| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: TSA overreach Posted by: Perm Dude - [5510572522] Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 13:30 Things are really coming to a head regarding the TSA's new invasive "security" devices and protocol. My man Rush Holt is on the case. Money quote: The entire episode has served as a symbol of an invasive, technology-driven passenger screening process that is not making us safer, even as it humiliates, degrades, and enrages a public that deserves far better from those ostensibly seeking to protect them. Lots of virtual ink being spilled these days about the new TSA--apparently you can either be photographed nude or be groped by a stranger--your choice! Bruce Schneier has all the latest scoop you'll need. I rarely fly--maybe once a year or so. The humiliation of going through those security zones is enough to keep me away--sounds like I'm not going to be in a rush to go back. | |||||||
| 76 | sarge33rd ID: 581115611 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:23 |
Here is the prob as I see it: He needs to veto it, and i believe he knows this. HOWEVER, it is part of the def Authorization Bill. Veto it, and the GOP will be ALL OVER, the airwaves, with how he refused to fund the soldiers in the field. Gullible as the American public is, it would cost him (and the Dems), the WH. So play devils advocate, which is worse? This bill, or a Rep Pres with a Rep House and who knows, for the Senate? | ||||||
| 77 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:50 |
He needs to come out and clearly say he will sign the bill without that provision. Then veto it and send it back to the Senate. Make them stand up for the provision on its own. | ||||||
| 78 | sarge33rd ID: 581115611 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 14:01 |
agreed, and I think he needs to do it publicly... | ||||||
| 79 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:07 |
And herein lies the problem I've been talking about for years - rather than flat out denouncing this piece of trash provision you guys want to come on here and give this a political spin about how its all the republicans fault. According to the Senate website there are currently 2 independents and 51 democrats. So don't sit here giving me any crap about how this is a republican ploy. This is not just rep or dem. This is political BS across the board. senators of the 112th congress A vote of 93-7. 2 republicans voted against it. Even if none of the independents voted against it t hat still means 46 dems voted for it. This is so obviously not a partisan ploy. The provision in question was co-sponsored by a republican AND a democrat. For one event can you set aside your partisan bias and treat this simply as a grave travesty of our consititutional rights that is coming from our congress. Not one section of it, but 93% of it. And yes, I do hope Obama veto's this bill. And yes I hope he does publicly state why. Not for any partisan reasons but because its a shame that this was crowbarred in and the public needs to know about this so they can all contact their respective senators and chew them out. | ||||||
| 80 | sarge33rd ID: 581115611 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:13 |
from the link in 74: 10. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) tried to kill the provision on indefinite detention with an amendment that required Congressional review of these brand-new military detention powers, but his effort failed 60 votes to 38. article on that vote WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat. The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it. then of course we have Lindsey Grahams comments: 15. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the provisions' most vocal supporters, put it this way to the New York Times: "Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up 'to imprisonment and death ... And when they say, "I want my lawyer," you tell them: "Shut up. You don't get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda."'" Shut up, fool! Lindsey Graham hates it when you talk. Like it or not, it is a PREDOMINANTLY, Rep thing. Either way, I want it vetoed, killed, dead, DOA | ||||||
| 81 | DWetzel ID: 31111810 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 16:16 |
"And herein lies the problem I've been talking about for years - rather than flat out denouncing this piece of trash provision you guys want to come on here and give this a political spin about how its all the republicans fault." Where did you see this again? I think thou dost protesteth too much. The only thing remotely close was Sarge's post 76 -- and if you don't think the Republicans will (stupidly, I agree) try to use that veto against him, you're kidding yourself. There's obviously a really easy counter there, of course, but to suggest that it won't devolve into partisan bickering for the benefit of the ignorant sheeple masses... well, if you're offering any kind of decent odds that that doesn't happen, I'd like to take that wager. | ||||||
| 82 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 17:43 |
Not that I vote for incumbants for federal office, but my Senators will not be getting my vote ever again. These war mongers have to go. This alleged war on terror has to go. It's rediculous. Since I wrote this before the bill passed, I should be OK. This post is probably a violation of the new law. | ||||||
| 83 | sarge33rd ID: 581115611 Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 17:44 | hasnt been signed into law yet, and pray to whatever gawds you choose, it never is. | ||||||
| 84 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 09:57 | Let the record reflect that hell has frozen over. | ||||||
| 85 | sarge33rd ID: 321137711 Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 16:41 | |||||||
| 86 | sarge33rd ID: 321137711 Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 16:45 | Is it irony or fate, that the Presidential election is Nov 4th, and the 5th of Nov is the relevant date? | ||||||
| 87 | weykool ID: 21114561 Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 18:14 |
For one event can you set aside your partisan bias and treat this simply as a grave travesty of our consititutional rights that is coming from our congress. Not one section of it, but 93% of it. It would be nice wouldnt it? Unfortunately when people put party before country it just isnt going to happen. | ||||||
| 88 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 22:12 |
So you are unable or unwilling to treat something other than in a partisan way? I'm genuinely curious, since your #87 reads like an excuse to continue acting like a partisan because others are doing so. It is, in fact, the kind of self-referencing excuse that a partisan uses. | ||||||
| 89 | weykool ID: 21114561 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 02:10 |
Wrong. I dont support the Republicans who are for this bill. Unfortunately, I dont see your side coming out against the Democrats who are supporting it. To try and make this a partisan issue like the other left-wingers have done is despicable. Asking Democrats to refrain from partisan arguments is like asking a dog not to lick its own azz. Pointless. | ||||||
| 90 | sarge33rd ID: 321137711 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 02:14 | so where I have called for a veto of this bill, you blast the Dems. Partisan apologist hack WK...thats all you are. | ||||||
| 91 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Dec 08, 2011, 07:50 |
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison | ||||||
| 92 | Khahan ID: 373143013 Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:23 |
Either way, I want it vetoed, killed, dead, DOA Something Sarge and I agree on, politically. and if you don't think the Republicans will (stupidly, I agree) try to use that veto against him, you're kidding yourself. Stopping the partisan politics has to start somewhere. Where better than right here amongst us? With the way it was posted and brought up there was no reason to even broach a finger-pointing post on this. Re-reading it today I may have read a bit more into Sarges post than I should have. But he did still go straight for a partisan blame game. These war mongers have to go. This alleged war on terror has to go. It's rediculous. I think hell froze over, thawed and froze again. The link I posted in 79 has a listing of every senator in the 112th Congress along with contact information. This is a great time to use that information, regardless of political ideology and let those who we elected to represent us know that they need to represent us. | ||||||
| 93 | sarge33rd ID: 251133912 Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:36 | actually Khahan, what I was doing; was playing Devils Advocate and trying to guess at strategic reasons for NOT vetoing the thing. The logical one, is that it allows the GOP to advertise, that Obama vetoed the Defense Appropriations Act and denied our troops in the field, material and resources. I do not believe, that you or anyone else here, will deny that if he vetoes it,m that is EXACTLY the ad we will see come election cycle. | ||||||
| 94 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 16:36 | I wrote to Bob Casey already. I realize he's going to go through re-election next year, but what a stupid way to prove he values constituent concerns than to authorize government to grab constituents off the street for the mere suspicion of working with terrorists. | ||||||
| 95 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 12:54 |
Flights by U.S. airlines hit 10-year low The article does not mention problems with the TSA, but almost all of the 283 comments do. | ||||||
| 96 | DWetzel ID: 53326279 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:06 | I'd venture that a lousy economy has more to do with it, not to mention consistently lousy service from airlines paring back to deal with lost customers due to the ongoing crappy economy -- but the increased security measures at airports certainly is all part of the overall package of inconvenience. | ||||||
| 97 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:25 |
 Dana Loesch, famous conservative radio personality and Tea Party luminary | ||||||
| 98 | Frick ID: 52182321 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:26 | I would say the lousy economy coupled with better technology. Businesses are using technologies like Skype to have face to face meetings without having to leave their offices. That is a pretty big cost savings. Does anyone decide not to go visit grandma because they have to deal with the TSA? | ||||||
| 99 | Pancho Villa ID: 597172916 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:28 |
Dana Loesch, famous conservative radio personality She's hardly famous. | ||||||
| 100 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:30 | Speak for your own side. | ||||||
| 101 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:41 |
So obviously not a liberal
| ||||||
| 102 | Frick ID: 52182321 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:46 | Famous? In the St. Louis area maybe, since that appears to be the only area her radio show is aired. | ||||||
| 103 | Pancho Villa ID: 597172916 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:52 |
Speak for your own side. She's not famous. If you asked 100 Americans who she is, maybe 2 would know. She's not even syndicated, only broadcasting in St Louis on radio. | ||||||
| 104 | Biliruben ID: 358252515 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 13:53 |
I choose to drive rather than fly to Idaho these days. The scales were tipped towards flying pre-9/11. If only there were still a train... | ||||||
| 105 | Tree ID: 17039238 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 16:20 |
never heard of her. apparently, from what i've seen in the internet: 1. She used to be a liberal. 2. she dropped out of community college 3. she was hired by CNN over a year ago. and i still have never heard of her. 4. she parted ways with her local tea party movement a few months ago. 5. She said "i'd drop trou and do it too", in reference to US Marines desecrating corpses (ok, now i see why loves her.) 6. Apparently, there is a dearth of attractive Conservative women, as Baldwin feels the need to post lecherous posts and numerous photos every time he discovers one. he also feels the need to insult liberal women, implying that they can't possibly be attractive, which likely speaks to his own shortcomings. | ||||||
| 106 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 18:05 | Never heard of her either. Hardly her target audience, however. Since I don't live in St. Louis. | ||||||
| 107 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 20:27 | Not quite in Malkin/Ingram territory but gaining. Liberal perceptions on this issue are irrelevant. | ||||||
| 108 | sarge33rd ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:15 | You call someone famous, nobody outside of a limited market area has ever heard of them, and you call THAT FACT...irrelevant. smdh | ||||||
| 109 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:35 |
Liberal perceptions on this issue are irrelevant. This is nonsense. The more "liberals" hate her, the more you love her. You've admitted on these very boards that you consume news and information based upon the rejection of the premises by "liberals." | ||||||
| 110 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 21:40 | Granted there are people who barely know who the president is, they are so politically illiterate. For politically aware conservatives Loesch is usually in their top ten female commentators. I've watched lots of youtube on her and I don't expect you liberals to have a clue about her. | ||||||
| 111 | Frick ID: 52182321 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:12 |
So she is in the top 10 female commentators of politically aware conservatives. That is of course the definition of famous. I'm glad you didn't feel the need to limit the list further by saying only radio hosts or females with brown hair. | ||||||
| 112 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:19 | Ah, nice. Boldwin is a hipster conservative now. It isn't that she's obscure. Oh no. Its that we don't have a clue about her. | ||||||
| 113 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:54 | There are a whole lotta things liberals don't have a clue about. | ||||||
| 114 | sarge33rd ID: 4717718 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 22:55 | well then pray tell...why is Tom Brady famous? He may or may not be a conservative, I truly dont know. But he is not female and doesnt have a political talk show on TV or radio...anywhere. | ||||||
| 115 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 23:16 |
#113: Like the conservative fixation with male anal sex. The ability of middle and lower class whites to vote against their best interests. And the willingness of conservatives to toss away political philosophical consistency in exchange for short-term, self-generated, "righteous" anger? Yup. "Liberals" don't have a clue. | ||||||
| 116 | Tree ID: 17039238 Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 23:21 |
It isn't that she's obscure. Oh no. Its that we don't have a clue about her. actually, based on some of his posts, i think it has less to do with her visibility, and more to do with her viability as spank material. | ||||||
| 117 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 09:30 | But she's been good. | ||||||
| 118 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:34 | re 112: It all comes together and makes perfect sense now. | ||||||
| 119 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:43 | :) | ||||||
| 120 | sarge33rd ID: 4717718 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 13:42 | that would of course, explain B's blindness on issues. | ||||||
| 121 | Tree ID: 25171613 Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 14:12 | 120, FTW. | ||||||
| 123 | Tree ID: 17039238 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 17:45 |
aside from being used for masturbatory material (as indicated above by Baldwin), Conservatives must also like Dana Loesch because she says incredibly dumbs things. yep, she compared a forced trans-v@ginal ultrasound with consensual sex. lovely woman, she is. the word filter on this board is amazing. i can say sn*tch. i can say p*ssy. i can say tw*t. but i can't say v-a-g-i-n-a. (previous post removed because i forgot to self-censor tw*t) and way. Dana Loesch. numb. skull. | ||||||
| 124 | sarge33rd ID: 353491011 Wed, Apr 25, 2012, 15:41 |
family misses flight due to TSA excesses yeah, dont we all feel safer now? | ||||||
| 125 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 17:04 |
“Sacramento International Airport Evicts TSA Screeners Nice. Good riddance. | ||||||
| 126 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 18:47 | Yeah! | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: TSA overreach | ||||||||