TSA agents yelled at her, handcuffed her to a chair, ripped up her ticket...

[thereisnospoon]

[Quantum Windbag;2969468]

Yes, it does.

X-Ray exposes 80 bags of Herion at airport

And IF you can read. You can read, correct?? Yes?? You just read the link that says it was the airport xray that discovered the damned bags. YES IT DOES!!! LOL! Oh, and keep denying..........LMAO!!!



Yes it did. Second, it doesn't say what kind of xray was used, so you are guessing, and now trying to divert by showing two different levels of xrays BS. All I said was xrays, and apparently the type they use on travelers, NOT on luggage.

You would a lot less like an idiot if you did not insist that other people who understand English do not know how to read.

But you must be an imbecile if you haven't figured it out by now. You have nothing to disprove the article, and nothing to prove that the standard xray used by everybody was not used on the boy. You are not only an imbecile, your a clueless village idiot fresh off the pumpkin wagon.

You and that cat go toe to toe on math problems, huh?

 

[sangha]

If you understood english, you'd understand that shintao didn't say any particular scanner went through skin. He said that xrays would see things hidden in body cavities, etc, and you replied "No, it doesn't"

Believe it or not Einstein, but xrays *DO* see things that are hidden in body cavities

Since this whole thread is a discussion about the new backscatter X-Ray scanners, and not about medical X-Ray machines, and he clearly assumed that Customs used the same machines to find heroin inside a smugglers stomach, which is impossible, I am not the one with the English comprehension problem. He went out of his way to prove that I did not know what I was talking about, managing to take three posts before he accused me of not being able to read.

Your defense just proves you cannot read either.

Sangha is a room temperature IQ lefty who has the menatl capacity of a three toed sloth.
Sangha has never posted a fact buy simply likes to argue for the sake of arging. Free entertainment.
My goal in posting to this moth sized brain is to make him/her so angry he/she MUST swear in reply.
Some people are easy. Sangha is simple.

If you want to see a moth-sized brain get so angry it MUST swear, I suggest you read post #159

 

[sangha]

I am also against this strict constitutionalist thing of pushing issues to the absurd on constitutional intrepretation. hence my other sarcastic post above.

You could say that if it is not mentioned in the constitution the govt can have no control over it.
Or so some say when it suits their particular rationalization.[/QUOT]
Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on the constitutional absurdities.
Examples. Not your opinion. GO!

An example would be conservatives who believe there is no right to privacy because the Constitution says nothing about privacy

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Big Brother is out of control. Is this really what Americans want? If so,Al Qaeda has won.

 

[SFC Ollie]

this entire complaint is nothing more than news channels needing a story. 100,000 people a day traveling and we get a dozen horror stories. Whup de fucking doo.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I HATE the tsa!


They are little people with a very small bit of power over others. Just enough to fuck with you.

Just wait until they are unionized .

 

[rikules]

"Just take your humiliation and like it!!" That's what your wonderful Government is now telling you. You're all Terrorists now. Enjoy your flight.

this all started after 9/11 with bush in office

and he remained in office until 2 years ago

during which time these things continued to happen.....

and during that period conservatives DEFENDED these behaviors and tactics saying
"we must give up a few freedoms in order to defend our country"

now
with obama in office and the same tactics being used you decry them.....
claiming they are evidence of our rights being taken away by fascist nazi democrats....

i have no doubt that, after a republican wins the next election and these tactics continue, you will defend them again

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am also against this strict constitutionalist thing of pushing issues to the absurd on constitutional intrepretation. hence my other sarcastic post above.

You could say that if it is not mentioned in the constitution the govt can have no control over it.
Or so some say when it suits their particular rationalization.[/QUOT]
Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on the constitutional absurdities.
Examples. Not your opinion. GO!

An example would be conservatives who believe there is no right to privacy because the Constitution says nothing about privacy

Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's righit to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I HATE the tsa!


They are little people with a very small bit of power over others. Just enough to fuck with you.

Just wait until they are unionized .

Please God ....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These people have enough arrogance. Union protection would only maker these people impossible to deal with. Not that it is a picnic now.

 

[sangha]

An example would be conservatives who believe there is no right to privacy because the Constitution says nothing about privacy

Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's righit to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy.

I said wingnuts want to amend the constitution to limit the rights of people, and sure enough, the wingnuts rush to prove I'm right even as some of the more sentient wingnuts try to deny the truth.

PS - Roe v Wade wasn't the first SCOTUS decision that dealt with and recognized a right to privacy. It's funny when a wingnut whips out the truthiness gambit. Too bad they are so bad with the facts

 

[jillian]

Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's righit to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy.

That's good... you can quote the 4th Amendment... congrats.

Our system is not based on statute alone, but also on caselaw interpreting each statute, including the Constitution. That's what's known as the common law system, as opposed to a "code" system, like France. Now, understand that the "Right to Privacy" line of cases is based on the fact that the sum total of the Bill of Rights is to create a zone around each individual into which government interference cannot cross when a fundamental right is at stake. That is why government cannot prohibit you from using contraception (Griswold v Ct), marry someone of another race (Loving v VA) or interfere in a woman's right to choose until the governmental interest outweighs the interests of the individual (Roe v Wade)

And if you read those cases, you will see that it is not that the cases themselves conferred a right of privacy, but that the right already existed within the constitution and interpreted it accordingly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's righit to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy.

I said wingnuts want to amend the constitution to limit the rights of people, and sure enough, the wingnuts rush to prove I'm right even as some of the more sentient wingnuts try to deny the truth.

PS - Roe v Wade wasn't the first SCOTUS decision that dealt with and recognized a right to privacy. It's funny when a wingnut whips out the truthiness gambit. Too bad they are so bad with the facts

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

 

[sangha]

I said wingnuts want to amend the constitution to limit the rights of people, and sure enough, the wingnuts rush to prove I'm right even as some of the more sentient wingnuts try to deny the truth.

PS - Roe v Wade wasn't the first SCOTUS decision that dealt with and recognized a right to privacy. It's funny when a wingnut whips out the truthiness gambit. Too bad they are so bad with the facts

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

Boy, are you dumb

You just got done saying how the right to privacy is not, and should not be, a part of the constitution, and now you're wondering where you supported the limiting of rights.

 

[jillian]

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible... words have meanings and it is the INTERPRETATION of those words that matters... for example, what is "equal" treatment under the law? In 1890, it was that blacks and whites could have separate schools as long as those schools were "equal". In 1950, the Court recognized that there could be no equality if schools were separate... THAT is what is mean by a "living" constitution.

Read... learn...

Marbury v. Madison

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

Boy, are you dumb

You just got done saying how the right to privacy is not, and should not be, a part of the constitution, and now you're wondering where you supported the limiting of rights.

This is what I posted....
"Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's right to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy."

Now, if you can find..."right to privacy is not, and should not be, a part of the constitution"
you're a miracle...
Of course I stated nothing of the kind. So instead of a miracle, you're simply full of meirda.
Seeing what you want to see and thinking THAT is the truth does not make it so.
You don't like the facts. Guess what? Life's unfair. It's planned that way.

 

[sangha]

Boy, are you dumb

You just got done saying how the right to privacy is not, and should not be, a part of the constitution, and now you're wondering where you supported the limiting of rights.

This is what I posted....
"Umm..The 4th amendment is the only amendment that deals with privacy.
It states.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. there is no "right to privacy" per se.
Although, the attrorneys who tried their case in the US Supreme Court, used the 4th Amendment as the basis for their argument. The attorneys claimed ( this is loose interpretation) a woman's right to reproductive freedom was a matter of privacy. The Court agreed.
Now, the misconception is Roe is a Constitutional decision that since the Supreme Court ruled, the decision is backed by the US Constitution. It isn't.
So there ya have it.
The Roe case stands on it's own merits. The decision is not a precedent for a Constitutional right to privacy."

Now, if you can find..."right to privacy is not, and should not be, a part of the constitution"
you're a miracle...
Of course I stated nothing of the kind. So instead of a miracle, you're simply full of meirda.
Seeing what you want to see and thinking THAT is the truth does not make it so.
You don't like the facts. Guess what? Life's unfair. It's planned that way.

You don't like the fact that when SCOTUS says something is constitutional, then it IS constitutional. You don't like the fact that the constitution protects the peoples' right to privacy, but you're too dishonest to come right out and say so. Instead you try to weasal about how the right to privacy isn't backed by the constitution.

Deciding what is constitutional is one of the Supreme Courts jobs. That's fact. You don't like the facts. Guess what? Life's unfair. It's planned that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible... words have meanings and it is the INTERPRETATION of those words that matters... for example, what is "equal" treatment under the law? In 1890, it was that blacks and whites could have separate schools as long as those schools were "equal". In 1950, the Court recognized that there could be no equality if schools were separate... THAT is what is mean by a "living" constitution.

Read... learn...

Marbury v. Madison

Who said it was? You libs are up on religion and your backhanded anti- Christianity.
Yeah, words do have meaning. And it begins and ends there. You people see or hear something you don't like and you come up with 10,000 different meanings. Nearly all of them self serving.
Seperate but equal there, oh scholarly one NEVER appeared in the US Constitution.
Seperate but equal was a law found to be unconstitutional.
That happens all the time.
As you must know the Supreme Court's primary function is a place for those to seek redress. It also exists to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"..
It also there for us to protest what in our opinion are "unjust" laws.
BY the the seperate but equal laws were struck down because they were unjust.
I find it amusing how the only people who complain about the US Cosntitution are those on the political left. I wonder why.
You people want to exist in a vat of grey matter.
Not here. There is right and wrong. There is black and white. With an occasional dash of herbs and spices.

 

[jillian]

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible... words have meanings and it is the INTERPRETATION of those words that matters... for example, what is "equal" treatment under the law? In 1890, it was that blacks and whites could have separate schools as long as those schools were "equal". In 1950, the Court recognized that there could be no equality if schools were separate... THAT is what is mean by a "living" constitution.

Read... learn...

Marbury v. Madison

Who said it was? You libs are up on religion and your backhanded anti- Christianity.
Yeah, words do have meaning. And it begins and ends there. You people see or hear something you don't like and you come up with 10,000 different meanings. Nearly all of them self serving.
Seperate but equal there, oh scholarly one NEVER appeared in the US Constitution.
Seperate but equal was a law found to be unconstitutional.
That happens all the time.
As you must know the Supreme Court's primary function is a place for those to seek redress. It also exists to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"..
It also there for us to protest what in our opinion are "unjust" laws.
BY the the seperate but equal laws were struck down because they were unjust.
I find it amusing how the only people who complain about the US Cosntitution are those on the political left. I wonder why.
You people want to exist in a vat of grey matter.
Not here. There is right and wrong. There is black and white. With an occasional dash of herbs and spices.

i think you entirely missed my point. and like i said, read and learn..

because i'll give you a hint... smarter people than you or i have argued these issues for 200 plus years... you sure as hell aren't even close.

i tried to help you. )

 

[sangha]

Ok, Knee jerk reactionmeister....Find where I stated or implied I supported the limiting of rights.
The rights we have are given to us by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution Enough said. The framers saw to that.
There are those on the political left who see the US Constitution as a roadblock to their agenda. The see the Constitution as a "living" document to be crafted and molded in the way they see fit. That isn't the way it works.
If that is too much for anyone to handle there are about 190 other countries just waiting to welcome you.

the constitution is not some fundie's bible... words have meanings and it is the INTERPRETATION of those words that matters... for example, what is "equal" treatment under the law? In 1890, it was that blacks and whites could have separate schools as long as those schools were "equal". In 1950, the Court recognized that there could be no equality if schools were separate... THAT is what is mean by a "living" constitution.

Read... learn...

Marbury v. Madison

Who said it was? You libs are up on religion and your backhanded anti- Christianity.
Yeah, words do have meaning. And it begins and ends there. You people see or hear something you don't like and you come up with 10,000 different meanings. Nearly all of them self serving.
Seperate but equal there, oh scholarly one NEVER appeared in the US Constitution.
Seperate but equal was a law found to be unconstitutional.
That happens all the time.
As you must know the Supreme Court's primary function is a place for those to seek redress. It also exists to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"..
It also there for us to protest what in our opinion are "unjust" laws.
BY the the seperate but equal laws were struck down because they were unjust.
I find it amusing how the only people who complain about the US Cosntitution are those on the political left. I wonder why.
You people want to exist in a vat of grey matter.
Not here. There is right and wrong. There is black and white. With an occasional dash of herbs and spices.

Umm, SCOTUS' primary function is NOT "a place for those to seek redress". Nor is it a place to protest unjust laws.

Seperate but equal was not struck down because it was unjust; it was struck down because SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional.

And it's the rightwingers who want to change the constitution. It was a rightwing president who called the constitution "Just a piece of paper" and it was the conservatives who cried "The constitution is not a suicide pact" when they wanted to ignore the constitutions protection of our rights

But please do keep blathering about herbs and spices and black and white. It makes you sound so knowledgeable about the constitution

 

[SFC Ollie]

I can't believe there are still people who believe that "piece of paper" lie.