Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sit Sit .. good boy .. TSA more crazy than crazy

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Sit Sit .. good boy .. TSA more crazy than crazy


  2. #2
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    He didn't say "Barry says!"
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Oh, TSA should be encouraged in this sort of thing. Yes, please, dream up some more. Anger enough travelers and the backlash will cause change.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    It's stories like this that almost make me wish I did fly more often. I'd love to be able to show my fellow travelers what it means to be a free people. I just hope I can keep my Tourrette Syndrome in check.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Anger enough travelers and the backlash will cause change.
    I think your giving the American people too much credit. I really believe there is no limit to what the gov can require of them, they will comply. BAAAAA
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I think your giving the American people too much credit. I really believe there is no limit to what the gov can require of them, they will comply. BAAAAA
    That's not the sense I get on this subject. People are angry about this. The push-back forced the fedgov agency to recently scale back assaulting children and elderly. The fedgov agency almost broke its tongue with the linguistic gymnastics required to explain the backstep without conceding its earlier justifications were spurious, but it did nonetheless backstep.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    I would likely have answered "no...it's too warm in here" and have kept walking and just ignore them entirely.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    I am glad that I don't fly anymore. I have not flown on a commercial airline since 2001.

    I would have ignored the TSA idiot and if they tried anything I would have demanded that they produce the constitutional authority for the government to have created the TSA in the first place.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I am glad that I don't fly anymore. I have not flown on a commercial airline since 2001.

    I would have ignored the TSA idiot and if they tried anything I would have demanded that they produce the constitutional authority for the government to have created the TSA in the first place.
    Oh, I think that one's already been ratified by SCOTUS. I vaguely recall reading that there was SCOTUS ruling within the last several years that these suspicionless, warrantless, and totally unnecessary components of security theater were justified under something called the special needs doctrine.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    So... What do we do? Obey the Stay commands? What would result if we don't?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    So... What do we do? Obey the Stay commands? What would result if we don't?
    Oh, TSA has already acknowledged they have no authority to compel people to obey the commands. Its in one of the newsstories about this. Which is just another way of saying TSA was trying to use authority they didn't have. No surprise there. Government will always try that, thus Patrick Henry's warning to guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-08-2012 at 01:54 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, I think that one's already been ratified by SCOTUS. I vaguely recall reading that there was SCOTUS ruling within the last several years that these suspicion-less, warrant-less, and totally unnecessary components of security theater were justified under something called the special needs doctrine.
    Then in that case our country is at an end. Now I just hope to survive the up coming meltdown.

    I believe it will be more violent that the collapse of Rome was.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Then in that case our country is at an end. Now I just hope to survive the up coming meltdown.

    I believe it will be more violent that the collapse of Rome was.

    As long as people live here, our country will not end. But, the fedgov might.

    You see, I do not equate the government with the country, nation, or society.


    Separately, I recently read an article about the fedgov. The gist was that the constitution must have been written to allow the expansion of the government. This aligns with Lysander Spooner's comment that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Part of the article was a long quote from someone else pointing out that the federal courts are really just part of that system, designed less to protect the rest of us than to ratify the expansions (usurpations) of the other two branches. That is to say, the federal courts legitimize the usurpations of the other two branches. Been going on since practically day one. And, a little bit of thinking/remembering will come close to justifying that view. Just think of all the times the federal courts sided with freedom on substantial questions, and then think of all the times they sided with the fed gov. Just compare the weight and long-range effects of the liberty decisions with the anti-liberty decisions. Its not hard at all to see if you think about it for a bit.*

    Shoot, just a few cases is enough to stand your hair on end. Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce. Conventional wisdom says it wasn't until the Gun Free School Zone Act decision of 1992 that SCOTUS finally said "no" to a commerce clause violation. The fedgov tried to justify the overturned law on the spurious premise that students who have to worry about guns in schools won't do as well academically and thus won't contribute as much to the economy when they grow up. SCOTUS said congress had no power to regulate that. Some 30 to 40 years of opportunity to put the brakes on government expansion, and they toss us a little bone like that. I say a little bone because not too many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that a Ms. Raich could not grow her own marijuana even for her own medical necessity** because, among other things Wickard v Filburn meant growing her own did indeed affect interstate commerce and that the fedgov could make it illegal even if states made it legal.

    *It helps to have read two books: Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods, and It Is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano. Plenty of examples in those two books.

    **I once supported the War on Drugs, but even her list of symptoms and the lack of relief from medical drugs would have made me support her. I think her name is Angel Raich (if you want to google her). The case is Gonzales vs Raich.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-08-2012 at 03:43 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    I believe the best thing to do, as you continue walking, is say "Cool. Now make them roll over."

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    I believe the best thing to do, as you continue walking, is say "Cool. Now make them roll over."
    You win today's "awesome" award.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    . Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce.
    I remember reading about that case. It did make my hair stand up on end so to speak. To this day that case scares me.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    .... Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce.....
    While I agree with most of what you are going for, I ask you to stop using Wickard v Filburn as the whipping boy. Filburn did not use a portion of his wheat crop only for his exclusive personal (family) use. Go read the case and see exactly how much grain the feds were talking about, and then calculate how much flour might be involved based on .75 pounds flour from every pound of wheat. Also calculate how much bread we would be looking at based on 1.25 pounds of flour per loaf of bread. Go ahead, presume a large family subsisting mostly on bread because of economic hard times, and factor three loaves of bread per meal. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel is some help in figuring it out - or to save you time: it's 14,340 pounds of wheat. Seven tons! For personal use?

    In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.[Chen, Jim (2003). "Filburn′s Legacy". Emory Law Journal 52: 1719. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=901026.]
    I still despise the fact that the .gov has been allowed to stick it's nose and fingers into what should have been an off-limits area based on a "proper" reading of the Commerce Clause. But Filburn is not your ideal poster boy.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •