Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

[Dark Jedi]

its just a fancy term for high ranking officals. which sounds more dramatic the president was fired or the president was impeached.

same way with assassinate. the president was killed or the president was assassinated. just to give it more flare.

in the end fired or impeached. one thing for sure you musta f'ed up big time lol

 

[byteware]

As I mentioned, I can arrest you. Citizens arrest. That gives me certain powers. But with a CA, there are potential problems. No need to go there because it really does not matter and the laws in your area might differ.

You can absolutely perform a citizens arrest, but in this scenario... you will likely go to jail for doing so.

But it is academic. I would likely never need to resort to those measures. You leave when I ask you to leave and you will likely leave, case closed and problem solved.

True, but you should understand that in every state (that I am aware of) citizen's arrests can only be made for felonies, not for misdemeanor trespassing.

If the cops know you have a gun, you will be disarmed by the cops or asked to hand over the gun for their protection, period. Try this little one: call a cop and ask him what he does in a situation where there is an argument between people. Ask him if one has a gun, how he reacts and what he does.

I don't have to call a cop. I have unfortunately been on both sides of that situation, and no. Since I showed no signs of aggression before or after the cops got there, my sidearm was not taken. Period.

Cops have this little thing called discretion that they use.

If you carry a gun, the cops will ask for it. If it is concealed, you will be arrested in you do not have a concealed carry permit. If you do have a permit, and if you are not breaking any laws, your gun will be returned. The cops, will, however, relieve you of your weapon during the Q and A session.

This is far from cut and dry.

If I say leave, you go, Period. If the cops tell you to leave you leave or you are arrested, Period. If you leave and return, you will be arrested, Period.

If you say leave, I may or may not go... period... the rest is true.

So get over it sport, you do not know what you are talking about, Period. I have more protected rights as a homeowner than you do as a trespasser.

No one argued differently... "sport". Just correcting your views on what you can and can't do on your property.

its just a fancy term for high ranking officals. which sounds more dramatic the president was fired or the president was impeached.

same way with assassinate. the president was killed or the president was assassinated. just to give it more flare.

in the end fired or impeached. one thing for sure you musta f'ed up big time lol

Just a little correction (sorry, it's a sore point). Impeachment is when you charge and try the official/justice.

For example, we have impeached Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton, but neither were removed from office.

 

[Bob Maxey]

On the substantive difference between being fired and removal after impeachment:



The end result is the same.

However - in many private organizations, and government agencies, managers comment that it takes an Act of Congress to fire someone - because of liability fears, firing is not as common a practice as it possibly should be.

If your point was merely that a SCOTUS judge cannot be _easily_ removed - well, ok.


The rest is semantics, in my personal opinion.

Depending upon the agency, position or department, yes, it can be difficult to fire someone. But it can also be easy, too. There is a phrase I will paraphrase, "You serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States." This means that the president can fire some people. Not sure who can be fired, not an expert in that area.

If the person can be fired, then they are fired. And yes, these days, firing someone can be difficult for any number of reasons. This extends to teachers and many that work for private corporations because of fears of lawsuits that might have no merit.

Impeachment however, is different. There is a huge difference between being fired and being impeached. The removal of a SC judge is difficult to say the least.

You might find it interesting to look at how judges have voted on various issues. You might be quite surprised to learn just how bad some decisions these people have made. This is why it is vital that we look at those nominations because once they die is cast, it can be very bad for the country.

Consider Judge Sotomayor. She believes that the SC is a place to make policy, not to adjudicate cases. That is very bad.

By the way, the inherent difficulty in removing a judge is not just my point, it is the law.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

its just a fancy term for high ranking officals. which sounds more dramatic the president was fired or the president was impeached.

same way with assassinate. the president was killed or the president was assassinated. just to give it more flare.

in the end fired or impeached. one thing for sure you musta f'ed up big time lol

Well, about the only way to remove a president is by impeachment. And the word is in the Constitution, so it is used to describe removing a president or high ranking official from office.

As for the word Assassinate, the murder of a president does us all great harm. Perhaps more harm than if you were simply killed. So we need a big word to describe this most horrendous of crimes

Bob Maxey

 

[A.Nonymous]

The Indian ambassador to the US has sworn she will never return to this country after enduring an invasive pat down. She's apparently lodged a complaint with the US State Department as well.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The Indian ambassador to the US has sworn she will never return to this country after enduring an invasive pat down. She's apparently lodged a complaint with the US State Department as well.

Somehow, we will survive.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Somehow, we will survive.

So pissing off foreign diplomats with invasive patdowns is ok. Pissing off foreign diplomats with leaked, non-classified, memos is not?

 

[Bob Maxey]

So pissing off foreign diplomats with invasive patdowns is ok. Pissing off foreign diplomats with leaked, non-classified, memos is not?

Naw.... she will return. We have better curry.

Seems to me her entourage would have told her about the free massages, chest x-rays, and other perks of flying United before she arrived.

Perhaps she thought the rules would not apply to her.

Bob Maxey

 

[hakr100]

TSA turned me down for a holiday job, so I'm back at Victoria's Secret, helping the catalog models fit into their bras and panties.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Common sense would seem to indicate that a diplomat from one our allies would probably not hijack an airplane. Just saying. I heard that Steve Jobs nearly got tossed off a plane several months ago because he had throwing stars in his bag. It was a plane that Jobs chartered too. Apparently Jobs made the argument that since he had chartered the plane he could pretty much order it to go where ever he wanted it to go so he had no need to hijack it in the first place. TSA did not buy it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Common sense would seem to indicate that a diplomat from one our allies would probably not hijack an airplane. Just saying. I heard that Steve Jobs nearly got tossed off a plane several months ago because he had throwing stars in his bag. It was a plane that Jobs chartered too. Apparently Jobs made the argument that since he had chartered the plane he could pretty much order it to go where ever he wanted it to go so he had no need to hijack it in the first place. TSA did not buy it.

I have read where some private planes and charter aircraft must also comply with the TSA rules and regulations. That would explain why Jobs was bothered.

Bob Maxey

 

[Dark Jedi]

well even chartered aircraft and private aircraft can be and used as a weapon.

 

[A.Nonymous]

well even chartered aircraft and private aircraft can be and used as a weapon.

Let's be honest here. Does Steve Jobs seem like the type who would hijack his own chartered plane? You just don't see very many billionaires carrying out suicide attacks.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Personally, I think every airport should have these scanners and there should be no opting out of them. Or there should be a seperate airline for people who don't want to go through the scanners. This is going to sound awful, but YOU can get blown up on a plane... I'd personally rather not.

And the whole "it doesn't stop everything" arguement? Really? The metal detectors don't stop everything either. Or did we forget 9/11 already? Should we get rid of ALL airport security because it doesn't stop everything?

I don't understand why Americans think that if it isn't absolutely 100% perfect in every aspect it shouldn't exist.

As far as being invasive, I'd much rather someone who will never see me in person see a "naked" picture of my body than get on a plane with someone who refused to go through these scanners. No offence to all the people boycotting it but please stay off my planes. I like to fly Southwest... just saying.

Don't get me wrong, I COMPLETELY AGREE that the fact that these were leaked to the internet is unacceptable and something needs to be done about it. I feel very sorry for the people who's pictures are now floating around the internet because of it, however, I don't think this is a valid reason for decreasing the amount of security.

Oh, and cancer? Really?? Don't ever go out in the sun again, please. Only leave your house at night. Ladies don't wear bras because they give you cancer. Don't use any soap or lotion. And please don't tell me the people that mentioned the cancer arguement smoke. I could spend an hour posting all the things you use every day that can give you cancer, but let's be realistic.

 

[EarlyMon]

I think the bigger issue is how invasive their searches are, and how it violates our 4th Amendment rights.

Forget the scanners - read the thread, look for the YouTubes - they tell a story that might disgust you.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

I think the bigger issue is how invasive their searches are, and how it violates our 4th Amendment rights.

Forget the scanners - read the thread, look for the YouTubes - they tell a story that might disgust you.

Are you referring to their pull-you-into-a-side-room-full-body-searches? Or something else?

 

[EarlyMon]

Are you referring to their pull-you-into-a-side-room-full-body-searches? Or something else?

Yeah - kinda basically that - just urging you to skim the thread from the beginning, and just look at some of the YouTubes posted. The thread makes lively reading, but I'm presuming you might be pressed for time.

I used to be pulled from line because I fit a profile or because of random choice, and the search was wanding, that sort of thing.

Today - people are being sent to be invasively groped. A police-level search, just short of body cavity searches.

When demonstrated to Congress, Congress turned away in embarrassment - but has let it continue.

It's an unconstitutional search, in the opinion of many here.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Oh, and cancer? Really?? Don't ever go out in the sun again, please. Only leave your house at night. Ladies don't wear bras because they give you cancer. Don't use any soap or lotion. And please don't tell me the people that mentioned the cancer arguement smoke. I could spend an hour posting all the things you use every day that can give you cancer, but let's be realistic.

To be fair, I think most people know the sun can cause damage. What most people do not understand is how or if radiation from their phones can cause issues. Some Wacky Cracker says there is proof and the public is alarmed. the cell manufacturers say it is a silly concern and another Wacky Cracker screams cover-up and conspiracy.

The undereducated public becomes very confused.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Yeah - kinda basically that - just urging you to skim the thread from the beginning, and just look at some of the YouTubes posted. The thread makes lively reading, but I'm presuming you might be pressed for time.

I used to be pulled from line because I fit a profile or because of random choice, and the search was wanding, that sort of thing.

Today - people are being sent to be invasively groped. A police-level search, just short of body cavity searches.

When demonstrated to Congress, Congress turned away in embarrassment - but has let it continue.

It's an unconstitutional search, in the opinion of many here.

We had a shoe bomber so we apparently need to have our feet inspected. Or has this changed? We have not had a "Rectal Device Bomber" or a "Tampon Bomber." What happens if these scenarios were to occur? What about bombs in wheelchairs or strapped to (God I HOPE NOT!!!) children? Would we simply adapt to REALLY TRULY invasive searches or opt to take the Big Grey Dog or the Love Boat? What happens if those were attacked?

Or do we stop traveling altogether and then wait until something else is used to damage us? Something we would never had thought of, like bombs driven into a city on Route 1A or planes flown into dams and bridges like those in California and NYC. Do we suddenly start car to car searches and use checkpoints?

Again, graphic to be sure, but just asking.

Bob Maxey

 

[A.Nonymous]

**deleted by request**

 

[A.Nonymous]

We had a shoe bomber so we apparently need to have our feet inspected. Or has this changed? We have not had a "Rectal Device Bomber" or a "Tampon Bomber." What happens if these scenarios were to occur? What about bombs in wheelchairs or strapped to (God I HOPE NOT!!!) children? Would we simply adapt to REALLY TRULY invasive searches or opt to take the Big Grey Dog or the Love Boat? What happens if those were attacked?

Or do we stop traveling altogether and then wait until something else is used to damage us? Something we would never had thought of, like bombs driven into a city on Route 1A or planes flown into dams and bridges like those in California and NYC. Do we suddenly start car to car searches and use checkpoints?

Again, graphic to be sure, but just asking.

Bob Maxey

A guy with a car bomb tried to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony recently. Maybe we should search all cars.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

To be fair, I think most people know the sun can cause damage. What most people do not understand is how or if radiation from their phones can cause issues. Some Wacky Cracker says there is proof and the public is alarmed. the cell manufacturers say it is a silly concern and another Wacky Cracker screams cover-up and conspiracy.

The undereducated public becomes very confused.

Bob Maxey

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me (lol) but you pretty much are adding more to my point. Everything is a health issue these days. Customers come into my stores asking me if it's safe to use bluetooth earpieces of if they will mess with their brains. No I'm not kidding. Claiming that these scanners are bad because they "cause cancer," while it may be true that this can happen, is just silly. Avoid life if that's what you're afraid of.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me (lol) but you pretty much are adding more to my point. Everything is a health issue these days. Customers come into my stores asking me if it's safe to use bluetooth earpieces of if they will mess with their brains. No I'm not kidding. Claiming that these scanners are bad because they "cause cancer," while it may be true that this can happen, is just silly. Avoid life if that's what you're afraid of.

Health officials and several universities disagree with you.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Health officials and several universities disagree with you.

Health officials disagree that cigarettes cause cancer? They disagree that the sun can cause cancer? Or that bras with underwires cause cancer? Or pollutants in the air? Or a million other things that we don't even know about yet? Really? I think you're wrong on that one.

Please take note of the fact that I didn't say these scanners don't cause cancer. I said that to use that arguement is ridiculous because EVERYTHING IN OUR WORLD causes cancer anymore. I was stating that if that's why you are boycotting these scanners than you really just shouldn't ever leave your house. A good friend of mine got cancer at 26 years old. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 Lymphoma (yeah, they didn't even know she had it until it was already in stage 4) in her chest and throat. They have no idea what caused it. What does that say for the lives we live every day?

For the record, she is in full remission now!!

 

[A.Nonymous]

Health officials disagree that these scanners are a health hazard. They don't have to comply with the same regulations that medical equipment does. There's the very good chance that these machines may leak radiation in the future just because they're not properly maintained nor are there any regulations requiring them to be. Not to mention the hazard they pose to the TSA employees standing next to these things all day.

You're arguing that it's foolish to oppose something just because it causes cancer. I guess by that logic we should be chain smoking, alcoholics. Yeah, we'll all die before we're 50, but cancer was going to get us in our 90s anyway.