Who thinks...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

The Patriot Act is 340 pages. The Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments servings as a sort of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and discuss them.

You really think all 98 people who voted for the PATRIOT Act read it in its entirety and had time to consider it? In three days? But do you think they'd admit to it? And what does that say if they didn't vote to renew? Oh, gee, now that I've had a chance to actually read the thing I think I was wrong? Although some did-- the vote went 280-138 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate. (This year, by the way, not last year. It failed last year.)

In fact, Congress NOT reading legislation they have passed has gotten so bad several organizations are pushing for legislation that will require Congressmen and women to sign legal affadavits that they've read what they voted on. I kid you not. Fat chance seeing it passed, of course.

If you think mainstream media is liberal-- I don't even know how to address this one (I'm sure your Fox KoolAid is deeelicious, though!). Yes, many reporters identify as politically liberal. They aren't the ones who decide what stories get reported. It's the editors and the owners, who tend to identify as conservative. It doesn't matter one whit what political way you lean if you don't have the authority to decide what gets on the air.

And Colmes, or any of the other straw dogs Fox offers as "liberal viewpoints?" Oh please. I could stick a dildo on a desk next to Chris Matthews and claim it was a "Republican commentator" but that doesn't mean that it's going to be any good at commentating. If you can't see that they find the most incompetent idiots for O'Reilly to shout at and bully, you're kidding yourself (You call that debate? What he does?). But how can they claim to be "fair and balanced" unless they pretend to be giving both sides? Please. Oldest trick in the book, next to "Look at the monkey!" Call me when Fox puts on Joan Walsh or Sidney Blumenthal or someone good. I won't hold my breath.

Geraldo? Gimme a break. I can't believe you even typed that in any seriousness. It'd be like me assuming your Ann Coulter is the best you right-wingers can offer. Unfair and untrue of me to do so. Geraldo. Right. 'Fess up-- you meant that as a joke, right?

Please feel free to give me any examples of major news outlets showing a clear liberal bias in their reporting. As you have said, best to deal in facts and not opinions.

What, just because Section 411 doesn't apply to citizens, that makes it okay?

Thanks Rupert, as always, for the opposing view! Makes me do my homework, which I appreciate.

You obviously don't watch Fox. They have Senators and Congressmen on from both parties all the time. Equal time is given to both sides.

You must be kidding about the networks. Dan Rather was allowed to do a negative story on President Bush that was based on forged documents. they didn't check their sources at all. If they would have done even a minimal amount of homework, they would have known that the documents were forged. How were they allowed to do this story if the higher-ups were conservative? The higher-ups have never been conservative at the networks. Where did you come up with that? If the higher-ups were conservative, why s it that they never hire conservative journalists?

I'm not sure I understood your comments about Chris Matthews. I assume you know he is a democrat but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. He worked for Jimmy Carter for many years.

I agree with you that Alan Colmes is not some left-wing nut. He is a relatively conservative democrat. With regard to Ann Coulter, I have no problem when she represents the right. She can hold her own. She's articulate.

Anyway, you obviously don't watch Fox. They have the Joe Bidens and the Sidney Blumenthals and all the articulate democrats on there all the time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=GenuineRisk]Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all conservatives are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all Bushies are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

As always, thanks for your response!

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't.

It's very welcome that you take an interest in current affairs ... and that you engage so enthusiastically in these debates ...

... but, honey ... you really appear silly ... and deflate the value of all your arguments ... when you make nonsensical assertions like that.

All federal legislation is created in Congress ... that's why it's called the LEGISLATIVE branch of the government.

It's impossible ... totally and completely ... for legislation to originate anywhere else. The President has an ancillary role to play in that he can attempt to forestall laws approved by Congress through his veto power ... but if 2/3 of the Congress disagrees with him ... the law gets enacted anyway. He can also use his political power to propose legislation ... and to convince members of Congress from his party to introduce legislation based on his proposals. But the fact still remains that all Federal laws ... each and every one of them ... are created and enacted by the two houses of Congress.

Please continue to vigorously state your positions ... but be careful not to demean yourself with such silliness.

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all Bushies are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

As always, thanks for your response!

I don't always agree with Ann Coulter. She's made some pretty outlandish comments over the years. With regard to Sean Hannity, I'm not a big fan of his.

With regard to the Richard Gere incident, the audience simply booed for a few seconds to let him know they disagreed with them. They didn't try to drown him out. He was allowed to finish his speech. That is totally different from when a conservative goes to a college to make a speech and is not allowed to speak. The students will yell so loud that the speaker can't be heard. They actually can't give their speech and are forced to walk off the stage. This isn't a one-time deal either. It happens all the time at the liberal campuses. It's absolute hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, but I have found incredible hypocrisy amongst most liberals when it comes to civil rights, free speech, etc.

When a conservative speaker goes to a university to speak, the students will often times try to drown him out and not even allow him to speak. These are liberal students who are supposed to be in favor of free speech. In reality, they only want free speech for people they agree with.

In addition, what President was the biggest violator of people's civil rights? I'll give you a hint. He was the biggest liberal ever. It was FDR, who actually put Americans of Asian descent in internment camps during World War II.

I have this one friend who is a real liberal. He said that someone should kill Bill O'Reilly. It's amazing. My friend is a liberal yet he so desperately wants to silence O'Reilly that he wishes someone would kill him. My friend obviously does not belive in free speech even though he would claim that he absolutely does. The ironic thing is that O'Reilly is a big believer in free speech. O'Reilly is always brining people on his show who have the total opposite views and he debates them. Like O'Reilly, I like to let these idiots talk. The more they talk, they just end up making fools of themselves most of the time.

O'Reilly a believer in free speech? He tried to sue a comedian, Al Franken, over this issue. The guy is a stinken leftist comedian that got him so "riled" up that he took on a completely silly case. The case was so laughable it got thrown out immediately. He made a total joke of himself. OReilly is another very bright snake oil salesman just like many of those on the left. His ego is so large it holds an atmosphere. True conservatives with brains would want this guy lost. The conservative that makes the most sense to me by far is George Will. Dont even put O'Reilly close to George Will. They are made of completely different material. Whenever I see "fair and balanced" and "the spin stops here" I want to throw up. But I watch it anyway to see if some good stuff comes out an it does on occassion. O'Reilly reminds me of that liberal gal on the McGlau... (sp?) Group. Quick catchy comments that lack depth. Be fooled if you must Rupert. Got to find someone else, my suggestion, George Will.

Pat Buchanan also makes sense. So much sense I think he is dangerous. But at least he is straight up.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Where do you come up with this stuff? You say that the governmnet has been aresting protesters unconstitutionally? I clicked on a couple of your articles. I read the first 2 articles. Nowhere in the artciles does it say anything about people being arrested unconstitutionally. Quite to the contrary, it says the opposite. It says they were breaking the law and they were told they would be arrested if they did not disperse.

You say that it is false that Padilla planned on detonating a dirty bomb? I'd like to see where you came up with that. There are tons of witnesses that have said he was planning to do that and I believe he even admitted it himself. Granted the plan was in the very early stages and he hadn't obtained radioactive materials yet. Just because he wasn't charged with this specific plot, that does not mean that there was no such plot. They have a ton of things that they are charging him with. He will probably receive multiple lfe sentences. They don't need to charge him with that specific plan. They would rather charge with things that are even easier to prove.

There have been serial killers that murdered 40 people. They aren't always charged with all 40 murders. If the police have their strongest evidence in 20 of the cases and the guy is only charged in those 20 cases, it hardly mean that he is innocent in the other 20. That's basically the case with Padilla. They have such strong evidence against him on multiple charges that they probably won't charge him specifically with the "dirty bomb" plot because it was in the early stages and it is a harder case to prove than the other charges that will be brought against him.

Where do I come up with this stuff? What kind of question is that? They are from the websites right in front of you. I find this stuff in all the popular magazines and news articles as the websites suggest...New York Times (Best one), USA Today,...etc. I would much rather read the news than watch it on TV, although I do both. I don't want to limit myself. Most are legitimate unbiased websites that argue both sides and present the facts. There is one on the Padilla case that is biased, but there is also truth in what they say.

If you read those articles carefully about the protesters Rupert, you would have noticed that the lawmakers set up those laws specifically against those protesters. They had protested a year before, so they made up some BS law, so that when they protested in the same spot the next year, they got arrested.

Also, what about the two women (you were schoolteachers) that were taken to jail, strip searched, and not charged? What about the people who were charged and the charges were dropped? Again, you are not acknowledging the facts that our government is infringing on citizen's constitutional rights. You are so biased to your opinion that you cannot see that.

About Padilla, it may just be a cover up as to why they didn't charge him with that. From reading all of the articles that I have, it does sound awfully suspicious. They are all just allegations anyway, although they are probably correct allegations. Nothing is set in stone yet. I have not seen any evidence about exactly what he was doing and how he was found to be plotting a dirty bomb. If you can find some concrete evidence that he to the contrary, please post it.

I don't agree with abrupt radical change, but I would at least like the government to follow the U.S. Constitution. That is all I want. Follow the U.S. Constitution. If they aren't following the U.S. Constitution in every aspect, then they are infringing on citizen's rights. I guess that asking the Bush administration and Congress to follow the great U.S. Constitution, the very thing that defines us as a country, is just too much...The government is changing way too many things.

Miami Herald
"Those charges do not mention the ''dirty bomb'' allegations and one of them -- that Padilla and his codefendants conspired to ``murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country''-- was thrown out in August by Cooke because it duplicated allegations made in other charges."

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I meant to deleate the part about the administration advocating attacking Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. I missed that. I don't know anything about that.

You said that people aren't arrested if they are obeying the law. Well, I found a ton of articles that say that the government has been arresting protesters unconstitutionally. Here are just a few...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112302185.html

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...5611-3029r.htm

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...lders+kept+out

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316

Here are also some other articles on how people are starting to fight back. Even state attorney's are finding fault in the government and are starting to talk up about. The fact is that the government is infringing on our rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...s-Lawsuit.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/us/08liberties.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/op...c7a&ei=5087%0A

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/wa...8prexycnd.html

Also...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/us/12bush.html

How do you beat these people...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/wo.../12afghan.html

Here are the articles about the two women who were arrested at Cedar Rapids...they were teachers...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_arc.../7/136478.html

http://www.drudge.com/news/83680/arr...protesters-sue

Here is the Jose Padillo case...

http://www.chargepadilla.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...d_terrorist%29

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...amiherald_news

He didn't do anything bad, he only was planning on detonating a "dirty bomb" in a major US city to try to kill a few-hundred thousand people.

This statement that you said earlier is very false. They have no evidence out that whatsoever as stated in the last link above.

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread ... but I went back a bit and came upon this post.

Here's another instance of an otherwise commendable contributor making an inadvertent fool of herself.

The subject here happens to be a political topic ... but if it were UFOs ... it would be every bit as easy to regurgitate dozens of loopy sources who'd swear they saw the space ships ... met the aliens ... and went shopping at Wal-Mart with them.

Rosie ... this isn't any sort of way to make your points. When you bay at the moon with lunatics ... you soon become identified as one of them.

Use your own thought process and create cogent arguments of your own. This sort of stuff only makes you look weird.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I hadn't been keeping up with this thread ... but I went back a bit and came upon this post.

Here's another instance of an otherwise commendable contributor making an inadvertent fool of herself.

The subject here happens to be a political topic ... but if it were UFOs ... it would be every bit as easy to regurgitate dozens of loopy sources who'd swear they saw the space ships ... met the aliens ... and went shopping at Wal-Mart with them.

Rosie ... this isn't any sort of way to make your points. When you bay at the moon with lunatics ... you soon become identified as one of them.

Use your own thought process and create cogent arguments of your own. This sort of stuff only makes you look weird.

If it makes me look wierd to you then so be it. It doesn't hurt my feelings any. I am very determined and will do just about whatever it takes to prove my point because I think that I am right. Give me some solid evidence to prove me wrong in that the government really isn't infringing on our rights and I will listen. I am trying to show these stubborn people the truth, but it is a lost cause. They continue to argue with the facts.

OK, BB, so just HOW did I make a fool of myself when I have stated that there are obvious biases in the articles, but there are some real truths to them as well. Some of the articles aren't biased at all, but are just providing unbiased facts. Most of the articles that I posted weren't editorials. They were solid NYTimes articles and USA today articles. They are also very easy to find, and it does not take them very long to look up. I have also read a lot of them before.

Oh yeah, and just for the record, some of those articles were all about being for Bush, and about Bush's new war policy. They weren't deragotory of Bush at all. So I guess that Bush is one of those lunatics...

Isn't it a fact that those for radical change in this country are infringing on our rights as citizen's with their new laws and policies? Isn't it a fact that the U.S. Constitution is being neglected in certain instances in which it wasn't back in 1996? Of course it is.

Go ahead, and depute the facts of this article. Show me just HOW this isn't true, and just how, from this article, anyone could possibly fathom that those in office aren't neglecting the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm

I rest my case. Even if you continue to ignore the facts, the others see them. This thread has gotten tiresome. I'll start another one back up in a month or so...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Where do I come up with this stuff? What kind of question is that? They are from the websites right in front of you. I find this stuff in all the popular magazines and news articles as the websites suggest...New York Times (Best one), USA Today,...etc. I would much rather read the news than watch it on TV, although I do both. I don't want to limit myself. Most are legitimate unbiased websites that argue both sides and present the facts. There is one on the Padilla case that is biased, but there is also truth in what they say.

If you read those articles carefully about the protesters Rupert, you would have noticed that the lawmakers set up those laws specifically against those protesters. They had protested a year before, so they made up some BS law, so that when they protested in the same spot the next year, they got arrested.

Also, what about the two women (you were schoolteachers) that were taken to jail, strip searched, and not charged? What about the people who were charged and the charges were dropped? Again, you are not acknowledging the facts that our government is infringing on citizen's constitutional rights. You are so biased to your opinion that you cannot see that.

About Padilla, it may just be a cover up as to why they didn't charge him with that. From reading all of the articles that I have, it does sound awfully suspicious. They are all just allegations anyway, although they are probably correct allegations. Nothing is set in stone yet. I have not seen any evidence about exactly what he was doing and how he was found to be plotting a dirty bomb. If you can find some concrete evidence that he to the contrary, please post it.

I don't agree with abrupt radical change, but I would at least like the government to follow the U.S. Constitution. That is all I want. Follow the U.S. Constitution. If they aren't following the U.S. Constitution in every aspect, then they are infringing on citizen's rights. I guess that asking the Bush administration and Congress to follow the great U.S. Constitution, the very thing that defines us as a country, is just too much...The government is changing way too many things.

Miami Herald
"Those charges do not mention the ''dirty bomb'' allegations and one of them -- that Padilla and his codefendants conspired to ``murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country''-- was thrown out in August by Cooke because it duplicated allegations made in other charges."

When I said, "Where do you come up with this stuff?", I was meaning where do you come up with this stuff about "people being arrested unconsitutionally." They were not arrested unconstitutionally and the articles don't say they were. You say that brand new laws were passed to stop protesters. That may be the case. New laws are passed all the time.

I'll give my opinion on what is unconstitutional. They wanted to open a Wal-Mart in Los Angeles but I believe it was the County Board of Supervisors who wouldn't allow it because the unions were against it. Now that goes against everything this country is all about. To tell someone that they can't open a business? To me that is unconstiutional. How could someone not be allowed to open a business? The "Founding Fathers" would be turning in thier graves over that.

The Founding Fathers would have no problem with the Patriot Act. The government's most important role above anything is to keep us safe from attack. If you look at the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, the pros far outweigh the cons. You talked about our rights being infringed upon. If you have terrorists blowing up buidings and airplanes all the time, that is a far greater infringement on our liberty than anything that the government has done through the Patriot Act. If we are not safe to get on an airplane, if it is not safe to go to New York city, if it is not safe to go on a train, then we have no freedom at all. If there was no Patriot Act, there would have probably been a few more 9/11 type attacks. People would be scared to death to travel in their own country. Now that would be a great infringement on our civi liberties. When it is too dangerous to even go to a sporting event because of the fear of a terrorist attack, then we have no freedom at all. Thankfully it hasn't gotten to that point. Because of the Patriot Act, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks and people feel relatively safe. You can ask anyone in law enforcement and they will tell you that the Patriot Act is directly responsible for foiling numerous terrorist attacks.

The Constitution is the means to an end. It is not an end in itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Do you have any common sense? Even the Forefathers recognized this and allowed Congress to make ammendments to the Constitution if neccessary. Congress also has the authority to make laws. They passed the Patriot Act and it has not been overturned. If it was unconsitutional, the Supreme Court would have overturned it. It is lucky that you are not in charge because you appear to have no common sense. Luckily for us, the vast majority of our Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle agree with me and that is why the Patriot Act has overwhelming bipartisan support. Just in the last year, it passed the Senate by a vote of 89-11 or something like that. Do you know something that the US Senate doesn't know? What are they missing? They're not missing anything. They get it. You clearly don't get it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Jessica, I have a question for you. Are you against being searched at the airport? I mean isn't that against the Constitution? How can they search you? There is no probable cause.

I mean technically you could argue that being searched at the airport is unconstitutional. If you want to go by the letter of the law, being searched at the airport is probably unconsititutional. But nobody with any common sense is going to complain about being searched at the airport. sure it's an inconvenience but it is absolutely neccessary. It would be too dangerous if they didn't search you. The Founding Fathers would have no problem with people being searched at the airport. As I said before, the Constitution is not a sudiced pact. It's not an end in itself. It's a means to an end. When deciding whether or not something is constitutional, the most important thing to ask yourself is whether the spirit of the Constitution has been violated. The sprit of the law is what is important. The letter of the law is not important. That is why it is permissable for them to search you at the airport. Even though you could ague that that being searched at the airport is a violation of the letter of the law of the Cosnstitution, it is not a violation of the spirit of the law. That is what really matters. The same can be said about the Patriot Act.

When they search you at the airport, they're not doing it to get a cheap thrill. They're not doing it to harrass people. They're doing it to protect us.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Jessica, I have a question for you. Are you against being searched at the airport? I mean isn't that against the Constitution? How can they search you? There is no probable cause.

I mean technically you could argue that being searched at the airport is unconstitutional. If you want to go by the letter of the law, being searched at the airport is probably unconsititutional. But nobody with any common sense is going to complain about being searched at the airport. sure it's an inconvenience but it is absolutely neccessary. It would be too dangerous if they didn't search you. The Founding Fathers would have no problem with people being searched at the airport. As I said before, the Constitution is not a sudiced pact. It's not an end in itself. It's a means to an end. When deciding whether or not something is constitutional, the most important thing to ask yourself is whether the spirit of the Constitution has been violated. The sprit of the law is what is important. The letter of the law is not important. That is why it is permissable for them to search you at the airport. Even though you could ague that that being searched at the airport is a violation of the letter of the law of the Cosnstitution, it is not a violation of the spirit of the law. That is what really matters. The same can be said about the Patriot Act.

When they search you at the airport, they're not doing it to get a cheap thrill. They're not doing it to harrass people. They're doing it to protect us.

Got to chime in on this. I would not mind someone videoing me, searching me, listening in on my phone conversations, etc... But here is the huge deal. Some people want their privacy for whatever reason. And just because I dont happen to mind, does not make it right. The, "I am not hinding anything so why should you care", just does not fly in my book. Of course the intent in most of these situations is to protect people. But in the process you infringe on others rights to privacy. Just cause I dont care about myself from a private point of view, does not mean others feel the same way. You have to respect others rights to privacy.
So again. We are back to the fine line between the rights of individuals and the rights and protection of our society as a whole.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Got to chime in on this. I would not mind someone videoing me, searching me, listening in on my phone conversations, etc... But here is the huge deal. Some people want their privacy for whatever reason. And just because I dont happen to mind, does not make it right. The, "I am not hinding anything so why should you care", just does not fly in my book. Of course the intent in most of these situations is to protect people. But in the process you infringe on others rights to privacy. Just cause I dont care about myself from a private point of view, does not mean others feel the same way. You have to respect others rights to privacy.
So again. We are back to the fine line between the rights of individuals and the rights and protection of our society as a whole.

I agree with you. You have to weigh the pros and the cons. In this case, the Senate looked at the pros and cons very carefully and they renewed the Patriot Act by a vote of 89-11. These guys can hardly agree on anything. When they agree on something by a vote of 89-11, that should tell you something. Yo can't get much more bi-partisan than 89-11.

I persoanlly have thought about these issues very carfeully. I think that what the government has done is a no-brainer just like I think that searching people at the airport is a no-brainer. In both cases, the pros far outweigh the cons. It's that simple.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Jessica, With rgard to those two women who were arrested and strip-searched, you have to ask yourself why they were the only ones who got arrested. I know nothing about the case, but I would be extremely surprised if thye got arrested for no reason. Theyw ere probably doing something that they weren't supposed to be doing. If the police were arresting people for no other reason than protesting legally, then I think there would have been far more arrests.

These are some of things you should be asking yourself. When some author with an agenda tells you astory like this without providing any details, you would ahve to be crazy to believe it at face value. You have to be cynical when someone with an agenda is only telling you one side of a story.

By the way, let's pretend that these women were doing nothing wrong. In that case, then you have wrongdoing by the local police officers that arrested them. That has nothing to do with President Bush or his administration. Do you think they called President Bush and he told them to arrest those two women?

By the way, I think it is pretty far-fetched that these women did nothing wrong. I don't know the facts of the case, so I can't say for sure. But if I was betting man, I would bet that they did something to get themselves arrested.

By the way, you were talking about some cases where charges were thrown out. That doesn't prove anything. There have been hundreds of cases. Let me correct myself. There have been tens of thousand of cases over the years where charges were dismissed against people that were gulity. If the district attoreny doesn't think that he can prove his case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, he will drop the charges, even if he is sure that the person is guilty. This happens all the time.

Speaking of cases like that, I know of a very sad case involving someone we are all familiar with. Corey Nakatani's sister was murdered. Everyone knew who did it. The guy had threatened her on numerous occasions. She feared for her life. When she was murdered, everyone knew who did it. The police knew who did it, yet the guy was never charged. They simply did not have enough evidence to charge him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

O'Reilly a believer in free speech? He tried to sue a comedian, Al Franken, over this issue. The guy is a stinken leftist comedian that got him so "riled" up that he took on a completely silly case. The case was so laughable it got thrown out immediately. He made a total joke of himself. OReilly is another very bright snake oil salesman just like many of those on the left. His ego is so large it holds an atmosphere. True conservatives with brains would want this guy lost. The conservative that makes the most sense to me by far is George Will. Dont even put O'Reilly close to George Will. They are made of completely different material. Whenever I see "fair and balanced" and "the spin stops here" I want to throw up. But I watch it anyway to see if some good stuff comes out an it does on occassion. O'Reilly reminds me of that liberal gal on the McGlau... (sp?) Group. Quick catchy comments that lack depth. Be fooled if you must Rupert. Got to find someone else, my suggestion, George Will.

Pat Buchanan also makes sense. So much sense I think he is dangerous. But at least he is straight up.

You missed my point about O'Reilly. I'm not saying that I'm a big O'Reilly fan. I actually think he's kind of a jerk. I certainly agree with him more often than I disagree with him, but I still find him obnoxious at times.

I agree with you that George Will is very bright.

With regard to his lawsuit aginst Al Franken, I don't remember the details so I can't really comment on it. I will say that Al Franken is not just a comedian any more. He is a liberal commentator and he he has said that he is seriously considering running for office. I think people do take him seriously, so if O'Reilly felt that Franken slandered him, I can understand why he sued him.

With regard to politicians that I admire, one of my favorite politicians is a democrat. I really like the congressman Harold Ford. He seems like a real straight-shooter who is pretty non-partisan. That's the kind of politican I like. I would vote for him if he was a congresman in my state. If he ever runs for President, I would consider voting for him. He seems like a guy who can work well with people on both sides of the aisle.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Got to chime in on this. I would not mind someone videoing me, searching me, listening in on my phone conversations, etc... But here is the huge deal. Some people want their privacy for whatever reason. And just because I dont happen to mind, does not make it right. The, "I am not hinding anything so why should you care", just does not fly in my book. Of course the intent in most of these situations is to protect people. But in the process you infringe on others rights to privacy. Just cause I dont care about myself from a private point of view, does not mean others feel the same way. You have to respect others rights to privacy.
So again. We are back to the fine line between the rights of individuals and the rights and protection of our society as a whole.

the sticky part gets to where you decide how far 'privacy' goes when in the public domain....how much privacy can you expect at jfk airport for example?
i hold a CDL license, by signing that line on the paper, i agreed to be randomly drug tested at any time. to me that's an invasion of privacy....but who is going to say for example, that a school bus driver shouldn't be randomly tested, since the lives of the children on the bus, and others on the road, could be at stake...
i do think that it has gone too far, i don't agree with drug testing kids at schools. but then, i don't see why pro sports test their athletes. what safety issue is there with a free safety smoking marijuana? i don't think it's the leagues place to do that.

you could go on and on with this subject, everyone could find examples of laws they do or don't agree with.
just like i could put up stupid quotes from both ultra right and ultra left wing zealot/fanatics. neither extreme side has much to offer regarding intelligent conversation. you can't discuss things with people who have a very narrow mindset.

as the famous saying went-freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre.

Its hard to believe that we have as many brainwashed liberals in this country as we do. Its the scariest thing that I have ever seen.
The nazis had great propaganda, but the US media and its large left base has succeeded in brainwashing many folks over the past 30 years.
Its just incredible that people can't see that in a time of war, that what matters is not political parties, but the safety and protection of the United States and its law abiding citizens.
I have to label a complete moron or a terrorist anyone who fears being dragged from their home and taken away to confinement or interrogation.
Does anyone here honestly feel that? Or is it just a way to strike out at Republicans. How many folks do you know who get up and go to work and abide laws that are ever gonna get dragged from their homes?
The liberals are trying very hard right now to use "rights of US Citizens" to cloud and confuse the issue of whats going on. Whats going on is the most dangerous period in the history of the United States. Its a period in which millions of folks are rising each morning and trying to figure out how to destroy us and kill our people.
The founding fathers knew nothing of terrorism, at the time the Constitution was drafted, people still engaged in duels as a means of settling dispute. There was honor among men, and the notion that cowards would attempt to murder innocent people was not even a thought in their minds.
Innovations or adjustments are born of necessity. Its common sense really.
I think that 9/11 didn't really hit home with a lot of people, because they only saw it on tv, like a horror movie. They hadn't ever been to the World Trade Center, and they didn't know anyone who worked there. They havn't seen the destruction.
These folks are not going to quit, they are going to continue to try and kill as many innocent Americans as they can each and every day. It is the toughest job ever given any President and the intelligence agencies to prevent this. The other side only has to succeed one time.
How can any American not understand why things have changed and why its a necessity that they have changed?
Does anyone really believe that the intelligence agencies who are now monitoring emails and phone calls of American citizens are looking to use that info to arrest someone for a non terrorist related offense? The folks charged with these duties go to work each and every day and listen to the intelligence that we have which updates them on the newest suspected plots and then get the joyous task of realizing that if they screw up, thats thousands or even millions could die because they didn't do their jobs correctly.
If most people screw up at work, maybe a project is delayed or a deadline is missed, maybe a sales quota isn't hit. If these guys and gals screw up then people die. Does anyone honestly believe that the people who have this burden are looking to harass innocent Americans or even harass Americans committing small time or even big time crime unless its terrorist related?
Unfortunately, many liberals or gullible folks will not realize the gravity of the situation until the next attack comes and more people die. Until that happens its just a political football to kick around and attempt to win elections with, and its sickening and traitorous.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Rupert,

No, I am not against searching people at the airport because flying is a privilege not a right. The plane is not mine, the airport is not mine, so I abide to their rules. If I didn't like being searched, then I would use another means of transportation, like my car.

Of course the Constitution is not concrete. We have built upon and added Amendents throughout the history of this country. There is a lot to left to be interpreted. However, the government is drifting too far away from it.

Also, here is the article on the two women that taken to jail and strip searched. Read the article and tell me just what they did wrong. They didn't do anything wrong even though the security people said that they did. That is why they are sueing and why the judge dropped their charges. (I took a few things out at the very beginning of the article because I had to many characters, but here is the website)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm


CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) —

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey reasonable security restrictions, but the women disagree: "Because I had a dissenting opinion, they did what they needed to do to get me out of the way," said Nelson, who teaches history and government at one of this city's middle schools.

Their experience is hardly unique.

In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies.

Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors.

Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security policies.

While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters.

Jeff Rank and his wife, Nicole, filed a lawsuit after being handcuffed and booted from a July 4, 2004, appearance by the president at the West Virginia Capitol in Charleston. The Ranks, who now live in Corpus Christi, Texas, had free tickets to see the president speak, but contend they were arrested and charged with trespassing for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts.

"It's nothing more than an attempt by the president and his staff to suppress free speech," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia, which is providing legal services for the Ranks.

"What happened to the Ranks, and so many others across the country, was clearly an incident of viewpoint discrimination. And the lawsuit is an attempt to make the administration accountable for what we believe were illegal actions," Schneider said.

In Cedar Rapids, McCabe and Nelson are suing three unnamed Secret Service agents, the Iowa State Patrol and two county sheriff deputies who took part in their arrest. Nelson and McCabe, who now lives in Memphis, accuse law enforcement of violating their right to free speech, assembly and equal protection.

The two women say they were political novices, inexperienced at protest and unprepared for what happened on Sept. 3, 2004.

Soon after arriving at Noelridge Park, a sprawling urban playground dotted with softball diamonds and a public pool, McCabe and Nelson were approached by Secret Service agents in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts. They were told that the Republicans had rented the park and they would have to move because the sidewalk was now considered private property.

McCabe and Nelson say they complied, but moments later were again told to move, this time across the street. After being told to move a third time, Nelson asked why she was being singled out while so many others nearby, including those holding buckets for campaign donations, were ignored. In response, she says, they were arrested.

They were charged with criminal trespass, but the charges were later dropped.

A spokesman for the Secret Service declined to comment on pending litigation or answer questions on security policy for presidential events. White House spokesman Alex Conant also declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

But Justice Department lawyers, in documents filed recently in federal court in Cedar Rapids, outline security at the rally and defend the Secret Service agents' actions.

They contend the GOP obtained exclusive rights to use the park and that donation takers were ignored because they were an authorized part of the event. They also say McCabe and Nelson were disobedient, repeatedly refusing agents' orders to move.

"At no time did any political message expressed by the two women play any role in how (the agents) treated them," they wrote. "All individuals ... subject to security restrictions either complied with the security restrictions or were arrested for refusing to comply."

Defenders say stricter policies are a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a small price for ensuring the safety of a world leader in an era of heightened suspicion and uncertainty.

But Leslie Weise says law enforcers are violating citizens' rights to voice objections within earshot of the president.

Last year, in Denver, Weise and two friends were evicted from a Bush town hall meeting on Social Security reform.

Weise, a 40-year-old environmental lawyer who is now a stay-at-home mother, opposes the war in Iraq and the administration's energy policies. Like friends Alex Young and Karen Bauer, Weise did some volunteer work for the Kerry campaign.

In the days before Bush's March 2005 town hall meeting, the trio toyed briefly with the notion of actively protesting the visit. But they said they decided against it because they had heard of arrests at Bush appearances in North Dakota and Arizona.

After parking Weise's car, the three, dressed in professional attire and holding tickets obtained from their local congressman, arrived at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Young cleared security, but Weise and Bauer were briefly detained and told by staff they had been "identified" and would be arrested if they tried "any funny stuff," according to court records.

After finding their seats, they were approached again by staff and removed before Bush began speaking. Days later, Weise learned from Secret Service in Denver that a bumper sticker on her green Saab hatchback — "No More Blood for Oil" — caught the attention of security.

"I had every reason to attend that event, just as anyone else in the room had that day," said Weise. "If we raised security to a higher level just because we had an opinion different from the administration, I think that goes far beyond what is appropriate for this country."

Lawsuits by protesters are not always embraced by the courts. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the arrests of six men who stripped down to thongs and formed a pyramid to protest the Abu Ghraib scandal when Bush paid a visit to Lancaster.

Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics.

The ACLU has sued several presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route. And during the tumultuous 1960s, it was not uncommon for hecklers and protesters to be whisked away or managed at a distance from rallies and events.

"In my mind, it all started with Nixon. He was the first presidential candidate to really make an effort to control their image and disrupt public interruption at events," said Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

But political experts say the 2004 Bush campaign rewrote the playbook for organizing campaign rallies.

At the Republican National Convention in New York City and at other campaign stops, security segregated protesters in designated "free speech zones" set up at a significant distance from each rally. To get into events headlined by Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters were required to obtain tickets through GOP channels or sign loyalty oaths.

Political experts agree Bush 2004 went to greater lengths than Kerry officials — or any past campaign — to choreograph a seamless, partisan rally free of the embarrassing moments that attract media attention.

Gone are the days of candidates facing down hecklers or reacting to distractions like, the man who donned a chicken costume and pestered George H.W. Bush in 1991 after he balked at Bill Clinton's invitations to debate.

Anthony Corrado, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ticket-only events are an effective tool for rewarding legions of volunteers who work the phone banks, raise money and build support.

"In my view, the Republicans did a much better job of linking field volunteers with their schedule and events," Corrado said. "I had never seen it done to the extent it was on 2004 on the Republican side. And my guess is we'll probably see a lot more of it all."

[Rupert Pupkin]

First I want to repsond to Oracle's post. I agree with Oracle 100%. I agree with everything he said. He actually took the words right out my mouth.

In response to Jessica's post, I think the most important part of the whole article were these quotes, "Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics. The ACLU has sued several Presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route."

This has been going on for years. This is nothing new. I'm not necessarily in favor of it. It just depends on the circumstances of the event.

I volunteered for a candidate running for Mayor of Los Angeles several years ago. His opponent was giving a speech in a small room at a local health clinic. I went there and was considering protesting. The people putting on the event figured out that I was not a supporter of this candidate. If I would have started yelling or protesting during his speech, it would have been very disruptive. They made me promise that I would behave myself. If I didn't promise that I would behave myself, I would have been asked to leave. I had no problem with this. The truth of the matter is it would have been completely inappropriate for me to disrupt his speech. They didn't even need to make me promise to behave. When I saw the setting, I could see how disruptive and inappropriate it would have been for me to yell or anything like that. I would never have the nerve to do something like that.

With regard to your having no problem with being searched at the airport, then that means that you agree that we don't need to follow the Constitution to a "T". The airport is a public place. Technically they should not search you if they don't have probable cause. We all know that it is very important for them to search everyone at the airport in the times we live in, regardles of the wording of the Constitution. I'm glad you agree with me about that.

With regard to the two women who were arrested, how can you say that they didn't do anything wrong? You weren't there. You don't know what happened. I don't either. The article doesn't give any details. Authorities say the women refused to obey reasonable security restrictions. The women disagree. I don't know all the facts but from the small amount of information that I have, I would tend to believe the authorities. If the authorities were arrresting everyone with dissenting opinions, how come those two women were the only ones arrested? I'm sure they were mouthing off or something. I don't know what the exact laws are but I do know that it's not very smart to mouth off to cops. If you start swearing at a cop or calling him names, there is probably a good chance that you will be arrested. I'm not even talking about political rallies. I'm talking about any situation when you deal with police. If they give you some type of order and you disobey it or you mouth off to them, there is a good chance you will arrested. There is also a good chance that the charges will be dropped.