve, thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
You of course see the law as it is, and has been interpreted, rather than as I, or anyone else, who sees it as we want to.
I do not personally see the right to travel, or drive as a privilege, but it has been adjudicated so. Therefore that is the reality. Until such time as some rulings are changed, I guess a new law clarifying the interpretations now on the books will be necessary.
Again, thanks for the reply.

thanks....I don't know what the sage of the front range is babbling about as far as the status quo....I don't think anybody supports this latest security theater from TSA. But if you don't approach it from the reality of existing law, you're just sort of acting out your frustration rather than acting like an adult trying to change an offensive policy.

unconstitutional is not simply a synonym for "I don't like it", which is the way Casey is fond of using it.

the thing lurking behind all this is, of course, the need to do what the libs call profiling, which I call looking for terrorists where they are likely to be rather than frisking nuns and children.

What you are failing to mention is, the actions/legislation you supported--and defended--under the Bush administration simply opened the door to the latest groping fiasco by the TSA.

We tried to tell you so, but I realize you're gonna dodge that reality.

And "constitutional" to you is what is partisanally convenient at the moment--at least I'm a bit more consistent and straightforward in my interpretation

And I don't disagree with you about profiling......


Casey

the Patriot Act, which neither inconvenienced nor even affected US citizens, has zip to do with the TSA or this most recent agency rule.


it's just another one of your rallying cries....like "neo-con" and "unconstitutional".....


tell me again, Casey, how did the PA affect life in the enclave? I forget.

For starters, creating arbitrary power of arrest, detention, and torture, has (to say the very least) a chilling effect on the exercise of one's rights.