The Obama Approved (Nazi)TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously, people get way too emotional about this when it's really nothing more than trying to find practical solutions to real problems...

It's sad the way our security gets politicized and undermined when attention seekers with an agenda act as if people don't understand about the 4th amendment and all...

The problem they are attempting to find a solution to is the fact that politicians do not want to look bad if another terrorist gets on a plane and flies it into the UN building. That might be a problem for the politician, and you might even think that it is a problem if politicians look bad, but I do not see that as a problem. I do not give a fuck if a politican looks bad because something that he could not stop happened.

The TSA is about looking good, not preventing terror attacks. The TSA has not prevented a single terror attack in its existence, and never will. They make up procedures to stop the last attack, tell us terrorists are geniuses, and treat us all like idiots. This is theater designed to make people feel good, and you allow them to violate your rights so that you can believe a lie.

What this former Miss USA pulled here is what I would call theater...

Of course you do. If you actually considered her complaint based on the facts and merits you might have to admit that the TSA is going to far.

 

[syrenn]

You've reached a dead end here, huh?

No, if you fly often you would see for yourself what i am saying. There is no telling you or explaining it to you, as you don't want to listen.

They pick women to search because they look attractive. They let people who i would consider dicey walk right though.

I have seen for myself and IMO it is no big deal...

To you it may be not big deal to be grouped by a total stranger, to others perhaps, not so much.

 

[syrenn]

Seriously, people get way too emotional about this when it's really nothing more than trying to find practical solutions to real problems...

It's sad the way our security gets politicized and undermined when attention seekers with an agenda act as if people don't understand about the 4th amendment and all...

The problem they are attempting to find a solution to is the fact that politicians do not want to look bad if another terrorist gets on a plane and flies it into the UN building. That might be a problem for the politician, and you might even think that it is a problem if politicians look bad, but I do not see that as a problem. I do not give a fuck if a politican looks bad because something that he could not stop happened.

The TSA is about looking good, not preventing terror attacks. The TSA has not prevented a single terror attack in its existence, and never will. They make up procedures to stop the last attack, tell us terrorists are geniuses, and treat us all like idiots. This is theater designed to make people feel good, and you allow them to violate your rights so that you can believe a lie.

What this former Miss USA pulled here is what I would call theater...

Would it be theater to you if you felt violated by someone touching your private parts?

 

[Valerie]

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

Sure, I try and try yet you refuse to see who really clings to PCism here...



Administrative searches are not an "argument" but indeed the facts of a legal precedent which stands to be shot down any time now... Or not...

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.

Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports.

Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

 

[syrenn]

Sure, I try and try yet you refuse to see who really clings to PCism here...



Administrative searches are not an "argument" but indeed the facts of a legal precedent which stands to be shot down any time now... Or not...

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.

Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports.

Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

 

[Dr Grump]

I love how people keep going back to the administrative search argument, and then ignore the fact that these searches are both more intrusive than necessary given current technology, and are not confined to luggage.

Want to try again?

You do know the princess in the OP refused to go through the scanner?

 

[Valerie]

And, according to the citation you gave, are only permissible when they search luggage and carryons.



Can you explain how we get from a search of luggage and carry ons for weapons and explosives to patting down everyone who gets on a plane?

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

 

[syrenn]

Is that what's really happening? I doubt that would be PC...

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

There is no difference in my opinion.

 

[Valerie]

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

There is no difference in my opinion.

Therein lies our disagreement...

 

[jillian]

Conservatives only object to this because she's not Muslim.

and therein lies the truth of the matter.


two words... timothy mcveigh.

Why do you keep mentioning Timothy McVeigh? He blew up a truck.

because he is a white christian all-american home-grown terrorist. you all think terrists only come in arab-flavor. and THAT is why the constant and repeated tantrums.

so you think it's ok for someone to make disgusting allegations without filing charges?

and you repeat those unfounded charges because you have an agenda. i personally, think that's incredibly wrong.

but it's the old 'if you say something often enough, it becomes true' BS.

 

[jillian]

That is exactly what is happening.


just for some thought.

You need a judges order to let LEO search your home and it must show exactly what they are searching for.
Even if you are pulled over by a LEO for breaking some law, he cannot search your car unless there is probable cause TO search your car...and even then it must hold up in court.

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

There is no difference in my opinion.

as much as i like you, syrenn, on this issue, you simply don't like reality. and as much as i am always interested in your opinion, in the eyes of the law there is a huge difference between a person's home and the limited search done before boarding an airline. the 4th amendment does not prohibit searches. it prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. i don't know why the persistent refusal of the anti-TSA propagandists to accept this. What is UNREASONABLE in the eyes of the law is clearly defined in the CASELAW. Why do people persist in leaving out the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the issue?

You have no right to fly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your baggage or person when you board a plane. The reasons for that are too many to list. But once again, for you and anyone else who has an issue with this, feel free not to fly.

As for me? I don't want to get on a plane where there TSA hasn't done its job.

But keep letting every questionable propaganda thread that is posted on this issue by certain people be given far more weight than it ever deserved and form the basis for more continued irrationality on this issue.

 

[sparky]

in the spirit of the current national geslat, shouldn't the TSA have replaced Bert Parks , with patriotism fienged via contestants willingly felt up on national TV?

 

[syrenn]

No, I've already thought about it plenty and in fact there is a BIG legal difference between an administrative search for weapons prior to boarding a commercial jetliner vs a search by LEO of your car or your house...

There is no difference in my opinion.

as much as i like you, syrenn, on this issue, you simply don't like reality. and as much as i am always interested in your opinion, in the eyes of the law there is a huge difference between a person's home and the limited search done before boarding an airline. the 4th amendment does not prohibit searches. it prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. i don't know why the persistent refusal of the anti-TSA propagandists to accept this. What is UNREASONABLE in the eyes of the law is clearly defined in the CASELAW. Why do people persist in leaving out the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the issue?

You have no right to fly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your baggage or person when you board a plane. The reasons for that are too many to list. But once again, for you and anyone else who has an issue with this, feel free not to fly.

As for me? I don't want to get on a plane where there TSA hasn't done its job.

But keep letting every questionable propaganda thread that is posted on this issue by certain people be given far more weight than it ever deserved and form the basis for more continued irrationality on this issue.

I love ya too hun.


Then, in that light everyone who flys should be bodily searched. Everyone, without exception..

 

[Valerie]

 

[Valerie]

Oh look who's been selected as Cry Baby Bitch of the Week!

Cry Baby Bitch of the Week – Susie Castillo

This Week in Women: Susie Castillo, Katy Perry, and moreThis former Miss USA bitch posted a video on YouTube Wednesday blubbering about being “molested” by a TSA official in Dallas. Apparently she opted out of the full-body scanner and was subject to a patdown by a female employee. Just like the millions of other people who fly every single day. She claims the woman “violated” her, touching her vag four times.

First of all, I’m not sure what this broad’s sex life is like now that she’s post-pageantry, but a little rub down OTP is hardly grounds for a molestation claim. She makes it sound like she was straight up fingerblasted at the baggage claim. Make another video when you at least get to second base and maybe you’ll have my attention. Secondly, she opted for the patdown since she’s a “frequent flyer” and heard that the scanner gives a heavy dose of radiation. Here’s an idea: stop jetting around to C-list events trying to pawn yourself off as a model/actress/TV personality. If you can’t handle a little cancer and the occasional diddling from a woman in uniform, just go ahead and phone it in. I guarantee no one will notice.

Katy Perry news | This Week in Women | Susie Castillo TSA patdown

 

[jillian]

There is no difference in my opinion.

as much as i like you, syrenn, on this issue, you simply don't like reality. and as much as i am always interested in your opinion, in the eyes of the law there is a huge difference between a person's home and the limited search done before boarding an airline. the 4th amendment does not prohibit searches. it prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. i don't know why the persistent refusal of the anti-TSA propagandists to accept this. What is UNREASONABLE in the eyes of the law is clearly defined in the CASELAW. Why do people persist in leaving out the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the issue?

You have no right to fly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your baggage or person when you board a plane. The reasons for that are too many to list. But once again, for you and anyone else who has an issue with this, feel free not to fly.

As for me? I don't want to get on a plane where there TSA hasn't done its job.

But keep letting every questionable propaganda thread that is posted on this issue by certain people be given far more weight than it ever deserved and form the basis for more continued irrationality on this issue.

I love ya too hun.


Then, in that light everyone who flys should be bodily searched. Everyone, without exception..

i don't mind the scanner. couldn't care less. so there's no need for a body search. see how it works?

and, frankly, if they found something untoward on my person, or if i acted like a moron, i have no doubt they'd find me suspicious and do a pat down.

(not a body search, no matter how much some would like that). a pat down is a surface touching and is not invasive. the lies on this issue are getting wearying.

 

[rightwinger]

She looks like a potential terrorist to me.

We can't be too careful with terrorist beauty queens. Look at Sarah Palin

 

[Robert]

Hmmm so are these supporters of this Illegal Search not the same ones who screamed bloody murder about the supposed rights they lost with the previous administration.

So now we have an administration who really is taking peoples rights and these same people support the actions simply shocked.....no really I'm shocked

 

[Valerie]

Hmmm so are these supporters of this Illegal Search not the same ones who screamed bloody murder about the supposed rights they lost with the previous administration.

So now we have an administration who really is taking peoples rights and these same people support the actions simply shocked.....no really I'm shocked

There was no illegal search...

 

[jillian]

Hmmm so are these supporters of this Illegal Search not the same ones who screamed bloody murder about the supposed rights they lost with the previous administration.

So now we have an administration who really is taking peoples rights and these same people support the actions simply shocked.....no really I'm shocked

i know you're really not very bright. but what in your expertise leads you to believe that the search is "illegal"...

(reminding you and the other idiots that the constitution bars UNREASONABLE searches, not all searches).

carry on.