Posted by: Objective Scrutator | November 22, 2010

Quick Thoughts On TSA Patdowns

For the most part, I find liberal opposition to the TSA silly; if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. When people deny law enforcement access to their home or possessions, it proves them guilty; this has saved our judicial system copious amounts of money. Therefore, we can conclude that the TSA will save many lives by nabbing criminals who refuse to submit to the security checks. Even a single innocent life saved by this policy justifies it; only a misanthropic liberal would oppose the policy.

I would like to address two concerns about this policy. First of all, there is the valid claim of the TSA being an inefficient organization. The remedy is to privatize the TSA; this will bust any lazy union workers holding up the process just to get a pay raise, while private organizations have greater incentive to increase security measures while decreasing the amount of time one spends in lines. Secondly, there is the issue of perverts attempting to grope sexual organs in these patdowns. My solution to this remedy is simple: we require individuals to step inside a dark container, where nobody else can touch or witness another’s sexual organs. The individual will be required to strip naked and hand his/her clothes out to the private TSA agents via a chute. Following this, the individual will be doused with water and be rubbed over by metallic hands. The hands can detect and remove anything strapped down to the individual, while the clothes will be examined by a panel of private TSA agents. This panel will be conducted within eyesight of the public, just to ensure that these agents aren’t trying to pull a prank.

My solution has several benefits which should not go unnoticed. First of all, the agent can examine the clothes to search for evidence of masturbation; the perpetrators of the vile act can then be executed on the spot. When the metallic hands rub over the individual, there will also be less worries of sexual stimulation; if stimulation does occur, then that is evidence of a morally weak individual, and should result in the individual being sent to either a sexual purity camp or the death chambers.

We could also take the additional precaution of handcuffing all passengers on the plane, just in case something slips by. It may not be necessary, but it is always better to be safe than sorry.

Americans have consistently shown that they are willing to sacrifice a little liberty in exchange for a lot of security. Their only concerns come from unwanted sexual stimulation and malicious union members. My plan adequately considers all real concerns, and addresses them appropriately. It should appear reasonable in the brains of everyone except for the terrorists/liberals, and that is why this plan will succeed.


Responses

  1. “[I]f you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. When people deny law enforcement access to their home or possessions, it proves them guilty…”

    Wrong on both counts. Just because somebody hasn’t done anything wrong doesn’t mean he or she has to show a government agent whatever he or she wants to see, unless the agent first shows him or her a warrant. And person who insists on seeing a written search warrant before allowing government agent to search his or her house, car, or possessions is not necessarily criminal: he or she could very well be someone who just doesn’t want anyone nosing around through his or her stuff (including the police, since police officers are human too) without a legitimate reason.

    It’s completely reasonable for a peaceful, honest, law-abiding citizen to insist on seeing a written warrant before letting the police, FBI, CIA, or NSA in. The Fourth Amendment says that people cannot be searched or arrested (and their property cannot be searched or confiscated) without a warrant. Moreover, a warrant cannot be issued without good reason; and the mere fact that a person insisted on seeing a warrant as a condition allowing a search is not a good enough reason for issuing a warrant.

    “My solution has several benefits which should not go unnoticed. First of all, the agent can examine the clothes to search for evidence of masturbation; the perpetrators of the vile act can then be executed on the spot. When the metallic hands rub over the individual, there will also be less worries of sexual stimulation; if stimulation does occur, then that is evidence of a morally weak individual, and should result in the individual being sent to either a sexual purity camp or the death chambers.”

    Yes, I do recognize that masturbation is sinful because it is impossible to do it without being at least partially motivated by lust. However, I have never seen anything in either Testament of the Bible that prescribes a civil punishment of any kind (in the Old Testament discharges in general made people ceremonially unclean for varying lengths of time, but that was it). Besides, how would the TSA agents even know that any stains on the clothing are a result of masturbation as opposed to something else? Finally, even if masturbation were a sin worthy of civil punishment, punishment could not be carried out without a trial.

    “We could also take the additional precaution of handcuffing all passengers on the plane, just in case something slips by. It may not be necessary, but it is always better to be safe than sorry.”

    With a search as thorough as you’ve proposed, it’s hard to imagine how this could be necessary. By the time a passanger has boarded the plane, his or her body, clothes, and bags would have been completely searched. What could a passanger have that could possibly escape detection?

    “Americans have consistently shown that they are willing to sacrifice a little liberty in exchange for a lot of security.”

    Your proposal would require Americans to gve up a lot of liberty. And for how much security, really? Yes, there was 9/11, and it was only through sheer luck that the Underwear Bomber was caught. But as it is, it’s barely possible and extremely difficult for a terrorist to get through security undetected. And the vast majority of people who board airplanes are not there to blow them up or crash them into buildings anyway. Under your proposal, Americans would lose a lot of freedom for very little safety that they would otherwise not have.

    And finally, most Americans take their freedom seriously to some degree or another. Our ancestors fought for independence from Britain because the King was meddling not only in the general affairs of the colonies but also in the lives of individual people. The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, equality of rights under the law, and limited government; not the principle that the government can just do whatever it thinks is necessary to keep as many people as possible safe, regardless of how much freedom has to be sacrificed in the process.

    And most Americans recognize that it’s easiest to support an infringement upon freedom when it’s done in the name of collective security. The government can either use safety as a pretext or simply have the worng idea about what is and is not absolutely necessary to protect the people. (That’s how gun control originated, for example.) And they also recognize that in countries with strong traditions of respect for individual liberty, freedom is usually not lost all at once but a little at a time. First the government will make a slight infringement on liberty, then another later on, then another after that. Each time, neither the people nor the government notice the trend, until one day, everyone realizes how much freedom has been lost. Most Americans realize this, and so they are rightly suspicious (at best) of even the slightest proposal to restrict their freedom.

  2. “Wrong on both counts. Just because somebody hasn’t done anything wrong doesn’t mean he or she has to show a government agent whatever he or she wants to see, unless the agent first shows him or her a warrant. And person who insists on seeing a written search warrant before allowing government agent to search his or her house, car, or possessions is not necessarily criminal: he or she could very well be someone who just doesn’t want anyone nosing around through his or her stuff (including the police, since police officers are human too) without a legitimate reason.”

    Why would you be so afraid to let the cops into your house Gavin? Afraid that they might find your marijuana or porn stash or evidence that you work for Al Qaeda?

    “The Fourth Amendment says that people cannot be searched or arrested (and their property cannot be searched or confiscated) without a warrant.”

    The Fourth Amendment should go. Back in the 19th century it had its purposes but today warrants add too much bureaucracy to the equation. It would be a much more efficient use of government resources if we did away with the warrant. The only other thing we need to do is privatize the police force.

    “Yes, I do recognize that masturbation is sinful because it is impossible to do it without being at least partially motivated by lust. However, I have never seen anything in either Testament of the Bible that prescribes a civil punishment of any kind (in the Old Testament discharges in general made people ceremonially unclean for varying lengths of time, but that was it).”

    Onan wasted sperm and was struck down for it. Masturbation wastes sperm. See what I’m getting at?

    “What could a passanger have that could possibly escape detection?”

    They could get into a fist fight and compromise security.

    “The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, equality of rights under the law, and limited government; not the principle that the government can just do whatever it thinks is necessary to keep as many people as possible safe, regardless of how much freedom has to be sacrificed in the process.”

    We rebelled against King George because he was an Episcopalian heathen who tried to tell us what to do with our money. I dont think that our ancestors would have viewed police protection as evil.

    “And most Americans recognize that it’s easiest to support an infringement upon freedom when it’s done in the name of collective security. The government can either use safety as a pretext or simply have the worng idea about what is and is not absolutely necessary to protect the people. (That’s how gun control originated, for example.)”

    The only reason we even need airport security is because Americans refuse to carry their firearms. If Christian men were allowed to carry weapons onto airplanes then there would never be another terrorist attack although even in that event we would need some airport security. I for one do not trust Muslims and think that we need soldiers who are ever vigilant in order to properly deal with them.

    “First the government will make a slight infringement on liberty, then another later on, then another after that. Each time, neither the people nor the government notice the trend, until one day, everyone realizes how much freedom has been lost.”

    Actually you are completely wrong. For example Republicans are strong in the fight to return taxes to the American people. They never cede an inch to the Democrats. If you are free to do what you want with your money then you are as free as you need to be. Your argument gives liberals ammunition against slippery slopes when we need slippery slopes to deal with the gays.

  3. “Why would you be so afraid to let the cops into your house Gavin? Afraid that they might find your marijuana or porn stash or evidence that you work for Al Qaeda?”

    Actually, I do not use marijuana (or any other kind of drug) or possess or look at porn. And I don’t have any ties whatsoever to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, know anyone who does, have a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook or “Computer Hacking for Dummies”, or anything similar. The police would find nothing that would get me in trouble with the law or embarrass me. I just want to make sure that the police have a good reason for searching. (Trust but verify.) Like I said in my last post, it’s completely reasonable for a peaceful, honest, law-abiding citizen to insist on seeing a written warrant before letting the police, FBI, CIA, or NSA in. And if they did show me a warrant, then I would let them in.

    And Pokey, if you don’t have a problem with the police searching your property without a warrant, then you are free to let them see whatever they want to see without asking for a warrant first. It’s a pretty fair arrangement: people who don’t care about warrants are free to let cops search without asking to see a warrant, and people who want to make sure the government is behaving have a way of doing so.

    “The Fourth Amendment should go. Back in the 19th century it had its purposes but today warrants add too much bureaucracy to the equation. It would be a much more efficient use of government resources if we did away with the warrant.”

    The purpose the Fourth Amendment served back in the 19th century is just as relevant today. The government does not have a right to go waltzing onto someone’s property without a good reason; and it doesn’t matter what country or what century it is, the principle is the same. And Pokey, even if warrants slow the police down, that doesn’t change the fact that they are still a good thing. The fact that in America the police are required to have a warrant in order to search private property or arrest a person is one of the things that makes America better than past and present countries like 18th century Britain, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, East Germany, Burma, and North Korea. I love America too much to support any effort to repeal the Fourth Amendment.

    “The only other thing we need to do is privatize the police force.”

    What exactly is your idea of the police being privatized, Pokey? Would the government only allow one private police organization to exist, resulting in that organization having a monopoly in law enforcement? If so, would people be able to “opt out” of being protected by this police force and try to get by on their own; or would this police monopoly be able to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants?

    Or could people form their own police groups? If multiple police groups were to be allowed, would they be allowed to choose which laws they would and would not enforce? Would each police organization be allowed to have its own interpretation of the law? Would each police organization be allowed to decide how ruthless or civilized it is? Would each police organization be able to defend its customers against other police organizations? Similarly, would individuals be able to be their own police if they were to so choose?

    If the government were to try privatizing law enforcement, I would prefer the latter mode. There’d be more freedom of choice, and it would be true privatization.

    Or would your idea of a private police force be something different from either of these two?

    “Onan wasted sperm and was struck down for it. Masturbation wastes sperm. See what I’m getting at?”

    Onan was told to sleep with Tamar, his brother Er’s widow so that Tamar could have children that could be called Er’s. Onan knew that the children would not be his, and he had option of simply refusing to sleep with Tamar, although that would’ve been dishonorable both for himself and Tamar (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Instead of opting out like this however, he had sex with Tamar but made sure she wouldn’t get pregnant, so what he did qualified as incest (Leviticus 18:16). So what God put Onan for sleeping with his sister-in-law outside of the one context where it was commanded.

    “They could get into a fist fight and compromise security.”

    No, there’s very little chance that a fistfight would compromise security, either in an airport or on a plane. If one or more people were to use a fistfight as a diversion in an airport, there would probably be enough of cops to stop the fight and make sure nobody quietly sneaks through security at the same time. And if a person were to board a plane and then use his or her bare fists to hijack the plane, all the other passengers would instantly grab him or her, hold him or her down, and knock him or her out if need be. And if all the law-abiding passengers are armed, well, any would-be hijacker who would somehow make it through security would be doomed. You’d be surprised at how much security we can have without resorting to tyrannical measures.

    “I don’t think that our ancestors would have viewed police protection as evil.”

    Police protection is not evil. Trashing the freedoms of law-abiding Americans (such as First Amendment rights, voting rights, right to a trial by jury, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to habeas corpus) is evil, even when it’s done in the name of keeping people safe. The government will just have to do what it can without violating the Bill of Rights.

    “The only reason we even need airport security is because Americans refuse to carry their firearms. If Christian men were allowed to carry weapons onto airplanes then there would never be another terrorist attack although even in that event we would need some airport security.”

    Yes! I agree with you that it would be a great thing if passengers were allowed to carry gun with them on airplanes. If one person or a group of people tried to hijack a plane, everyone else could fill them up with bullets.

    “I for one do not trust Muslims and think that we need soldiers who are ever vigilant in order to properly deal with them.”

    Soldiers and cops do need to be ever-vigilant but also respectful of the rights of all people who have never broken the law. No exceptions.

    “If you are free to do what you want with your money then you are as free as you need to be.”

    I need more freedom than that. I will oppose any infringement on my right to read the Bible, my right to worship God, my right to tell others about Him, my right to call attention to anything in our society or any policy of our government that I think needs to be improved, my right to peacefully associate (or not associate) with others, my right to own a gun in order to protect myself and my property, my right to have a fair trial if I’m ever charged with a crime (although I have never committed any crimes and don’t plan on ever doing so), and my right to have a say in who runs my country through voting. If I have both civil and economic liberty, then I’m as free as I need to be.

  4. When Gavin goes to H-E-double hockeysticks I hope his punishment is to have to read blog comments as mindless and tedious as his ramblings above. They just go on and on and on, blah, blah, blah, Gavin this, Gavin that, look at me I’m Gavin and I think I’m so smart, I hate America and freedom. BORING!!!. I don’t even know how long they were; I read them as far as I could before getting shooting pains in my bowels.

    I hope the TSA gives Gavin an extra-intrusive probing the next time he flies. That’s probably pointless, though. If Gavin wants to bring a plane down, it’d be easiest for him to do it by boring the flight crew to death by talking about his dumb thoughts. It doesn’t take long for those bowel pains to set in, believe me.

  5. Wrong on both counts. Just because somebody hasn’t done anything wrong doesn’t mean he or she has to show a government agent whatever he or she wants to see, unless the agent first shows him or her a warrant. And person who insists on seeing a written search warrant before allowing government agent to search his or her house, car, or possessions is not necessarily criminal: he or she could very well be someone who just doesn’t want anyone nosing around through his or her stuff (including the police, since police officers are human too) without a legitimate reason.

    It’s completely reasonable for a peaceful, honest, law-abiding citizen to insist on seeing a written warrant before letting the police, FBI, CIA, or NSA in. The Fourth Amendment says that people cannot be searched or arrested (and their property cannot be searched or confiscated) without a warrant. Moreover, a warrant cannot be issued without good reason

    That may br true Gavin, but here are some things that must be considered

    When you go to the airport, the planes/terminal are a secure area; all people entering into these facilities are suject to search. There is a reason for a search, prior to entering these facilities
    As mentioned in the previous step, even though, in America, the police, military, etc, cannot search our house without a warrant(according to the fourth amendment, you must also consider, that there is another way they can search you, without a warrant. And that is something, mentioned in the bill of rights, which is called: Resonable Suspicion, or probable cause. Meaning that, if you are a criminal, you’ve left behind too many tracks. Or, maybe, if you are not a criminal, then you must not have any common sense in how to behave in pubic and make people too nervous. For example, if you are

    sneaking around someplace too muchEmitting a strong odor or hint of nearby or recently used narcoticsLooking suspicious at the wrong place at the wrong time(e.g. driving too slow or too fast near a robbed store or walking/running in an area late at night near a place where somebody got robbed/raped/murdered)

    Although, the constitution of the United States of America, is one of the things that make this country so great, so much better than any other country out there, another thing that would make America better, is if there were no criminals or terrorists. The criminals, terrorists and corrupt official are the things that turn the world upside down: there are no room for those in America. So, you need to consider, by using common sense, that there are some people that do need to be searched without a warrant. Although, descretely so, but with confidence and strength.

    Pokey:It would be a much more efficient use of government resources if we did away with the warrant

    @ Pokey: Yes, I do agree at some point, that it would be a much easier job for the men and women of our law enforcement agencies if they were able to conduct a thorough search as needed on criminals, terrorists and corrupt officials. Not to mention that the safety and freedom of America would greatly increase.

    As I have mentioned freedom. The America people would be free of any worries of crime and terror. However, if there is no consitution, the ability for the men and women of law enforcement to search without a warrant… it can, eventually, be abused. If you give people too much freedom, they will, at some point of time, abuse it. I agree, wholeheartedly that many of the people here in America have abused the freedom, given to them by their forefathers, and most of all, by our Father in heaven. However, there needs to be a balance. And that balance can be set in the bill of rights, and furthermore, has already been set. But up until this point, the ACLU abuse the constitution, from a conservative standpoint–but for a liberal cause. That is abuse!

    Please, spare me. But, if you misunderstand what I mean by “conservative standpoint” what I mean, is, by keeping the original values of this country–the constitution. But without the bill of rights, people, like the Bible, can take the constitution out of context. Although the Bible is infallable and does not need a bill of rights(furthermore, the Bible cannot be amended(it is perfect, therefore no need to be amended)), the people of America, are in danger, if it were not for the bill of rights, because, if it weren’t, freedom would be so much abused, these nowadays, and there would be too many people(criminals, terrorists and corrupt officials) who would get away with their crimes; and the good people of America would be in great jeopardy.

    I believe that the bill of rights was instated so that people would not take the constitution out of context and not abuse their freedom. Abuse of freedom is the issue that is bringing this country down.

    Another example can be explained here:

    Gavin:And Pokey, if you don’t have a problem with the police searching your property without a warrant, then you are free to let them see whatever they want to see without asking for a warrant first. It’s a pretty fair arrangement: people who don’t care about warrants are free to let cops search without asking to see a warrant, and people who want to make sure the government is behaving have a way of doing so.

    Pokey, if you agree that the government should do away with the warrant, then you would have no problem with what Gavin is saying here, right? If not, then what you are saying is that you are an exeption to this? Even though, people are being searched without a warrant; non-criminals, non-criminal-types who have nothing to hide, will have something to hide, eventually, because, beware, for there are corrupt officials about and there is nothing you can do about it. As a patriot of this nation(The United States of America), I respect the men and women of our law enforcement, and military(my father and brother were once ones, and my sister is still one), but there are always, corrupt officials, like criminals: if you give the people too much freedom–they will abuse it, if you give officials too much power–they will abuse it.

    So, Pokey, if we did away without the warrant, and if you actually live in this country, then you would not have any problem with the police searching your house on a regular basis? You wouldn’t, because, if you did, they would throw you in prison. But if you didn’t there is a possible chance that an official can find(or even make up) a reason or excuse to make you criminal, leading you to prison. For instance, if a cop searches your house, he/she looks around, you trust him/her(you would unquestioningly agree, because you agree the warrant should be done without), even if you have nothing to hide, eventually, the officer will give you something to hide. He/she can make something up(lie about something–it’s his/her word over yours) or plant something illicit or dangerous in your home, in your car(s) or even your on your family. In the government’s eyes, you and/or your family is is/are criminal(s), but in reality, you’ve been had by a corrupt official. Although you and OS have this dream about purging corruption from these people, you must also take into account of how we are human beings: we have free will, we can make our own choices, we can choose to be good or evil. Satan is clever with his snare, as the years go by, he seems to be even more clever. What we need to do as well, is to be more clever, likewise. Not for evil, but for good–we must be more clever in order to avoid such traps.

    We have the bill of rights, Pokey, why do we need to do away with the constitution? If we get rid of the contsitution, then we would also get rid of the bill of rights. If there is no constitution, then America would be no different than Afghanistan. If you believe that the consitution is a flawed document, and should be rid of, then you are no different from Obama. If you do not like America, then why not move to someplace else? Like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia?

    The individual will be required to strip naked and hand his/her clothes out to the private TSA agents via a chute. Following this, the individual will be doused with water and be rubbed over by metallic hands. The hands can detect and remove anything strapped down to the individual, while the clothes will be examined by a panel of private TSA agents. This panel will be conducted within eyesight of the public, just to ensure that these agents aren’t trying to pull a prank.

    My solution has several benefits which should not go unnoticed. First of all, the agent can examine the clothes to search for evidence of masturbation; the perpetrators of the vile act can then be executed on the spot. When the metallic hands rub over the individual, there will also be less worries of sexual stimulation; if stimulation does occur, then that is evidence of a morally weak individual, and should result in the individual being sent to either a sexual purity camp or the death chambers.

    Quite vivid. You imiagination seems to be rather unsurpassable. However, we already have a machine that does the work already, although it does allow access to the TSA agents to observe the subject’s private parts, they are currently working to perfection. The backscatter machine performs the work to you need to search for terrorists/criminals in the airport, train station, or wherever needed as well as limiting the waiting time for a thorough search.

    Another thing, although talking or even thinking about masturbation/sexual stimulation is rather sick and ungodly, but what is even more ungodly is that even, dispite your violent character, why would you be cutting them slack? If you agree that one should be executed on the spot, then why spare another for the same crime? Shouldn’t both parties, for commiting the same crime, suffer the same penalty as you wish? If the subject is executed on the spot for any trace of masturbation in his clothes, then shouldn’t the TSA agent suffer the same when any trace of masturbation is found in his clothes?

    That is all,
    God bless

  6. Myself from my earlier post: However, we already have a machine that does the work already, although it does allow access to the TSA agents to observe the subject’s private parts

    What I mean from “private parts” is quite obvious to the person’s genitals. Not, private parts, meaning, places where the subject could hide anything illicit or dangerous. However, the machine is able to find such things, that even the most determined criminal can hide in the most desperate places, but still, prevent giving lude agent access to such images.

  7. hi KKKorKKKer

  8. Moxom is back

  9. These LIEberal hippies make me laugh. When do they think it is, 1932? Their views have been refuted by experience. We know now that their way of doing things doesn’t work. If it did, the Soviets would still be around. So give it up, libs. Hating America and stomping on freedom and patriotism isn’t the way forward. We already tried that, and it didn’t work. The wave of the future is manly, entrepreneurial autonomy. Get taxes down, stop tying the hands of our warfighters who protect the Homeland 24/7, and watch America return to vigor. I don’t know who the more menacing enemy is: is it al Qaeda, or is it their sympathizers and fellow-travelers like Gavin, who try to bring us down from inside? All of them deserve a place in military detention.

  10. Gavin, I believe you are underestimating the animal cunning that these Muslim hijackers possess. They are willing to risk anything in order to bring down Christian planes to attack us. Do you see that number at the top of the page? They won’t stop until they reign supreme.
    Actually, I propose we do away with planes. Do you know who created them? The Episcopalian Wright Brothers. We all know that Episcopalians are all Brit-lovers who constantly attempt to undermine America and drag her back under English rule. For that matter, cars are also suspect–Henry Ford was a staunch Episcopalian, and cars are nothing more than tools for the previously-mentioned terrorists to hide bombs in. Horses are by far the better mode of transport–around since the Bible, and controlling them will show our dominance over the animal kingdom.

  11. Tom _ the backscatter machines were exactly what I was thinking of. I wouldn’t want to rely on them alone, x-rays often being dangerous to your well-being and spiritual health, but they certainly serve their necessary purpose. Certainly, agents will have no need to look at private parts; however, a hand-search by machine would still be necessary to guarantee the safety of the passengers.

    Pokey, if you agree that the government should do away with the warrant, then you would have no problem with what Gavin is saying here, right? If not, then what you are saying is that you are an exeption to this?

    We would not mind regular searches from law enforcement, so long as they show the proper documentation and possess knowledge about what the laws allow. (For example, I happen to have a howitzer on my roof; its specifications are necessarily legal by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, and a policeman who tried to take it from me ought to face severe punishment by the courts.)

    eventually, the officer will give you something to hide. He/she can make something up(lie about something–it’s his/her word over yours) or plant something illicit or dangerous in your home, in your car(s) or even your on your family.

    First of all, some ‘plants’ are necessary in order to make up for the inadequacy of the law (i.e. you are clearly dealing with someone who poses harm to the community, and need to remove him as soon as possible; court-martialing can be done after the detainment, and not before). Secondly, the reason innocent people would go to jail by these cops would be due to the excessive bureaucracy we experience at the moment. A private company would not have quotas, but assess each situation fairly; if a private company were corrupt, it would be purged from service. A private company would have no reason to falsely detain people, as they would be paid based on results, not quotas or a need to placate unions.

    although talking or even thinking about masturbation/sexual stimulation is rather sick and ungodly

    Taking pleasure in talking or thinking about fornication is what leads to Hellfire. However, there is a need for society to recognize such deviancies, and a need to recognize appropriate punishments. The Bible extensively discusses sexual sins and their retributions; I see no need, as a Christian, to remain silent while savages promote their sexual impulses.

    Shouldn’t both parties, for commiting the same crime, suffer the same penalty as you wish? If the subject is executed on the spot for any trace of masturbation in his clothes, then shouldn’t the TSA agent suffer the same when any trace of masturbation is found in his clothes?

    How did you imply that I would be cutting a TSA pervert slack, when I went into great detail about how the TSA’s current union cancers shelter and promote such degeneracy?

    No, there’s very little chance that a fistfight would compromise security, either in an airport or on a plane.

    Savages with the prowess of Chuck Norris, George Foreman, and anyone who knows how to use the five-fingered exploding heart technique could easily overcome a plane. Airline stewardesses are not trained in combat, and most passengers would sooner cower than fight back. If the people in the 9/11 planes had been handcuffed, 3000 people wouldn’t have lost their lives. Don’t dismiss such scenarios so quickly, Gavin.

    I will oppose any infringement on my right to read the Bible, my right to worship God, my right to tell others about Him

    I think Pokey felt this was so innately obvious that he didn’t need to state it. Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers, such as Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon, clearly intended to keep non-Christian discourse underground.

    The wave of the future is manly, entrepreneurial autonomy. Get taxes down, stop tying the hands of our warfighters who protect the Homeland 24/7, and watch America return to vigor. I don’t know who the more menacing enemy is: is it al Qaeda, or is it their sympathizers and fellow-travelers like Gavin, who try to bring us down from inside? All of them deserve a place in military detention.

    Amen, CSC. We have become a nation of whiners; it’s apparently an outrageous violation of one’s civil liberties if they are restrained on an airplane for safety measures. If you don’t like complying with security, then don’t fly on airplanes, you filthy Communist.

    Actually, I propose we do away with planes. Do you know who created them? The Episcopalian Wright Brothers. We all know that Episcopalians are all Brit-lovers who constantly attempt to undermine America and drag her back under English rule. For that matter, cars are also suspect–Henry Ford was a staunch Episcopalian, and cars are nothing more than tools for the previously-mentioned terrorists to hide bombs in.

    You certainly raise good points. Although I don’t propose we eliminate planes entirely, seeing as how that would please global warming alarmists, I do think that we need to have spiritual experts assess pilots and the aircraft. The Bible surely provides guidance on this issue.

    One reason we must keep Muslims from airplanes is that their holy book predicts that they will travel on airplanes (Surah 84:19 That ye shall journey from plane to plane.). Perhaps God wants us to prohibit us from utilizing aircraft until the Muslim people have been cleansed from the planet. If nothing else, denying false religions the mechanisms they need to carry out their prophecies will be greatly rewarded by the LORD.

  12. This is disgusting. It is obviously an evil plot put forward by the dirty liberals (but I’m sure all of you intelligent folks knew that) and it funded by the Jews. I wish that this could end, but, like Olympian said, we need to restrict travel to only those who can be proven to be true Christians, and should only allow the True Christians into our country.
    No more of these Muslims or Jews! They will stop at nothing to tear us down! We have already lost so much-we can rebuild but it will take time.
    And, like the old saying goes, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
    This has not killed us, but it has made us stronger in our beliefs that Jesus is the way to heaven, and to follow God’s holy orders to the letter.
    Beauty at it’s finest-even if it does come with a cost.

  13. Keith Ablow recently opined, based on professional study, words to the effect, that, there are an estimated 3 million troubled “nuts” in the U.S. alone.

  14. “…we need to restrict travel to only those who can be proven to be true Christians, and should only allow the True Christians into our country. No more of these Muslims or Jews!…” – Chanson de la foile

    Oh? Really? So, how about in America, Muslims and their religion is major. Now say, Christians are off in another country, and may have attacked America. This is the part where something about these people being bad is true, but not all of these imaginary Christians are bad, right? Now, imagine that you’re the imaginary Muslim not aloud in America. You don’t like things your country does, you’re people are bad, etc etc, and you think ‘America!’ but guess what? These alternate-universe Christians are aloud in America because of acts people probably unrelated to them did! So, the Muslims hate you, and you, an alternate-universe Christian, are stuck somewhere you hate because Muslims assume all Christians are bad!

    End fake universe. Look, I understand, you are a true believer in God and I praise you for having something you so strongly believe in! I have nothing against Christians, and I like Christians, and I’m friends with them, while I am not a Christian. I love that you have a passion! But, Christianity is not the only religion in the world. I understand that you’re different, and you have a passion. So I won’t force my religion on you, please do not force yours on me and hate me because I’m a Muslim – which I am not, but for arguments sake. Let me in your country so I can make a better life and not turn out like some of my brethren who do wrong things, please?

    I hope this is not an attack. But there are other religions out there – Jewish, Buddhism, Shinto, Atheism, Jainism, Paganism, Wiccanism, etc – and I’m not thinking my religion is boss and members of other religions don’t deserve America.

    Rethink that. Please.
    ~
    “…the agent can examine the clothes to search for evidence of masturbation; the perpetrators of the vile act can then be executed on the spot. When the metallic hands rub over the individual, there will also be less worries of sexual stimulation; if stimulation does occur, then that is evidence of a morally weak individual, and should result in the individual being sent to either a sexual purity camp or the death chambers…” – Objective Scrutator

    So, masturbation is the pleasuring of ones…well, privates. Hm. So, when you scratch yourself, that’s pleasuring, no? Running fingers through your hair, tickling, a massage! Crap, I bet your masturbate periodically. Of course, I’m only kidding, because you – such a saint, I may say – could never masturbate! So vile!

    Masturbation is good, my friend. People are supposed to explore their bodies, please themselves, etc etc. It’s no crime. Some people just give into lust, I’ve done it on a rare occasion – it’s completely human and far from vile. Some people made it out to be gross and sinful.
    ~
    “…concerns come from unwanted sexual stimulation and malicious union members…” – Objective Scrutator

    Hey, look! Forget the rest of your post and this sentence makes sense! Wow. Amazing, huh? Well – some people are shy, have been sexually abused, and don’t like being touched because of experiences or personal feelings. Yeah, we need to bump up our security and try to stop attacks on America or anywhere, but…honestly. And maybe the person taking the act is a pedophile, a sex offender! Yes, they won’t hire a past sex offender, but some may not have been caught. Pedophiles aren’t always known about, some settle for porno until they get this kind of opportunity.

    I’ll never ride a plane begin because of this.
    ~
    “…also take the additional precaution of handcuffing all passengers on the plane..” – Objective Scrutator

    WHAT? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    No! Make innocent people feel like criminals for ‘extra safety’?! I rather cut my own eyelids off! That’s not safety, that’s pure insanity!

    So, what, now when we ride the bus? Boats, how about a walk down the street!
    ~
    “…I find liberal opposition to the TSA silly; if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. When people deny law enforcement access to their home or possessions, it proves them guilty…”

    Sigh.

    This is the only thing I partially agree to. Partially.

    Yes, if you’re innocent, let the nice men or women take a look around to assure things so you can be safe and not a suspect or whatever. However, to a point it can be ridiculous. I have embarrassing collections, dolls, movies, games, among other things. I don’t want someone to search my room and look at all my personal items if I’m, oh, say a neighbor to the suspect/victim or an acquaintance or we simply shared Art class! Even as there best friend I may not. I’ll be more lenient, yes – if my friends murderer could be found based upon things in my room, yes, I’ll help. But…c’mon! Are my Winnie the Pooh dolls or Disney Movie collection really gonna help?
    ~

    In conclusion, very little of this post was agreeable. Almost none. You’re opinions in general, I do not agree with, and reading this and commented will have been a waste but I want my opinions to be known.

  15. I’d like to apologize for my mistakes in my post. I thought I read through it more thoroughly.

    “imagine that you’re the imaginary Muslim not aloud in” – Muslim meant to be Christian.

    “Christians are aloud in America” – not aloud. Not aloud.


Share your invaluable conservative insight, or your liberal nonsense

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: