12
   

Legitimate Complaint about TSA or Political Opportunism?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 02:29 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I do not believe that Rand Paul was thinking about the constitutional right of congressmen. He was just "pissed off."

As Sozobe points out, the two aren't mutually exclusive. When the government tramples on my constitutional rights, I get pissed off too.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 03:11 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
And when the TSA people asked you to do whatever they asked you to do when the alarm went off...did you refuse?

Of course I did! After all, I am not a US congressman. And even if I was, that would do me no good in Frankfurt, Germany, where the US constitution doesn't apply.


Hummm...you DID refuse. Interesting! But it doesn't see to go with the rest of your comment. Did you actually mean, "Of course, I did NOT?"



Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Regardless of why the alarm went off...there will be a response. Not sure why the response was a call for a pat-down, but if that was the response...are you suggesting that people should challenge it?

No I'm not suggesting that people should challenge it, I'm suggesting that Congresspeople should.


Ahhh...I see where we differ. I thought "congresspeople" were "people." I'll have to think that over.


Quote:
This is not about a constitutional right of the people, this is about a constitutional privilege of Congresspeople. To the rest of us, the US constitution has never granted the privilege of just saying "no" to the US government's executive branch.


Well, it certainly can be conceived of that way, Thomas. I prefer to conceive of it as a congressman who could easily have handled this situation in a much better way, deciding to show that he, as a congressperson, is too important and obviously trustworthy to have to submit to the kind of anti-terrorist precautions peons have to. Seems to me that was an interesting lesson he helped to illustrate for the citizenry.

But it is nice to know he has ardent defenders like you...and as I said...if you want to consider his conduct to be "standing up for an important principle" that certainly is your right.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 03:14 pm
@roger,
Does anybody know why his knee tweaked re metal?

Ah, sorry, I missed some earlier posts.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 03:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
Oh, man, that's probably like a bunch of actors at dinner at my house. Interminable blather..
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 04:40 pm
Like several others here, I fly a lot and know there are easily detectable differences between the TSA operations at various airports, particularly in terms of the attentiveness and sensitivity the staff exhibit to the people they are presumably protecting. Washington Dulles, Ft Lauderdale and NY JFK are regularly authoritarian and obnoxious with indifferent staff "directors" curtly herding people around like cattle, while the operations at both airports in Dallas are relatively courteous and pleasant - same goes for Oakland and San Francisco. Others fill the spectrum in between. I am always bemused watching the typical government operation involved with a surplus of staff, all exhibiting authoritarian attitudes; lots of idle people; and the general inefficiency involved.

I get mildly pissed off every time I go through it.

While I agree with Joe from Chicago's remarks about the theoretical suitability and practicality of probabilistic screening approaches, with ID-based exemptions for certain classes of people, I am decidedly against exempting any of our elected legislators or senior government officials from any of the offensive inconveniences they have inflicted on the rest of us.

I'm not too keen on treating lawyers well either.

I believe Thomas is correct in noting that the TSA appears to be a rule bound operation from which judgment and common sense are deliberately excluded.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 04:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Well, it certainly can be conceived of that way, Thomas. I prefer to conceive of it as a congressman who could easily have handled this situation in a much better way, deciding to show that he, as a congressperson, is too important and obviously trustworthy to have to submit to the kind of anti-terrorist precautions peons have to. Seems to me that was an interesting lesson he helped to illustrate for the citizenry.

But it is nice to know he has ardent defenders like you...and as I said...if you want to consider his conduct to be "standing up for an important principle" that certainly is your right.

A person can stand up for an important principle and still be an obnoxious ass. The ACLU has a word for these kinds of people -- they're called "clients."
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 05:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Did you actually mean, "Of course, I did NOT?"

Yep. You got me there.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well, it certainly can be conceived of that way, Thomas. I prefer to conceive of it as a congressman who could easily have handled this situation in a much better way,

In your opinion, what would have been" a much better way" to handle it? And why would that way have been much better?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:03 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
In your opinion, what would have been" a much better way" to handle it?


To simply submit to the pat down.



Quote:
And why would that way have been much better?


It would have gotten him on his flight.


Thomas, I appreciate the position you and Joe are taking on this issue, but I honestly do not see this as some crucial aspect of the ongoing contest of wills between the Executive and Legislative Branches. At best, it is a fairly minor volley in that struggle. Compared with the bullshit of presidents essentially going to war with only marginal and suspect lip service to the Constitutional requirements regarding the congress, this is almost trivial.

The move by Paul, in my opinion, was unnecessary, petty, and imperious. I have no legal background; I certainly am not a Constitutional scholar...and all I offer it as is...MY OPINION. I understand, acknowledge, and fully appreciate that intelligent, reasonable, people can strongly disagree with me and logically argue otherwise.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
In your opinion, what would have been" a much better way" to handle it?

To simply submit to the pat down.
Quote:
And why would that way have been much better?

It would have gotten him on his flight.

By the same token, Rosa Parks could have handled that bus seat situation in a much better way by just taking a seat in the back.

frankapisa wrote:
I understand, acknowledge, and fully appreciate that intelligent, reasonable, people can strongly disagree with me and logically argue otherwise.

You're done arguing already? I was getting ready to drive to your place so we can have a bottle of beer and I can whoop your agnostic arse---rhetorically speaking.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:43 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I was getting ready to drive to your place so we can have a bottle of beer and I can whoop your agnostic arse---rhetorically speaking.


drive?

don't you mean jog?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:46 pm
@ehBeth,
I'm afraid to jog through South Plainfield. You'd have to jog with me, Beth.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:55 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
By the same token, Rosa Parks could have handled that bus seat situation in a much better way by just taking a seat in the back.


Comparing Paul to Rosa Parks, no matter how great the stretch, is an insult to Parks, the entire civil rights movement, and to German ingenuity in general...but I am glad you did it, because you used the magic word: BEER.

You don't even have to bring the beer...I've got cases (and Nancy has a wine cellar stocked with over 100 bottles!) Bring it on, Thomas, I am in the mood to whomp some atheistic ass...especially after seeing the direction that other thread went after I left. Too bad we can't get Spendius involved. I understand he likes beer also.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 06:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Very well, I'll be there in 20 minutes-ish.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 07:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
It would be hilarious to hail Rand Paul as the new Rosa Parks on the basis of Paul's civil disobedience at the airport.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 07:59 pm
TO ANYONE FOLLOWING THIS...

...I signed off right after my last post, so I did not see Thomas' last post.

He drove over here (only a few miles away) bit could not remember my house number...and then drove home because he forgot his phone and could not call.

Jeez...anyway...I will set something up with him tomorrow and make sure we share some beers.

Further reports to follow.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 08:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
because he forgot his phone and could not call.


just when I wasn't sure you were talking about Thomas ...

love that guy and you!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 07:45 am
@ehBeth,
Thanks Beth. Gonna set up dinner and drinks with Thomas. I'll give him a call later today and see what day would be best. We'll let everyone know how the ass-kicking goes. Nancy will kick both our asses if we get out of hand.

Love you too.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 08:03 am
@ehBeth,
Why don't you join us, Beth? You've been out of the area for way too long, and us humble folks could use someone with strong opinions at the table.

Love you too. Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 08:17 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe Thomas is correct in noting that the TSA appears to be a rule bound operation from which judgment and common sense are deliberately excluded.

That was joefromchicago, but I agree with him.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 08:20 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
While I agree with Joe from Chicago's remarks about the theoretical suitability and practicality of probabilistic screening approaches, with ID-based exemptions for certain classes of people, I am decidedly against exempting any of our elected legislators or senior government officials from any of the offensive inconveniences they have inflicted on the rest of us.

I'm not too keen on treating lawyers well either.


Ayup!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:46:51