So wait, you're not arguing that we should be searched at the airport, you're just telling us that we will be searched at the airport? I think we knew that. Hence the thread

This is how basically every thread here goes. Someone decides to try to defend an indefensible point, they start out with all these great "arguments" and good intentions, and then once they finally realize that it is impossible, they retreat to "Well I'm just stating how things are, go back to your dormroom bull**** sessions!"

We know how the world is, thanks.

Huh? I've pointed out how the world works, which you agree is correct, yet my arguments supporting how the world works is indefensible and impossible?

The real issue is you do not agree with how the world works despite the reality of it and are protesting someone pointing it out to you by claiming their arguments is indefensible and impossible.

What argument am I making that is indefensible?

NEXT WEEK ON "POLICY DISCUSSIONS WITH FLEEINGFISH":

TOPIC: IS THE DRUG WAR HELPING OR HURTING?

FLEEINGFISH: DUDES, DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL WTF ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT?

Yes.

Are you talking about DUI checkpoints? (road blocks). If so that is a state issue, and people voted for or against that. In my state for instance, we do not have DUI checkpoints. It is not something people have all accepted.

HAHHAHA....go read the drug thread.

Cliffs: Hurting but government intervention is still needed via treatment instead of prison.

Ok?

Guess I'm too stupid to be insulted by this.

It's not even "drugs are illegal therefore bad" it's "drugs are illegal therefore illegal"

You were trying to justify the unjustifiable TSA. Once you realized this was impossible you switched to "hey, that's just the way it is."

But it is justified by our acceptance of it. Once again I ask, do you think unreasonable searches should be conducted, ever? If you answer yes, you just justified it. If you answer no, then I admire your principals but laugh at the impracticality of it, specifically in the case of air port security.

I do not carry guns, why would it ever be reasonable to ever search me for a gun? Is it reasonable to search me for a gun before boarding a plane, just to rule out that you or someone else are not carrying gun on a plane?

YES it's the phonebooth "EVERYTHING THAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT ITS CURRENTLY HAPPENING" gambit.

It wasnt an insult. You asked a question that succinctly described your approach to this thread. I answered just as succinctly.

Sorry, the drug war is what the drug war is. Not sure how you can be opposed to it, or think its a bad idea. Its just reality.

No it isnt. But even if this is true, this entire thread is a bunch of people who DONT accept it. And you are presumably addressing us. So you might have to try something else to justify it.
Do you see how that makes your involvement in this thread kind of stupid? Your position seems to be "It doesnt matter what anyone thinks, this is happening, and they have the guns, so shut up and stop talking about it." Which I suppose is valid, in a pathetic way, but then it begs the question: what exactly was the purpose of all those other posts you made in this thread, before settling on this trump card?
It is not reasonable to force everyone to search you.

I'm curious how you define "our acceptance". I certainly haven't "accepted" the fact that TSA agents have committed what amount to sexual abuse without repercussion.

It sounds like your viewpoint is that the government is allowed to sidestep the Constitution unless and until a certain percentage of the population speak up about it. If so, I'm curious what that percentage is.

My focus was those who argue on the basis of legalities, not everyone in this thread who hates the TSA. You just assumed when I say the reality of it applies to everything when I was merely suggesting the reality of the law makes a constitutional argument pointless. Context would help you in this situation.

You can say the TS A is over the top and there is no need to search for x or use this method, which I happen to agree with. However, using the Constitution or law, IMO would not be an effective in supporting this argument.

Cost/effect ratio would be much stronger.

Again, my target was a subgroup arguing in the name of Constitution/legal aspects. How you come to the conclusion I mean everyone who poses an argument can be indicative of one thing.....reading comprehension and context.

The TSA is CLEARLY not Constitutional, but that is almost always a stupid angle to pursue, because there are dozens or hundreds of things which are clearly not Constitutional and yet still happen, because of public support, so this is rarely a fruitful means of argument. I dont ACTUALLY think there is any way to dismantle to TSA, just like I dont ACTUALLY think there is any way to end the War on Drugs, but I am quite sure that arguing Constitutionality is not the way to go, for anything. How's it working out for gays wanting to get married?

That being said, you were arguing in this thread with me, pvn, JayTee, among others, and I'm fairly sure none of them object to this on purely Constitutional grounds. We mostly object to it because its the stupidest ****ing thing we can imagine, squanders billions of dollars, and habituates Americans into accepting violations of privacy and civil liberties in the name of phantom "threats" that dont exist. And I dont like taking off my shoes.

Like you know how you made those posts about traffic fatalities, and said things like "Yes but how many attacks since 9/11!!?!?" I know I'm apparently quite bad at context, but its hard to really see how that was you focusing on the Constitutionality of the TSA...

Well, arguing that TSA creates death through more traffic is is a pretty bad argument too. Seeing as how deaths have consistently went down since 2001 and security measures by the TSA went up.

And yes safer car is the largest contributor.

You are right, I did veer off topic in that instance.

again, you keep showing that you don't understand anything about statistics

Well I'm just stupid then. I see no logical way you can determine who drove in lieu of dealing with TSA with any degree of accuracy. Besides, based on what someone said, if I remember correctly, the number is around 500 people, if the statistic is right....that indicates, to me, it is statistically irrelevant which invalidates the "death" argument just as well.

It's already been explained in this thread. Twice I believe.

I'd like to hear how you determined the number is "statistically irrelevant" (and what you think that term means).

Yes it was. I understand the formula however I do not see any indication on what motivated people to drive instead of fly.



500 out of about 300,000,000 US Citizens per year or out of about **1.73 million passengers flying per day or out of about 210 million people driving every day.

**This statistic counts individuals every single time that they board a plane as a different passenger. I have not found out how to obtain this information at a level for number of distinct people that travel in the United States per year.

While if we accept the TSA as reason for driving, it does not cause the death. It is statistically insignificant in this debate.

Unless of course you statistic takes in account if the car had airbags, anti lock brakes and had good tires among many other variables that cause traffic accidents, like if they were texting and not paying attention.

That had to be some of the dumbest mother****ing **** I've read in the last 100 posts. Entertaining though. Thanks Flee

Was at the san diego courthouse downtown in April and there is a metal detector.