We all know that Muslim women will not be subjected to sexual assault by the perverts of the TSA; Political Correctness will protect Muslim Women and their virtue from TSA agents groping their most intimate feminine organs. The Obama/Napolitano wisdom or lack of wisdom is supposed to keep us safe, even if Muslim women are infinitely more likely to be carrying explosives than American women. When your president has a great sympathy for Muslims and especially the modesty of potential female Muslim terrorists, why should we expect less? After all, he has an image to must maintain in the Muslim world.
Unfortunately, many American women have been raped in the past and will surely feel that the pernicious sexual assault by leering pervert TSA agents is more than enough to make them hysterical. A response that may cause them to be shot or tasered by TSA agents who are anxious to assert their authority and power. A hysterical reaction is considered more than enough to be shot by TSA Agents, their power is not to be questioned and your rights against unlawful search and sexual assault are no longer valid, unless of course, you are a Muslim woman. In simple terms resisting the perverts of TSA and their legalized sexual assault is sufficient to be tasered or shot, they now have the right to grope any woman beneath her clothing, excluding Muslims of course, or resort to violence to insure submissiveness.
In the US, 31% of rape victims develop Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome during their lifetime and more than 10% still have PTSD today. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 13% of all American women have been raped. That means that 3.8 million women have PTSD today. They estimate that 683,000 women are raped yearly, approximately 211,000 will develop PTSD annually. Is it not reasonable that some of these women might become hysterical with the TSA perverts sticking their hands down women’s underwear and expecting them to stand perfectly still while following instructions?
Let us not forget how easy it is to get shot by the TSA, if you have a panic attack, excluding Muslims of course. Muslim women have been advised by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relation that because of religious reasons, they have the right to only allow pat downs on the neck and head; presumably, if they were planning on blowing up an airplane, they would either be sporting and hide the explosives on their head or neck: if they are devious and no one would ever accuse a Muslim terrorist of being devious, they would hide the explosives in a no touch area of their body under the bed sheet.
El Al, Israel’s airline has a flawess record ad a real security system with professionals, not political hack and pimps that play Obama’s, Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three bags full game. Below is a portion of an interview with Isaac Yeffet, retired head of security for El Al; he describes a well disciplined and trained security force that is not from the dregs of society that just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get a job.
CNN: What needs to be done to improve the system?
Yeffet: It’s mandatory that every passenger — I don’t care his religion or whatever he is — every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system.
CNN: What is El Al’s approach to airline security? How does it differ from what’s being done in this country?
Yeffett: We must look at the qualifications of the candidate for security jobs. He must be educated. He must speak two languages. He must be trained for a long time, in classrooms. He must receive on-the-job training with a supervisor for weeks to make sure that the guy understands how to approach a passenger, how to convince him to cooperate with him, because the passenger is taking the flight and we are on the ground. The passengers have to understand that the security is doing it for their benefit.
We are constantly in touch with the Israeli intelligence to find out if there are any suspicious passengers among hundreds of passengers coming to take the flight — by getting the list of passengers for each flight and comparing it with the suspicious list that we have. If one of the passengers is on the list, then we are waiting for him, he will not surprise us.
During the year, we did thousands of tests of our security guys around the world. It cost money, but once you save lives, it’s worth all the money that the government gave us to have the right security system.
Isaac is retired, yet he might be available to replace our bimbo in charge of Homeland Security; at least, if we hired Isaac,
we wouldn’t be counting on the stupidity and incompetence of Muslim terrorists for our security.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
AdrianS thank you, It’s make more sense to me, than continuing this agression on
the public who are realy traumatyse by this aggravated search, I was very surprise to hear such
things happening in AMERICA, It sounded like It was done in a COUUNTRY THAT WE KNOW ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE TO KEEP THE CONTROL OVER THEM, LIKE MARXIST REGIME
SNEAKING IN THE UNITED STATES AND OPRESSING THE AMERICAN WITH THE EXCUSE OF GIVING THEM THE SECURITY THEY NEED; WELL IT’S A VERY BAD EXCUSE TO GIVE A POOR TASTE OF OPPRESSION, AND AS WE KNOW NOW, THERE IS AN ABUSE AND IT WONT GET LESSER BUT ONE ABUSE BRING A DEGENERANCE AND SOON THEY WILL USE ANOTHER EVENT TO FURTHER THE OPPRESSIONS.
bye
MATA AND CURT, I must point out tha FLYING TODAY IS NOT OPPORTUNITY, BUT IT’S
AN OBLIGATION BECAUSE the people must fly for so many reason, even if they don’t want to
and if they have to submit to an over done body search beside being in the obligation to go through with it ,THAT BECOME INFRIGING TO THE FOUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THEIR FREEDOM TO LIVE . BYE
Ms. Bees, flying is not “an obligation”. Traveling may be a necessity, but there are alternatives to flying. You may drive, take a train or a greyhound bus. Hang.. you can bicycle or walk, for that matter. Less convenient? Yes. But if you feel that strongly, have at it.
But I assure you, this is no abridgement of either the 4th or 14th Amendment of the Constitution in any legal sense. That is an argument that constitutes a “bridge to nowhere”.
MATA I just notice you hit the 100 and never brag about it like we do, smoodly and right on
just like the other 100, hey how many more did you hit silently like this,
and you think nobody would notice until it’s past, WELL, I JUST DID RIGHT NOW
AND CONGRATULATION HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE IN THE 1OO DS? BYE
Ms. Bees, how does it feel? I feel “old”. LOL
Truly, I never pay attention to comment counts. Would never have noticed until you pointed it out. So I can’t tell how many other times this may have happened.
@MataHarley (103)
Just like contracts for murder are unenforceable because of their illegality, the right of a person to be secure in his person and possessions is not a right that can be taken away; although some like yourself would rationalize the taking. No script or contract, however trivial, can serve to deny Constitutional, and therefore legal, rights.
You are the one who would enforce a murder contract because it is a contract between willing parties to enforce. However, legally, as described above, and in your case, a ticket or airline boarding pass, cannot serve as a waiver of a Constitution right. Nice try.
You most certainly can waive your rights. Giving consent to search your home, person or belongings is waiving that right. Buying that ticket and agreeing to their terms to fly on their plane is indeed waiving that right.
uh… too late. I see Curt and I are are the same “tut tut, Adrian” retort page…. Well, I follow “da founding father of FA” here, and proud to do so. LOL
Well, my response was a bit shorter so I’m sure we were typing at the same time…doesn’t surprise me one bit
And check this out from Sarah Palin’s twitter:
Love her.
Adrian, you are not having your rights “taken away” when you voluntarily surrender them. I suspect you have never appeared in a court of law? Well heads up… when you don’t know your rights, you forfeit them for the most part.
Such is the dual case of search of luggage, and you, in order to fly. When you agree to travel via plane, you agree to abide by their rules. If you choose not to, you don’t have to fly. The same is with any organization… take, for example, the BSA. Don’t want to abide by Boy Scout rules? You don’t need to be a Boy Scout… or Elk, or Lions Club, or any other organization, for that matter. A restaurant doesn’t want you to smoke, so if you want a fine post dinner cigar, go elsewhere… and don’t think of contacting an attorney. Think employment now. If you sign a contract agreeing you will not do something in exchange for employment, you’ve “waived” that right voluntarily.
Suggest you start checking into Greyhound schedules. Because you sure won’t get anywhere with your suggested legal avenue.
BTW Adrian… on a personal level here, you said:
While you feel the need to elevate your legal ignorance to a personal level, assaulting me in some imaginary form for beliefs you think I apparently hold that are anti-Constitutional, I would suggest that perhaps you might need some self-education and/or coaching on what is your own rights, and what is waiver of your rights. What you also need to learn is that retaining/waivering those rights is not applicable in an incident that involves an illegal act… such as the murder analogy that you evoke, and miscontrue as simply contract law.
Don’t know what your personal ambivalence is towards me, but suggest you hold them at bay in your future commentary. Otherwise I shall feel inclined to return them in like kind.
Not saying I agree with the searches, but there is something I think should be mentioned. As Curt can attest to, reasonable suspicion is all that is needed to pull someone over when they avoid a DUI checkpoint. The SCOTUS has ruled that when in public you have a “reduced expectation of privacy.” This makes the DUI checkpoints legal. I’m wondering if the searches the TSA conduct would fall under such a reduced expectation.
As for the claims FA is an echo chamber, I’d say go to puffHo, DUNG, or KOS before you level such an accusation. They are the epitome of echo chambers.
The funny thing to me about all of this is that years ago I tested for the TSA. I did extremely well. After admitting they shouldn’t be telling me, multiple testers said I was doing better than almost anyone they’d seen. I even got run thru some of the tests more than once or longer than others because they thought I was using trickery to do as well as I did. They even called in other testers to observe me and make sure I wasn’t cheating. At the very end of the process, I got to the guy who seemingly had a chip on shoulder towards white looking people. He pretty much revealed himself to be the PC type. You’ve seen how PC I am. I never heard from the TSA.
In retrospect that’s a good thing. Otherwise I would be left between gagging on the orders to do to people what I find offensive and even unconstitutional, or being unemployed in an awful economy and starving.
@AdrianS:
Talking Constitution stuff again, eh?
Just between us…I really do hope you do better this time.
That last go ’round was just so horribly embarrassing for you. Getting your ass handed to you in tiny little slivers like that…ooofff….wow…you’d think a person would have learned not to wander into the deep end of the pool a second time.
Then again, maybe not.
So far, it doesn’t appear to be going your way on this thread either but I know the tide is bound to turn eventually and I’ll be right here rootin’ for ya.
Go get ’em champ. Get in there and show ’em what ya got.
MATTA, HI, I think flying is a nessescity, if we take into context, the limited times the
working class have to conduct their needs to keep their work done, which would not be done in
the time limit they have if they would take the other transportations: ANDTHAT IS IN AMERICA.
BUT what about going transatlantic to other WORLD COUNTRYS what other means do some workers have beside the planes,
Understand the concept you present, Ms. Bees… schedule and time and all. That, however, does not give you a pass on any of this. If you don’t want to fly, take a train, bus or ocean liner for international … you arrange your schedule to do otherwise. There is no Constitutional fix to accommodate conflicts of personal business schedule, merely because you wish to have an exception to your waivers of search in order to enjoy a private industry’s transportation service.
I might add that trains, busses and ocean liners also have their own security measures…. the same applies. Don’t like it? Drive, walk, bicycle or stay home.
MATA, thank you, I see, and it mean also that the public is or has become the puuupets of those
flying transports which think they can inflict any punitive actions against their clients
claiming security must do, at any price which the clients must pay, instead of figuring other tactics less invasive therefore protecting their clients against abuse from the present search;
that also tell their clients that they are protecting their own interest before their clients demands
who are left with no choice except to follow their selfish rules on the name of security,
bye
Not quite right, Ms. Bees. Consumers of a service… whether transportation, retail sales, food services, etc… are not “puppets” They have a choice. If flying is your requirement, there are also private charters, using smaller aircraft, or get your own pilot’s license. It is not the fault of the airlines if you can’t afford your own Lear jet, tho.
Let’s put it this way. You have Canadian guide service with white water rafting. You demand your clientele sign a waiver of responsibility so that if they are out of shape, or abuse the safety rules and regs your raft guides issues in order to protect them on their trip, they don’t hold you legally responsible. You also have a regulation that none of the trip participants will be carrying their own weapons, since you don’t know who they are, nor what they intend to do with those weapons. So everyone is required to prove they are complying with all your business caveats. If they don’t comply with the rules during the trip, they are dropped off on the shore, and airlifted out before the full trip is done…. or not allowed to begin the trip if they don’t comply from the start.
As a business owner, do you have a problem with this?
Now, on a specific level, the airlines are not the TSA. The TSA is a government national security entity not affiliated with private airline corporations. Airlines cooperate with the TSA, as they are required by federal law…. and is in their best interests to do so for sundry reasons. They do not have their own security system, screening for terrorists. Nor do they have the ability to usurp federal regulations for national security.
When you agree to fly, you agree not only to the airlines pre requisites (which include mandates from TSA vis a vis federal regulations), but to their own. So you will agree to luggage and personal screening, you will agree not to smoke aboard the plane, to cause trouble on the plane (or they will put you off), and you will agree to turn off your electronics when they demand, to wear your seatbelt when they demand, etc.
ANOTHER THING THAT BUGS , IS THE FACT THAT SOME WILL CLAIM DIFFRENT APPROCH TO SEARCH OR EVEN ON EXEMPTION OF PAYING TAX AND EXEMPTION ONTHE MEDICARE
PROGRAMS ECETERA, CLAIMING THEIR RELIGION STATUE NOT ALLOWING IT IMPLEMATATION;
SO WHY ARENT THE AMERICANS CLAIMING DIFFRENT APPROCH TO SEARCH OR EXEMPTION,
ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TRUE AMERICANS OF ROOTS SOME MANY GENERATIONS,
MORE THAN OTHERS, SOME NATIVES FIRST NATIONS ALSO, THEIR RIGHTS ARE EVEN MORE
PRIORITY FOR SURE, THAN OTHER NON ASSIMILATED IMMIGRANTS
MATA, THANK YOU, so where can the public complain if they feel they have been mistreated?
that would be the GOVERNMENT AGENCY SECURITY, AND I take it that the TSA EMPLOYES
UNIONIZE?, bye
As in usual in our nation, the US court system, Bees. You can file a lawsuit… whether you have a legal leg to stand on or not. However it’s a real drain of cash when you are tilting at windmills.
Added: and yes, the TSA is part of the AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) union family. It’s the largest federal union, representing over 600,000 government workers nationwide and overseas. Per their fact sheet:
MATA, yes It must get expansive to complain lawfully, so those would just not go through that,
and the bad apples would continue to get away and rotten some other, until the citizens get together to share the expanses and put all their complaints on one law suit against the agency,
that would be the best route to go to get some result to eliminate the transgresser,
It’s a mixed bag as to who to complain to, Bees. Since the feds started instigating luggage searches after 911, airlines and the feds have been arguing as to who is responsible for theft claims. As the NYTs reported back in 2004, both TSA and the airlines were sharing the liability for missing items in claims… with the airlines taking on 60% of the payments to the claimants, and the TSA handling the rest.
Now when both the federal agency, and it’s subordinate private corporate assume shared liability, who are you going to “eliminate” on yet another “search? Both have admitted responsibility and culpability by these claims alone. Airlines are mandated to follow regulations of both FCC and Homeland Security, but then they also assume the dual responsibility for the handled luggage. It makes for a very thin line between the two.
The bottom line still remains. Don’t want to go thru a security check? Don’t fly or use transportation options that mandate that. Many people don’t realize you go thru detectors and potential pat downs every time you enter a federal building or courthouse as well. Don’t like it? Don’t show up for your hearing… and boy won’t the repercussions of that be an ugly surprise.
All and all, screening isn’t anything new. And as far as the indignant cries about privacy concerns go, it’s a decade or two late and a deflated dollar short, IMHO.
Mata and Curt, if we are to agree to the loss of personal liberty and Constitutional Rights by purchasing an airline ticket, we can apply the same reasoning to going on the toll road, then driving down an Inter-State and then finally walking on the government sidewalk. Before long we will forfeit our rights if we agree to have electric power turned on in our house or use a cell phone. Obama is betting he can usurp those Constitutional Rights under the same implied forfeiture f rights that you are using.
Before long, we may be subject to strip searches before we can walk into a mall or attend a sports event. We buy the ticket when we don’t really need to buy the ticket or we walk into the mall when we could order on line, in either case, we are at the mercy of the business owner and theoretically his security force.
Obviously, we need a license and insurance to drive these days, unless you are a illegal alien, like the drunk who ran into my car, but maybe a state or federal government will decide if you drive on their road, they own you and can do anything with you without probable cause, after all you didn’t really need to drive, get the clothes off and bend over.
We don’t need probable cause, never have. We need reasonable suspicion. But that’s neither here nor there. If a private enterprise tells you that they will sell you a ticket to ride on their plane but only if you waive your right to have your baggage and person secure then it is your choice. Period. Either don’t ride their planes and find another mode of transportation or give consent. Completely up to you. You have the freedom to choose which route you wish to take.
On added note. Did you complain this loudly when your baggage was subject to search?
@MataHarley (115 and 120)
Just say you stand corrected, everything else you say is nonsense. You do not have the RIGHT to smoke in public. The difference is that the RIGHT granted in the 4th Amendment of our Constitution cannot be given up in such a casual manner as you suggest.
Nevertheless, we’ll wait to see what the Supreme Court has to say about our 4th Amendment RIGHTS. Until then, the TSA is acting as a criminal enterprise, violating the rights of individuals at airports en masse.
It is interesting how the government attempts to fool people. Airline travelers get a CHOICE; either the x-ray scanner or the pat-down. However, note that BOTH are a violation of Constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment. Searching people as the TSA does is ILLEGAL and unconstitutional! The mere idea of a search by federal “agents” anywhere, without due process and probable cause, is ILLEGAL and unconstitutional.
It’s much like the trick that is played on people who believe Obama is NOT qualified to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen. Supporters of Obama lead the argument to where he was born; Hawaii or Kenya; Kenya or Hawaii. This is a distraction. The mere fact that Barack Hussein Obama’s father was NOT a citizen means that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Therefore, Obama is NOT qualified to be president. Why he is is the same type of crap being pulled on citizens of this country when they board an airplane; they are searched. Illegally.
@Curt (131)
Nice try. Sounds right, but isn’t. When you take the fifth you are not punished because you invoke your rights, but take a RIGHT you are entitled to.
The government cannot, and should not, be able to keep you off of a flight because you choose to have enforced your right to not be searched without probable cause. You are innocent and have not committed a crime. Therefore, no reason exists to keep you off of a flight without being illegally searched or having property seized; none. Such a requirement is patently illegal.
Following your logic, if a Black man wants to board a flight and the ticket says he can be subjected to discrimination and name-calling because he is Black, is that right? Does he lose his RIGHT to be treated equally according to the Constitution? That’s where you are wrong, Curt. We do not have to check our rights at the door.
Actually, I didn’t care. Crossing international borders means having your bags examined anyway, there is no option. I accepted the intrusion, I declared all my purchases down to the smallest ones, the guards were usually disgusted that I was so thorough with my written details and I didn’t carry drugs or weapons, so what was there to be concerned about?
Most of my flying was pre 9/11, it was a different day and age. I was never searched or fondled and I often carried a carry on with equipment onto the plane to make weight restrictions. No one ever mentioned it and I didn’t hijack any planes or use them as missiles.
After 9/11 i must have fit someone’s or everyone’s profile because for most flights I was being interrogated in an office for almost every flight. I figured they knew I wasn’t a threat, but I was a good mark to practice on. They practiced and practiced right on up until I quit flying, it cost me money and it cost the airlines money, for me and others to quit flying because of the stupidity of the security guards.
If you check on my commentary, I have not expressed concern for myself, but primarily for women and children. Personally, I like the idea of wearing a kilt and letting the aggressive agent get his or her money’s worth. At least they wont need to check the underwear.
Now I assume a bus or taxi cab company could begin the same procedures to insure the safety of the driver and other passengers, if you purchase a ticket you will agree to what ever procedures they have set up or if you agree to be taken on as a passenger in a cab there is an implied consent to abide by the rules of the cab company or do we make exceptions to this rule for smaller vehicles? In theory, they can set up what ever rules they want to insure safety, should we be ready to be frisked by bus drivers and to have our bags examined because we have purchased a ticket to ride on their bus. Actually, I picked up a package at a bus station in BC and their was a sign that read all packages are subject to inspection. My package was carbide blades, if one of the women wanted to inspect the package, they were more than welcome. At what point do we stop trading our freedom and rights to purchase a service?
I am not saying that measures are not to be taken when the situation is warranted. I have never done police work, but police, border guards, and immigration people are well trained and don’t rely on random searches or frisking everyone. I assume border guards catch their share of criminal types, they ask questions and make a move if it is warranted. In all the hundreds of times I have crossed the Canadian US border they have only searched my car twice and they struck out both times. What a waste of time and manpower it would have been if they would have searched my car all those hundreds of times to find nothing.
SKOOKUM, HI, YES, I would think that extreme measure like that would bee done by
military power, THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR OATH TO PROTECT THIS AMERICA,
SO the right to search their own ,would imply the dignity they carry on their tasks,
AND THE CITIZENS WOULD BETTER ACCEPT THIS INTRUSION, BY UNDERSTANDING
IT’S BEING CARRYED ON BY RELYABLE MILITARYS SOURCE AND A GROUP YOU CAN IDENTIFY WITH AS A COUNTERY WHICH ARE AIMING TO PROTECT CITIZEN, NOT A UNION IN POWER
TO GIVE JOBS TO ANYONE THEY GIVE THE OKAY FOR A SELFISH REASON THAT BENEFIT THEIR OWN; BECAUSE THE POWER WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO NON QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO USE IT AT THEIR OWN WISHES,IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR SURE, AND IF WE LOOK CLOSELY AT
WHAT IS HAPPENING, YOU CANNOT FIND JUSTICE TO REDRESS ABUSES ONLESS YOU HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY TO FIND THE PROOF; WHERE contrary to this with military having this
power it would be apply their way that is SYSTEMATICLY, WITH DISCIPLINE AND POISE, MEANING NO GRUESOME LAGHTS AND GESTURE IMPOSED,
AND EASYER FOR THE CITIZEN TO ACCEPT, AND THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE COMPARE TO THIS ARMY OF OBAMA BEING ARROGANT BECAUSE THEY KNOW, THAT THEIR UNION IS PROTECTING THEM, AND MAKING DIFFICULT TO GET SOME BAD APPLES TO GET FIRED.
BYE
@AdrianS, boyo, you birthers have a real brain cell disconnect, don’t you? Yes, Adrian… civility to you is an option I choose not to exercise… LOL
No surprise you still don’t get it. TSA can refuse entry into the gates areas. The airline, as a private business, has a perfect right to refuse service to you (i.e. flying, and it’s going to be hard to catch that flight if TSA doesn’t let you to the gates) for refusing to submit to screening. Just as a restaurant has a perfect right to refuse you entry if you aren’t properly attired per their advertised dress code.
And obviously you’ve never set foot in a federal courthouse, or you’d know there are security checkpoints there as well. Don’t want to go thru security? Don’t show up for your hearings.
This appears to be another Cordoba House debate. While a bunch of us don’t like it, we certainly disagree on the legal aspects a few of you think support your opposition.
Obviously you are blissfully unaware that a judge can, and quite often will, find you in contempt of court, or obstructing justice, when you refuse to answer. One would have to classify that as “punishment” for invoking a right. You are certainly free to do so. You are not, however, immune from ensuing actions for doing so.
Mata —
Your stat shows that 21.5% of the TSA is Black. You claim this is a “disproportionate” number of Blacks. But before you state that, and can prove it to be true, you have a LOT of work to do.
First, let’s assume that about 12% of the US is Black. That number includes people under 18 and retirees, people in prison, and people in the military, too. You have to subtract all minors, disabled people, retirees, etc. (in other words, those not in the labor pool) of all races to find out what the Black percentage is in the overall labor pool. Then you have to narrow it down by the qualifications of the job (i.e., age, physical fitness, credit check and criminal background check, aptitude for the job, veteran status, etc.) to see what the Black percentage of that narrower labor pool is.
I have no idea whether having 21.5% Black employees is disproportionate in that narrowed pool of eligible workers; but Black represent 15% of the military, so the 21.5% proportion is probably not THAT out of whack.
* * * * *
Skookum’s opening statement evidenced nothing more than some visceral disgust with Blacks being employed as screeners. Two other posters then chimed in with their thinly veiled racist comments about raping White women and Black screeners not showing “respect” to White people. I have no idea what their problem is. But having just finished reading a book about the Great Migration — and why Blacks left the Jim Crow South in droves, many times having to sneak out on early morning trains from distant towns, many times leaving one step ahead of an all White lynch mob — to read comments about “raping White women” and Black employees “showing a lack of respect” . . . something very disturbing is going on with your posters.
I sense you wanted nothing to do with it. I get that. But maybe instead of moderating ME, you might want to put a brake on what John Cooper and John ryan and Skookum post. Because if cons want to show that they are NOT racists like the libs claim, John Cooper’s, John ryan’s and Skookum’s posts here, and the previous posts about a “race war”, are simply not helping your cause. Just a thought . . . .
Not all Democrats are socialists, but if a person is a socialist, he’s more likely to vote Democratic than Republican.
Not all Republicans are (traditional white on black) racists, but if a person is a (traditional white on black) racist (and many such people continue to exist, and this is not mitigated simply because there is a degree of what might be called reverse racism going around), he’s more likely to vote Republican than Democratic.
I think that B-Rob is being very non-politically correct in his call out in # 138.
Reading over the posts in question, I also think that his point is valid. I was just going to sit this one out, but, if called upon to criticize anyone’s arguments in this, it wouldn’t have been B-Rob whom I’d have criticized.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Billy Bob, I’m certainly glad you noticed I’ve made it very clear in all of my above posts that I don’t give a rat’s tail about the racial demographics of the TSA workforce. Apparently, some do. I was only addressing Skookum’s original framing of his comment in #5, and noting that what anyone takes away from the actual TSA breakdown is entirely subjective.
If you want to dazzle the debate by narrowing that percentage, only using eligible workers, while Skookum originally noted it as a reflection of the nation’s population, fine with me. It’s not *that* disproportionate, as you say…. but still disproportionate. When you step over my line in the sand, it doesn’t matter if your tootsies are over by inches or miles… it’s still my side of the line.
And ya know what, I still don’t give a rat’s tail about all this percentage of black Americans in the TSA….. insane argument that means little or nothing to me. TSA should hire the best qualified for the job, no matter what their race, nationality or gender. And to me, that’s likely to be veterans.
INRE moderating you… I’ve got nothing to do with that, Billy Bob. And, in fact, when I’m online at FA, I make sure your stuff gets posted. Frankly, I have a ball with you. 😆 But I’m not the powers that be who decide who’s in moderation, or why. If you have a question with that, I suggest you contact Curt off forum. The “contact” info is in the frames on the right.
Do I agree with everyone who posts here? Hang no. As Old Trooper said in his comment #54, we have many who “…post here with the scent of racism implied in subtle fashion.” And like him, my tolerance levels and patience also gets tested with those comments. Frankly, I just usually ignore the remarks, and steer long circles around such ignorance and bias. Additionally, I think Aye, Wordsmith and myself can attest to major disagreements we’ve had with fellow conservatives on this blog… most notably the months long debate about Cordoba House (aka “ground zero mosque”) and how we feel about Pam Geller in general.
So I’m not sure what you expect me to do about them. In this forum, everyone’s free to speak their mind, with some limitations. And those are determined by Curt, the owner of this blog. Me? I choose to address those that offer some stimulating debate, especially when we disagree. (or other times to just straighten out sheer stupidity…) Therefore, you should consider it a compliment that I delight in engaging you on most threads. When I start totally ignoring your presence, you’ll know you’ve hit the bottom of the barrel in what you offer up.
Now, considering your litigation specialty, you should be wandering over to another of Skookum’s threads, and weighing in on the confusion some seem to have about the TSA union – specifically the difference between union representation and collective bargaining power. Frankly I consider it a more worthy discussion than how many black Americans work at TSA.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim, Larry, I agree that were anyone to be called out… so to speak… it should be on the racism arguments. However, since I was doing my best to avoid such despicable ‘tudes, I chose to engage Billy Bob on profiling. About the only sane argument here to be had.
The rest? All I can say is… “my eyes! my eyes!!”
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You are a god damn idiot for saying that.
I lived in the South and in virtually every state in the union at one time or another and I have seen REAL racial prejudice up close and personal. The kind that kills or maims, calls names, blocks peoples rights, and destroys lives. I’ve stood nose to nose against it in dark hot nights wondering if I would have the nerve to do the right thing when it came to the possibility that I might not see the morning sun for it. And every damned one of the racist bastards I’ve ever know were capital “D” Democrats. I have NEVER met a single Racist Republican. And again, I know what the hell a RACIST looks like acts like and talks like.
Fricking jerk water liberals and their constant BS calling someone a racist because they don’t like institutional racial classifications and programs, have no damned idea what the hell a real “shoot em with a shotgun cause it leaves no ballistics” racist is.
I swear to the heavens that feeble minded azzwhipes that say crap like you “openid” need to have your sh!t slapped down hard.
By far, the most solid GOP constituency is the Southeast. In all other regions of the country (East, Midwest, West), the vote in the past 3 Presidential elections has been pretty nearly 50/50 (Dem/GOP). In the Southeast, it’s 65% GOP. In the 2000 election, the majority of the white voters in the state of Alabama voted to maintain the then-legal prohibition against black/white marriages.
– LW/HB
Openid you are an absolute idiot.
There, I can say that with all the clarity conviction and FACTS that you spew your BS with.
IOW, back up your BS.
BTW, the SE of the US is the prime retirement area for people from the NE. Most everyone in Fla seems to be from either Cuba or New York. Take a long hard look at Georgia. Yeah, sure called that one right idiot. Atlanta is the center of the Republican universe. Lets talk about the long history of Republican governors in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. Oh wait,,, there is no long history.
So how about this. Prove your weak BS.
Betcha can’t. Know why?
See my first line in this post.
OPENID.AOL.COM/RUNNSWIM ;
IA JUST E
READ AT GOOGLE A CLIP ABOUT GAM MEDIA IS HIREING TO BEAT AOL,
I just thought you might like to know, it came from google reader,
It looks like I am going to be traveling quite a bit here in the near future. I stopped tonight after a busy day at Rosie’s Diner for a quick dinner. I think the answer to the TSA issues are to recruit some of these young ladies who wait tables. I might even go through the line several times if they were hired!
Randy; so now thatFA KNOWS THAT, SOME WILL START TRAVEL TOO,
IF WE SEE THEY DON’T SHOW UP HERE ,WE WILL KNOW WHERE TO GET THEM,
BYE
In 2000, Alabama voters were asked to vote on a measure to repeal an existing ban on mixed-race marriages. In pre-election polling, only 21% of white voters told pollsters that they would vote against repealing the mixed marriage ban. In the privacy of the voting booth, 49% of white voters voted against repealing the ban, contrasted with only 10% of black voters who voted to repeal the ban.
http://maltman.hmdc.harvard.edu/papers/MeasuringRacialDiffs.pdf
What is the definition of racism? Is it killing, maiming, name calling, blocking people’s rights? Should people have the right to marry an opposite sex person of a different race? What percentage of white Alabamans vote GOP in Presidential elections? I may be an idiot, but I do know something about math.
Which party was it that originated the “Southern Strategy?” What was the “Southern Strategy” Why did the party which originated this strategy feel that it would be to their advantage?
What was the purpose of the Willie Horton ads?
Why the robo calls in the South Carolina primary, spreading the “news” that John McCain fathered a black child?
What about the anti-immigration reform ads, depicting overtly dark skinned “illegals.”
Which party ran these ads? Why did they run these ads?
Why do the Dem Presidential candidates run 50/50 or better, in all major regions of the country, save the Southeast, where they lose 65/35, even though the Southeast has the most blacks and blacks vote 90% Democratic? Math, again.
What is the “proof” that “most everyone” in FL is from either Cuba or NY? What is the math which relates to this?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
… and therein, folks, is the problem with over generalization and blanket sweeping statements. We aren’t polls. We aren’t statistics. We aren’t revisionist history. We are individuals. And racism is not a party trait, but an individual one.
I was tired of continually being dragged into Billy Bob’s wide net of generalizations (the reason he rarely gets civility from me, or most of us…), and I don’t take to it any more kindly when friends do the same.
You all play your statistics/race game. I think I’ll deal with humans, one on one. And so far, as far as I can see, few are scoring big points with me on either side of this game.
ta ta
Right on the heels of this statement, you then took aim at those racists GOPers, Larry. Yet you say you did not “generalize”? I beg to differ.
First of all, you are incorrect and it was 40% of “white”voters, according to the blogs loving to revisit that bit of history. Yet even that bastion of progressive ‘tudes, Daily KOs, had an Alabama commenter weigh in on that 2000 election. Turns out there’s more to the story, and it wasn’t the evil GOP old white guy, playing a race card afterall. Instead, progressives did the same.
As I said… therein lies the problem with sweeping generalizations…. and I might add, inadequate research before you leap to party racist conclusions.
That is your proof?
What are you, 12yrs old?
That load of utter BS isn’t worth the time it takes to ignore you and your special brand of stupidity.
You whine and piss yourself over political ads that *YOU* and your ignorant friends call racist. While I’m talking about the kind of people I’ve stood up to when they were using baseball bats and crowbars to beat the living hell out of a black boy for daring to walk a white girl home.
You think a commercials constitute grounds to call someone racist, I think bragging about driving around black neighborhoods firing a gun in the middle of the night to to scare the hell out of them trumps that.
You wet your pants that you’ve heard rumors of robo calls, and you leap to conclusions that strong votes for fiscal and social issues are automaticly aligned with racism, WITH NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Compare that to having a friend picked up at gun point and driven out of town and told that if he’s ever seen in town after dark again his body will never be found, by a deputy sheriff.
Your accusations are paper cuts compared to traumatic amputations.
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
Two words
Senator Byrd
STFU
TSgt Ciz, you can not argue with Little Larry. He sticks his fingers in his ears and says LA LALALALALALALALALA after he makes an unsupported post!
Don’t take it from me.
Take it from the Chairman of the Republican National Committee
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/michael-steele-acknowledges-gop-had-southern-strategy-for-decades/
At least I didn’t quote personal anecdotes and attempt to generalize these personal anecdotes.
LW/HB
@openid: You said:
This statement that you uttered shows me two things.
1. You are saying that all Republicans are racist, just not traditional white on black racists.
2. You are hung up on race to the point that you need to parse your words carefully.
You forget which party was AGAINST emancipating the slaves.
Anyone who thinks racism is a tool used by only one of the major political parties in the US either hasn’t been paying attention, or is attempting to use other peoples’ ignorance of the issue to make (a biased) political point.
Racism and other ego-centric idelogies trace back to survival tactics used in caveman days, where small bands of individuals often needed to defend themselves and their supplies from murderers and thieves. In certain cultures today, racism still plays a necessary potective role. Let me hasten to add that in many other cultures, it still serves as a protective role, but in protecting the privilged from competion from the unprivileged. In yet other societies, the mechanisms of discrimination operate across fuzzy, overlapping, and even contradictory boundaries of purpose.
If we are to live in a civilized and free society, we should recognize, illuminate, and work to eliminate the lack of civility in all groups, not just where it serves our personal or political interests.
Jeff
@ Larry
Yeah, you’re not going to get much support on that argument around here. There is legend of a conservative crowd who fashion themselves decidedly intolerant of racism, evidenced by their fashionable support the 9/11 Mosque. You won’t find that crowd here on this thread though.
I could still use a clean up up there, Aye.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.
@antics (#153):
You quote me:
You offer an interpretation:
No, this is not what I was saying. I am very mindful of the fact that Democrats have (with some justification) been accused of what might be called “reverse racism.” Now, this statement was part of a couplet, the first being “Not all Democrats are socialists, even though socialists most often vote Democratic.” I was NOT saying and never intended to say that “all Republicans are racist.”
@Mata: You are citing an armchair analysis done by a commenter on a political blog. I was citing the conclusions of a formal research study. The study also included a similar referendum in South Carolina, where sizable, albeit smaller, numbers of whites also voted to maintain the laws against mixed marriage. The study attributed this (smaller number of white votes against repealing the ban) to the confusing language on the ballot.
Getting back to Alabama and the speculation of the the blog commenter you quoted, to my knowledge the proposition in question was NOT part of a general referendum on Alabama’s old constitution, but was, rather, a stand alone measure on a simple question: “should the ban on mixed marriages be maintained?” I can’t believe that virtually anyone would “hold his nose” and vote to maintain the ban.
Another commenter on the blog comment thread you cited also had trouble accepting this:
I remember reading a lot about this issue at the time and I followed it during the 2000 election. I never recall anyone raising this as a serious possibility to explain the vote, and neither did the researchers in the paper I cited, who did a very thorough analysis. Even the “progressive” who made this claim said that he, personally, did not vote to keep this measure in place. I think it’s rather apparent that he’s just an average Joe who was trying to defend his home state.
Yes, it is certainly true that, 140 years ago, Democrats were the racists and Republicans were the reformers. But this got turned around when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act and said, famously and accurately, we’ve (Democrats) just lost the South.
For the record, once again, my point was not that Republicans are racists, in general, but the “Southern Strategy” is not historical mythology (as pointed out by GOP party Chairman Steele) and there’s a reason why that strategy persisted for so many decades — because it worked.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
And again you just show how utterly and completely ignorant you are.
You are obviously unread and young. Too young to know, understand or give a damn why the Civil rights bill was opposed and by whom. You are also obviously oblivious to the fact that it was Republican cross over votes off setting Democrat defections that passed it.
I bet you also are completely unaware that many Black leaders were NOT supportive of the Civil Rights Bill (SHOCK!!) Many consider it the prime reason blacks suffer disproportionately still.
The bill, (as is so very often true with anything the Democrats touch) was and is flawed Constitutionally and socially.
But of course some asshat like you who is incapable of seeing the world as anything but black on white or white on black, couldn’t possibly believe that.
Do your self some good before you drain that festering puss pile you call a brain, and read Thomas Sowell or Justice Thomas or any of the other (not really black according to the Democrats) scholars.
Then you can come back and ridicule the black Republicans. But do it in black face like the Democrats did just 4 or so years ago. Or you can call them Oreo’s. That is another favorite of the Democrats.
You are more racist than any Republican I know. You prove it by conflating non racial issues into racial memes. By making it impossible to speak on issues in color blind context, you are the racist. For example, the point of Willie Horton was not that he was black, it was that he was a fracking criminal. Or did you somehow miss that minor point? Oh wait, I know, you think that perhaps some *other* WHITE criminal that was released and then committed murder should have been used as an example. So that means you know of other WHITE examples,,, right!?! Or was the fact that a criminal was released and then went out and murdered people is taboo to mention strictly because he was black?
You really are a steaming pile of fecal matter aren’t you?
No.
Don’t answer.
The stench of your logic makes it all clear enough.
I wasn’t that one who said that the Civil Rights bill lost the South for the Dems, it was Lyndon Johnson. And he was correct. For nearly 100 years before the signing of the Civil Rights bill, there was a “Solid South,” and that “Solid South” was solidly Democratic. After the Civil Rights bill, the “Solid South” became almost as solidly GOP. After the Civil Rights bill, the GOP invented the “Southern Strategy.” No, that’s not my opinion, it’s the assessment of the current Chairman of the GOP.
The Democrats who stood in the way of the Civil Rights act were also known at the time as “Dixiecrats.” Many of them switched parties. Democrats held onto governorships and state legislatures, because the Democratic Party was historically — dating to Reconstruction — the party which opposed Reconstruction and the Party which passed the Jim Crow laws. As long as the Southern Democrats stood on the side of segregation, they had the support of the voters. As the national GOP instituted its “Southern Strategy,” it ingratiated itself to the formerly loyal Democratic voters and began to win and then to dominate elections to federal offices. This is all historical fact, again, confirmed by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. Just as an aside (and not because it’s important), you ask/say: “So that means you know of other WHITE examples,,, right!?!” You’d be talking John Zukoski. Almost exact copy of the Horton scenario. Also, there were a couple of versions of that advertisement. One just showed generic criminals going out of the prison gate, in a release program. Al Gore had actually brought up the Horton issue first, in a pre-nomination debate. But Gore didn’t mention Horton by name, didn’t mention that he was an African American. Only made a general criticism of the furlough program. Gore’s statement, and the generic ad, were race neutral. The famous “Willie” Horton ad — the one which got the most traction (it was remarkably effective) showed a very scary looking black man. Why Horton rather than Zukoski? Why show a scary looking black face, as opposed to simply using the generic ad which made the case very well? Why did they change the perp’s name from “William” to “Willie?” You tell me.
@Tom:
A clean up on what, precisely, Tom?
It’s been made clear to you repeatedly that you have yet to establish any factual basis for your disagreement.
All through this thread, and quite frankly, your entire history here at FA, you’ve taken the tactic of slinging whatever poo you can get your hands on up against the wall in the desperate hope that something will stick.
So, your choices remain the same.
Facts? Or sand?
AYE CHIHUAHUA; HI, may I suggest the word ‘SEND’ instead of sand?
bye
@TSgt Ciz (158)
It was January 1968. I was fresh off the flight from Okinawa after thirteen months in the I-Corps area just south of the DMZ and I had caught a ride to my (newly ex)-girlfriend’s house in San Bernardino to visit her family. They were some of my favorite people.
They weren’t at home when I arrived. But I was spotted by their neighbor, Mary, a pleasant middle-aged Mexican American lady and she invited me in for a cup of coffee while I waited to visit my “west coast family”.
So I joined her Mother at the kitchen table and proceeded to chat with them. The conversation went something like this:
“So I bet you’re glad to be back.”
“No s__t! It’s f_____g amazing!
Wow! I turned beet red and stammered out an apology. Did I just say that to Mary and her Mom?
I returned back to conversation after my friends quickly forgave me but I proceeded to spice my conversation with vulgarity over and over every time I felt relaxed. Eventually, I gained control over my mouth by sheer discipline, but I was forced to slow down and think about every word before I opened my mouth.
I had just spent eighteen months in the presence of no-one but Marines, nary a civilized human in the lot. Anyone who has done that kind of tour knows that f-bombs and other colorful words become the normal punctuation of your thought processes. They just do.
TSgt, you are in mixed company here. I would hope you are as embarrassed by your excesses in trying to insult our friend Larry as I was by my lack of control of my mouth. You have more need for forgiveness because you had every chance to reread your thoughts before you hit “send”.
Did you even notice the civility of Larry’s reply? I’ve read his posts for years and, while I disagree with virtually everything he writes, I don’t even recall him using “neo-con” “teabagger” or even “con” as a descriptive. On the other hand, I may have lumped him with the “silly socialists” at times because I am weak. 😆
You, on the other hand, weaken otherwise excellent points with unnecessary insults. You leave me feeling like I just witnessed the following:
“Yes, sir, I’d like to date your daughter. I have a degree, a fine steady job, go to a good church, give to charity, do volunteer work and (zzzziiip) Look at the size of my package!!”
Please forgive my presumption to correct your tone. I have no special standing here. And I wouldn’t hesitate to return insults in kind in as creative a fashion as I could muster. Larry Wiesenthal has my respect, earned over years of opposition. The house of Curt has open doors and many wander in. I’d like us all to be civil and learn from each other. Feel free to disagree.
Aye —
I forgot to respond to #84, above. You selectively quoted what the NY Times wrote. You said the Times “completely disagrees with what [I] said.” Here is what they actually said:
They did not say John Lewis was never called “n*gger”; they just said that there was no evidence that he was called a n*gger by “Tea Party members.” In addition, they point out that teabaggers had made and been connected to other “racially charged” statements. I reiterate what I said before:
Have you heard any of the GOPer cons who were there on Capitol Hill that day dispute that it happened, or that it could have happened? No.
Have you heard any of the Capitol Hill GOPer cons claim that John Lewis is lying now, or has a reputation for lying? No.
In fact, what was the contemporaneous response of the GOP?
Hmm . . . sounds like THEY believed it happened!
As I said, I stand by my statements and the historic record: teabaggers got “stupid” that day and one or more of them called John Lewis — a leader of the Freedom Riders, a sitting member of the House of Representatives, a veritable near-martyr of the Civil Rights wars against pro-segregation conservatives — they called him a “n*gger” because he supported a universal health care plan and they did not.
Given that he grew up Black in the Jim Crow South, I think John Lewis would know if he was called a “n*gger” that day; it was not the first time White people had directed it at him. Under any rational viewing of facts — the scene, the emotions of the moment, his reputation for truthfulness, the response of his political opponents — his testimony on the issue would be a much better reflection of fact than Andrew Breitbart, a noted falsifier of video, especially seeing as Breitbart was NOT EVEN PRESENT when the incident occurred!
I mean, really . . . you are relying on the statements of Breitbart that the incident never occurred, and Breitbart was not there. In fact, was Breitbart even in DC that weekend? Why the hell would anyone believe him and not the people who were there, like Michael Steele? Just nutty . . . .
Larry, I was quoting a member of the progressive movement in Alabama (please note the “visit *us* at link), who stated that it was a controversial measure not because of the marriage issue, but because of the constant amendment of the state Constitution. This isn’t an “analyst”, but a guy who was astutely aware of what he, and his fellow progressive activists, were doing in a particular election. How convenient for you to ignore it, and to discount it, as it runs counter to your assumptions.
What I find annoying is your leap to conclusions. Ergo, Alabama is a red state, so obviously those that voted against the ban did so because they are 1: Republican, and 2: racists.
There was no breakdown of GOP v Dem on the votes, and you automatically attributed racism to the GOP. This was negated by a progressive member, himself, who stated that a large block of progressives also voted not to repeal the ban, and that many (and that could also include GOPers) did so because of the Constitutional issue involved.
I know you. You have many conservative/GOP friends that surround you. And yet you have no compunction to smear us all in a blanket type generalization. I find that baffling. Do you not think we might take offensive at such a comment?
And what is this heinous “southern strategy” you allude to? That the GOP focused on a base that was most likely Republican white voters in the south? Did you expect they would turn big government, heavy welfare net oriented to attract what is normally a lib/prog voter? And what about the very overt Dem/Obama ovatures directly to the black voters? Do you also condemm that?
Hypocrisy.
Now, out of here for most of the day. Not ignoring you, but have work to do. Have fun with the “Dems aren’t racist, but GOPers are” type thrust. But highly disappointing to hear this from you. I know you better than that.
In defense of Ciz and Larry: This is an emotional time when we who love this country feel we are being betrayed by the White House and its administration. This elicits feelings of rage and anger that are coming to the surface. Sgt Ciz’s normally cool calculated responses are now showing the effects of that same anger and rage.
We often calmly endure the impotent, vindictive, foul language of the opposition, with indifference if not pity for their lack of cerebral capacity. They are pathetic with their juvenile rants and vulgarities: when Ciz stepped over the vulgarity line, he was not throwing around school yard expletives. This is a man who loves his country and is outraged at the insults to our freedom through the incompetence and stupidity of our present regime. It is far better that he release his emotion here than somewhere else. I understand his frustration; I think there are many others that do as well, even Larry.
Larry the Liberal sounding, non-Liberal (according to him), has shown restraint in the face of ‘cyber’ confrontation and has earned a measure of respect despite his opinions.
Today is a new day and a new beginning.
If either Ciz or DaNang want to yell at me to defuse excess tension, feel free. Skook
I think the famous epitaph on the tomb for the Three Hundred who fell at Thermopylae is appropriate at this point:
Here is another thing I find funny — in January 2002, just after 9/11, I was in NYC during the same time that the Davos conference was moved there. I saw “homeless” men sleeping on grates who had earpieces in their ears (in other words, cops). Cops with machine guns were everywhere. As I was leaving NYC, trying to go through security, a VERY attractive young female said, with a Spanish accent “Do you mind if I check your belt?” The belt had not set off the detector, but she was wondering about it because the buckle was “clunky” but did not set off the detector. I guess I could have been offended, but I wasn’t. Hell, it was less than 6 months after five young men had hijacked a jet from a neighboring airport and flew it into a building. A friend has a similarly intrusive search of her underwire bra; that was in 2005 or so.
My kid is flying next week to see grandma. I mentioned to her that she may need to decide whether she wants the scatter or the pat down. Her alternative is to take a bus to California, which would take a few days. This, my friends, is one of the prices of security in a post-9/11, post-undie bomber age.
Indeed, for all the carping about these security measures, the only “alternative” that anyone here has offered is the totally unworkable El Al profiling procedures — procedures that are fine when you run a total of 30 flights per day out of the US and require people to be there two hours early, but not workable at my local airport where Continental Airlines alone has 200 flights per day and people connecting from other cities.
I’m reminded in this conversation about Louis Ck’s commentary. We really do have “a crappy generation of spoiled idiots.”
@DaNang67:
I make no apologise for anything I’ve said to openid.aol.com/runnswim/Larry-Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I have no tolerance left for the left and their lies and gross distortions. When a mallet head says out loud that even if all Republicans aren’t outward racist, all outward racist are Republicans, I take more than a passing offense. Especially after my mother and I have placed our lives on the line fighting racism and seeing real physical injury done by real racist. You call me and my family racist at your own peril. (One might also note my family is mixed race of several origins)
Yes I did have time to censor my comments. And in fact I did. What I edited out and rewrote would have probably sent you on a flash back to Nam. And even the pre edited comments were tame compared to what I really want to say to that warm sack of worm turds.
So while I respect your service and even will give a nod to your intent. You should also know not to step into the middle fight unless you plan to choose sides.
Being against illegal immigration is not racist.
Being against releasing criminals to go out and commit murder is not racist.
Being against trampling the right to choose your associations is not racist.
Being politically savvy enough to exploit the split in your opponents long held power block along the fissures they created them self, is not racist.
Being someone who injects race into every single issue,,, THAT is racism.
Skook, I meant no disrespect to TSgt Ciz. I hope he understands that. I was merely striving to show him that most of the discourse here is civil and that hurling insults is seldom appropriate unless they’re a response in kind. They actually lessen the power of the ideas and the facts he propounds.
@DaNang67:
what you are missing is, I consider what WormTurd said to be a far more offensive comment than any thing I’ve said to or about him. I would tolerate the reverse without batting an eye.
You can call me anything your Marine buddies would have dreaamed up on their worst day, and I’d chuckle it off. Call me a racist and you and I will be seeing the first shirt after I beat a dimple in your head.