Ron Paul Goes After the TSA

[SHOOTALL]

You point out the problem you must gamble to test the law !

[dukkillr]

You point out the problem you must gamble to test the law !

Not a problem if you're right!  In fact if you have a good case with sound legal reasoning you'll probably be able to find a non-profit to do the work free.  If, on the other hand, your theory is not legally sound, it may not be a very good gamble.  I don't see how you would end up in prison though.  Likely just taken to the door of the airport and sent on your way.
 
Did you read the case?

[Matt]

Not sure.  I think the deal is that the airlines provided the screening historically and then post 9/11 the government attached some requirements of that security. 

The airports have two choices:
1) TSA
2) Private security


If option 2 is chosen there are some subsidy loss.

[nw_hunter]

Not sure.  I think the deal is that the airlines provided the screening historically and then post 9/11 the government attached some requirements of that security. 

The airports have two choices:
1) TSA
2) Private security


If option 2 is chosen there are some subsidy loss.

Hard to make it without those good old subsidies.

[powderman]

What do California schools teach about homosexuality? Specifically - is there something being taught that is... objectionable? What?
 
 
MATT. Not sure I fully understand that. Do you mean they would not be as good?? POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

No PM I think what Matt means and he can correct me if wrong, is he is wondering if the airlines lose government subsidies if they refuse tsa and use a private firm.

[powderman]

BILLY. Thanks. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

You point out the problem you must gamble to test the law !

Not a problem if you're right!  In fact if you have a good case with sound legal reasoning you'll probably be able to find a non-profit to do the work free.  If, on the other hand, your theory is not legally sound, it may not be a very good gamble.  I don't see how you would end up in prison though.  Likely just taken to the door of the airport and sent on your way.
 
Did you read the case?

Wasn't spefic to this case but cases in general.

[Junior1942]

As always in these things, feel free to take your arguments to the courts.  Don't like what I think the current reality is?  Show up for a flight, refuse the screening, and file suit under a 4th amendment claim.  I know what I think will happen, but I could be wrong...  Let us know what happens.

I have a better idea.  Start your own airline and advertise "No Screening!" You'll (a) have trouble filling enough seats to make even one flight; and (b) you'll need lots of extra planes as they'll frequently fall out of the air in tiny pieces. 
Question: would you allow your children or grandchildren to fly on an airplane with no pre-flight security?

[powderman]

junior. Pre flight security has nothing to do with removing adult diapers from 95 yr old women and running your hand down inside a 6 yr old girls panties. It has to do with stopping MUSLIM TERRORISTS. POWDERMAN. 

[Lost Farmboy]

Not sure.  I think the deal is that the airlines provided the screening historically and then post 9/11 the government attached some requirements of that security. 

The airports have two choices:
1) TSA
2) Private security


If option 2 is chosen there are some subsidy loss.

 
Not really true Matt. Even if the airports choose private screeners the screeners have to follow TSA rules including Porno scanners and enhanced pat downs.

[Junior1942]

junior. Pre flight security has nothing to do with .... running your hand down inside a 6 yr old girls panties.   

BS.  You can't prove that happened.

[BBF]

Can you that it didn't happen?

[Junior1942]

Can you that it didn't happen?

Of course not, but if it did happen a TSA agent is looking for a job and a lawyer.

[BBF]

I hope so,however suing a Govt employee doing his/her job is not usually worth doing.

[Lost Farmboy]

junior. Pre flight security has nothing to do with .... running your hand down inside a 6 yr old girls panties.   

BS.  You can't prove that happened.

I saw it happen.

[Junior1942]

junior. Pre flight security has nothing to do with .... running your hand down inside a 6 yr old girls panties.   

BS.  You can't prove that happened.

I saw it happen.

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

[Lost Farmboy]

junior. Pre flight security has nothing to do with .... running your hand down inside a 6 yr old girls panties.   

BS.  You can't prove that happened.

I saw it happen.

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

 
So, Junior you believe it's a felony, why do you support it?

[Casull]

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

 
junior, so you happen to know what's a felony when you don't even know what state this occured in?  It's just made up "facts" like that which make your responses so weak.
 

[Junior1942]

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

 
junior, so you happen to know what's a felony when you don't even know what state this occured in?  It's just made up "facts" like that which make your responses so weak.
 

Sexually molesting a six-year-old child is a felony everywhere.
Re: Lost Farmboy: I don't support it.  Didn't say I did. Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths? 

[Casull]

Sexually molesting a six-year-old child is a felony everywhere.

 
Are you purposely being ignorant?  You said he was guilty of a felony for not reporting it.  Sheesh.

[Lost Farmboy]

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

 
junior, so you happen to know what's a felony when you don't even know what state this occured in?  It's just made up "facts" like that which make your responses so weak.
 

Sexually molesting a six-year-old child is a felony everywhere.
Re: Lost Farmboy: I don't support it.  Didn't say I did. Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths?

 
From multiple post from you it seems you think every thing the TSA is doing is OK. Your post indicate you support what the TSA is doing. If you support the TSA you support the sexual molestation of men, women and children. That is what they are doing.

[Junior1942]

Sexually molesting a six-year-old child is a felony everywhere.

 
Are you purposely being ignorant?  You said he was guilty of a felony for not reporting it.  Sheesh.

Why don't you say what you mean?  Not reporting a sexual molestation of a child isn't a felony everywhere?  If not, it ought to be!

[Junior1942]

Yeah, right.  If so you're guilty of a felony, too, for not reporting it.

 
junior, so you happen to know what's a felony when you don't even know what state this occured in?  It's just made up "facts" like that which make your responses so weak.
 

Sexually molesting a six-year-old child is a felony everywhere.
Re: Lost Farmboy: I don't support it.  Didn't say I did. Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths?

 
From multiple post from you it seems you think every thing the TSA is doing is OK. Your post indicate you support what the TSA is doing. If you support the TSA you support the sexual molestation of men, women and children. That is what they are doing.

What I don't support is fools trying to stop airport security.   

[Casull]

Why don't you say what you mean?  Not reporting a sexual molestation of a child isn't a felony everywhere?  If not, it ought to be!

        Actually, I'd be a little surprised if it was a felony for a stranger anywhere.  BTW, why don't you read before you write?

[Lost Farmboy]

  Nobody wants to stop airport security. Just the porno scanners and sexual assaults. Security was sufficient before the sex crimes started.

[powderman]

  Nobody wants to stop airport security. Just the porno scanners and sexual assaults. Security was sufficient before the sex crimes started.

 
LOST. Thats it exactly. They try to stop muslim terrorists by molesting Americans?? Nope, don't make sense to me either. POWDERMAN.