You know, I guess you can include me in the anti-TSA crowd but I have been very civil while discussing these issues which is more than I can say for how I have been treated in return. If you have something to say in response to a particular post fine, but these blanket statements really serve no purpose whatsoever.

We our entitled to our views and opinions just as they are and if they gave up, as you say, because we don't happen to agree then so be it. I don't feel obligated to change my mind just because they believe differently.

I think it's time to take part in this:

WWW.INFOWARS.COM
SAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

With luck this is the link.
http://www.infowars.com/resolution_resist_tyranny.html

fredmartens


It is clear that you have had what you deem a bad experience with checkpoint/baggage security. However, personally attacking the employees while not attacking the employer is not the answer. Ok, you don't like government inspection of you person or your belongings at the checkpoint. Sadly, this is a new way of life. I said so many times that this requires a culture change. We as Americans have had it easy for so long when it comes to flying. Now, things have radically changed, but congress feels it is necessary and prudent. As far as TSA going away anytime in the future....that is to be seen. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the text of the bill as passed makes the TSA a permanent agency in its own right, no longer part of the Department of Transportation. Additionally, if the airlines elected to remove TSA and carry the burden of paying private screeners the same wages, retirement, healthcare benefits, while maintaining the same size staff as currently utilized, and comply with the statutory requirements set forth by TSA for screening at the checkpoints, we will see more air carriers filing chapter 11 than ever before. I just don't see it happening. Personally speaking, I don't mind the new procedures, but I don't fly too often by my own admission. For those who fly often, you should know best what to do at that checkpoint. Please, constructive criticism is welcome, but unwarranted attacks on people there for our protection is unproductive.

No, I don't agree with every position the courts take, but I don't latch onto those I do and decry the ones I don't either.

You can, of course, choose to do so. You would likely find yourself in violation of local statutes covering public nudity.

At least in MA, you can get up to 30 days in jail.

You will forgive me but this is some pretty two, nay, one-dimensional thinking on your part.

Dred Scot was a Supreme Court decision and as such the law of the land, no? Do you personally believe in the principals contained within that decision? If not then why do you do not believe in those principals? It was a lawful decision on the part of the Supreme Court so why is that decision not the law of the land today? Because good people stood up and vociferously protested the vile, immoral, and reactionary foundation upon which that decision was based. That is no different than the situation we have here today of good people vociferously protesting what they believe are routine examples of harassment and widespread instances of illegal search and seizure.

Your statement that you feel that people who voice their concerns over what they see as violations of the Constitution as being un-American would have garnered you a failing grade at the elementary school I attended some twenty-two years ago, let alone a U.S. History 101 college class. In fact it was the primary call by the Founding Fathers to all citizens that it was their duty as citizens to question every decision the government makes.

Let us just hope that it takes far less time to correct the path we are now on than the 12 years that it took for the Fourteenth Amendment to be ratified thus overturning Dred Scott.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-16-2003).]

Got a news story to discuss?? That's what this forum is for.

Good post. I must live a sheltered existence, because it shocks me to hear someone speak so disrespectfully, but then, he is entitled to his opinion.

But it begs the question: the justices are highly educated, experienced professionals at the top of their careers, in an incredibly important position of power. Are we to believe that there are those among us here on FT who are better able to interpret the Constitution than not just one, but a majority of those at the top of our judicial system???

I just find that a bit incredible, sorry.

It seems the new people who want to criticize us for not being happy about TSA rules, think they are above the simple posting rules of this forum.

I grow weary of the freedom fighters attempting to stifle discussion by telling people they disagree with that:

1. They have posted in the wrong place.

2. They deserve to be disciplined by their employers.

Et al.

It seems that the platform of beliefs for those that hold some of these viewpoints is a tiny bit short on the concept of tolerance.

It seems to me that there is a series of threads discussing news stories about security/the TSA, and this thread is part of that bundle. If you feel a need to be literal, I am sure those of us that hold opposing views to yours could simply attach these posts to the back of other threads.

Kindly present your citations, please.

Plessy v. Ferguson was also the law of the land for many years (62 of them) before being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.

Still think every decision by the US Supreme Court is entitled to unquestioned respect? I sure don't, 'cause I've read plenty of illegitimate decisions.

It was an exageration, Plato. But, here is an interesting story on TSA mandated exposure:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../002838-2.html

See this thread if you think I'm the lone wolf - looks to me like Randy Petersen said essentially the same thing two days ago in response to another TSA rant thread that failed to even reference any news item:

www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/005647.html

Rules is rules, even for the TSA.

The Dred Scott case had a few side effects that you neglected to mention:

1. It widened the gap between North and South enormously.

2. It led to the emergence of Lincoln as the Republican presidential candidate in 1860, and his subsequent election. Why? The majority of the country picked him, nota disaffected minority.

3. This led to the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the ultimate end of slavery.

We can speculate all day long on Dred Scott's causitive power in the Civil War, but Dred Scott undoubtedly proved how incredibly durable, flexible, and responsive the American system is.

Based on the will of the majority, an unjust decision was not only overturned, but caused an upheaval of an unjust society.

Based on the will of the majority, not a disaffected minority. Majority.