The Resistance is beginning...

[JayC]

I disagree it does a lot of good...  First, it doesn't matter what you believe, only what I do...  my freedom comes from my humanity, not a piece of paper written 226 years ago.

 

Remember that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.  Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

 

If they come for my liberties, I plan on being a well armed something ;)

 

Part of our problem is that most people can't think rationally and without passion at critical issues.  By allowing another persons freedom to be trampled for the 'good of society', they setup the argument for their liberty to be trampled next week.

 

There are lots of things I hate or dislike, very few of them I think should be illegal.  I just want to be left alone, and I'm happy to leave others alone in return.

 

I agree but like TMF said, if the majority doesn't belief in the constitution then it does no good. I haven't given up hope yet but I am worried.

 

[JayC]

TMF,

 

I disagree that people some of the founded were slave owners that we should toss out the protections in the constitution.  Just as I'm very sure that your average progressive would still fight for democracy even though the Greeks were also slave owners ;)

 

I do have a couple of fundamental issues with the constitution, first I think our founding fathers placed too much faith in the good nature of man.  They should have included a 'fourth' branch of government who were completely separate watchers of the government with the power to charge and bring to trial employees and members of the government who violated the law or their oath.  A branch completely unbeholden to anybody in elected office, and prohibited for life from making a single penny off of the government.

 

Second, I have a moral question about how previous generations can bind yet unborn generations to laws and restrictions on liberty and give them no say in the matter.  All other contracts in this country have an expiration date, except the laws of the land, we're still stuck with a constitution voted on by a small fraction of the population in 1870, which removed a number of freedoms and liberties from the previous constitution, yet somehow I'm bound by these terms and conditions imposed by 5 or 6 generations ago?  How is that moral?

 

Or better yet, what my grandparents and parents generation are doing to my child's future by selling her into slavery to pay for their retirement and healthcare.  It's somehow her fault they got taken in a government sponsored ponzi scheme, so they're going to make her give up her liberty and future prospects to pay for her mistakes?  How on earth can that be moral?

 

The real problem in this country?  Nobody is willing to face facts that the government IS the problem,

 

You can't make a point about the purpose and legitimacy of the Constitution to a crowd of folks who don't believe in the document in the first place. I'm beginning to believe that the majority view the Constitution as an obsolete document that should be rewritten. I've heard a person argue against its legitimacy based on the fact that some of the framers had slaves. This is the kind of hopeless dumbassery we're up against.

 

[JayC]

Unarmed millions, the one time the Jews fought back, outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Nazi forces with handguns and bolt action rifles, they held off 2100 troops with over a hundred fixed machine guns, artillery, and 900+ SS special forces.  While finally over ran, they held the city for a month, and killed nearly 300 Nazi's.

 

And we're not unarmed sheep.

 

The real question is would you stand by with proof that the government was killing without trial 10,000 or 100,000 civilians?  Or would you pickup your hunting rifle and help put an end to the tyranny?

 

Have you ever heard of a little thing called WWII, there was this holocaust back then and I believe that is exactly what happened they killed millions of people that they deemed a threat to the fatherland.

 

[Chucktshoes]

Part of our problem is that most people can't think rationally and without passion at critical issues. By allowing another persons freedom to be trampled for the 'good of society', they setup the argument for their liberty to be trampled next week.

There are lots of things I hate or dislike, very few of them I think should be illegal. I just want to be left alone, and I'm happy to leave others alone in return.

Q4E. This, this, oh a million times this.

Wouldn't it be so nice if the general population understood the concepts of negative rights instead of believing they had positive rights that trample all over the rights of others.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Or better yet, what my grandparents and parents generation are doing to my child's future by selling her into slavery to pay for their retirement and healthcare.  It's somehow her fault they got taken in a government sponsored ponzi scheme, so they're going to make her give up her liberty and future prospects to pay for her mistakes?  How on earth can that be moral?

 

I would be a little less grumpy about the government defaulting on the social security bonds, if the government will also default on ALL bonds. Think about it-- Why should the government pay off on bonds that might be part of your investments, or pay off on bonds owned by daddy warbucks or china, if the government needs to save money so bad that they've got to default on social security bonds paid for by your mom and granny?

 

If fact, if we need to default on debt, IMO the "voluntarily investors" should be the first defaulted. People either had to pay social security tax or go to jail, so the "involuntary investors" should be the last ones defaulted.

 

Order of default--

1. Foreign bond holders

2. Domestic corporations

3. Domestic private investors

4. Social Security

 

I'm not saying SS ain't a ponzi scheme, but it isn't any more a ponzi scheme than any of the other bonds sold by the gov. Daddy Warbucks buys a bond, then you and I and your kids have to pay tax to pay Daddy Warbucks back!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester, you know they will always scream and cuss until they get more money, and will always put something

like that, that affects you and I at most risk. It makes me want to do something more than scream.

[Randall53]

That's not 7000 people. I've been involved in outdoor events most of my adult life.

 

How many would you guess?  There's a lot of people under the trees on both sides of the pic if you look close, plus we aren't seeing everyone since it seems to be quite a few walking towards the thing. I don't know.  I don't think 7000 is far off.

[JayC]

I think you're right, and we should put the federal government through a bankruptcy, using unconstitutional holdings as property to be transferred to the people holding social security 'bonds'.  But the fact is social security is a tax not an insurance policy.

 

Trust me there are lots of radical ideas I'd put forward that are constitutional to greatly reduce the size of government.  Including limiting or doing away with a standing army.

 

I would be a little less grumpy about the government defaulting on the social security bonds, if the government will also default on ALL bonds. Think about it-- Why should the government pay off on bonds that might be part of your investments, or pay off on bonds owned by daddy warbucks or china, if the government needs to save money so bad that they've got to default on social security bonds paid for by your mom and granny?

 

If fact, if we need to default on debt, IMO the "voluntarily investors" should be the first defaulted. People either had to pay social security tax or go to jail, so the "involuntary investors" should be the last ones defaulted.

 

Order of default--

1. Foreign bond holders

2. Domestic corporations

3. Domestic private investors

4. Social Security

 

I'm not saying SS ain't a ponzi scheme, but it isn't any more a ponzi scheme than any of the other bonds sold by the gov. Daddy Warbucks buys a bond, then you and I and your kids have to pay tax to pay Daddy Warbucks back!

 

[Randall53]

I'd cut the TSA immediately.  Worthless bunch of economic bloodsuckers.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think you're right, and we should put the federal government through a bankruptcy, using unconstitutional holdings as property to be transferred to the people holding social security 'bonds'.  But the fact is social security is a tax not an insurance policy.

 

Yep, federal controlled bankruptcy to get the gov out of the retirement biz and satisfy "involuntary investors" might work better than most solutions.

 

Inflation is a primary reason it is so complicated to save for retirement. If one could stuff a burger's worth of cash in the mattress today and the money would still buy a burger 20 years hence, it would greatly simplify the problem.

 

However wealth storage is generally problematic, just like food storage or electrical storage. Thermodynamic inefficiencies. Entropy always wins in the end.

 

If the gov starts defaulting bonds, many people who made enough money and had sufficient foresight to save up a big stack at retirement, would get hurt just as bad as people who have little else than social security. When people get older and move their stack into "safer" investments-- Many "safe money" end of life strategies are heavily backed by gov bonds.

 

Some "ant vs grasshopper" fella who saves a big stack and does not NEED SS-- Look at the details and more than likely you, me, and our children are paying tax money to support that better-off geezer as well. Simply getting the gov out of the retirement biz wouldn't solve much. If social security didn't exist and everybody has independent retirement accounts-- When most of em retire, cash in their chips and buy annuities-- Annuities tend to be heavily-backed by gov bond holdings-- Your kids would pay everybody's retirement with tax money even if SS had been abolished. Tough problem unless you simply make it impossible for the gov to borrow money, and make it impossible for the gov to intentionally cause perpetual inflation.

[RobertNashville]

...I do have a couple of fundamental issues with the constitution, first I think our founding fathers placed too much faith in the good nature of man.  They should have included a 'fourth' branch of government who were completely separate watchers of the government with the power to charge and bring to trial employees and members of the government who violated the law or their oath.

We used to have have that; it was called a free press and it worked pretty darn well until those who became part of the press forget what their primary role was.

Second, I have a moral question about how previous generations can bind yet unborn generations to laws and restrictions on liberty and give them no say in the matter.

No future generation is truly bound by previous generations...once the future generation becomes the current generation (the ones holding offices and those who are voting them in) have the power, if they chose to use it, to change anything that has been done before. The problem is not just with those like FDR (and the Congress of the time) that saddled us with entitlement programs; it's also with those who, through the years and right up until now who have refused to fix what everybody knows is a broken system.

Most of what we blame on "the government" is really OUR collective fault...the problem is that the government has been out of control for so long that I don't know if there is still time for us to save ourselves without tremendous pain; or maybe even time to save ourselves at all.

[Bear]

I'd cut the TSA immediately.  Worthless bunch of economic bloodsuckers.

And yet, not one single plane has been hijacked and flown into a building killing thousands since they were formed.  Money well spent, I think.

 

If you had a clue what really goes on, you would just bow down and quietly say 'sorry'.  You have no idea what happens that you, nor the press, nor that idiot Rand Paul never get to hear about.  TSA is tested constantly, by their own, and those that want to do harm.  But you'll never hear that on the news.  Most people wouldn't go near an airport if they knew.

 

No, as a matter of fact, I do not work for the TSA and never have.  But I know of things you don't. 

Edited March 2, 2013 by Bear

[Trekbike]

And yet, not one single plane has been hijacked and flown into a building killing thousands since they were formed.  Money well spent, I think.

 

If you had a clue what really goes on, you would just bow down and quietly say 'sorry'.  You have no idea what happens that you, nor the press, nor that idiot Rand Paul never get to hear about.  TSA is tested constantly, by their own, and those that want to do harm.  But you'll never hear that on the news.  Most people wouldn't go near an airport if they knew.

 

No, as a matter of fact, I do not work for the TSA and never have.  But I know of things you don't. 

 

I don't think anyone was saying get rid of airport security.  I believe the point was to turn it back to private industry rather than the bloated far reaching agency it has turned into.  I believe private companies can do a more efficient job.  To my knowledge the 9/11 thing didn't happen because of a breach in security because there weren't any rules against box cutters, etc. at the time.    

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And yet, not one single plane has been hijacked and flown into a building killing thousands since they were formed.  Money well spent, I think.

 

If you had a clue what really goes on, you would just bow down and quietly say 'sorry'.  You have no idea what happens that you, nor the press, nor that idiot Rand Paul never get to hear about.  TSA is tested constantly, by their own, and those that want to do harm.  But you'll never hear that on the news.  Most people wouldn't go near an airport if they knew.

 

No, as a matter of fact, I do not work for the TSA and never have.  But I know of things you don't. 

Ah, an expert? Insider sounds better. TSA hasn't succeeded in doing anything any better than previous

airport security was doing. Well, with the exception of spending a lot of money that you and I joyfully

contributed. If you know so much that even justifies what you say, then say it. That's impolite to just smack

someone down like that, especially with your arrogance.

[Randall53]

And yet, not one single plane has been hijacked and flown into a building killing thousands since they were formed.  Money well spent, I think.

 

If you had a clue what really goes on, you would just bow down and quietly say 'sorry'.  You have no idea what happens that you, nor the press, nor that idiot Rand Paul never get to hear about.  TSA is tested constantly, by their own, and those that want to do harm.  But you'll never hear that on the news.  Most people wouldn't go near an airport if they knew.

 

No, as a matter of fact, I do not work for the TSA and never have.  But I know of things you don't. 

 

 

Well I say they need to let the taxpayer know if they catch someone trying to hijack a plane. Especially after groping our children and elderly people.  The TSA is overbearing in everything they do.  As far as the ones footing the bill, we don't know if any planes would have flown into any buildings with them or without them. It's only happened one time in my 60 years. You make it sound like everything is top secret, yet the famous shoe bomber and underwear bomber was shouted from the rooftops....but they got on the planes anyway didn't they?  I'm not planning on scuffing my toe and saying I'm sorry.  I've been in the airports and seen 1st hand the people that work at TSA.  I'm NOT impressed at all.  Private airport security could run circles around the TSA without all the waste of taxpayers dollars.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Randall53

[Bear]

"TSA hasn't succeeded in doing anything any better than previous

airport security was doing."

Do you mean the type that did so well on the morning of 9/11/2001?

 

"You make it sound like everything is top secret, yet the famous shoe bomber and underwear bomber was shouted from the rooftops....but they got on the planes anyway didn't they?"

Yep, both on Airplanes.  Robert Reed put a bomb in his shoe and boarded a plane in Paris.

The underwear bomber was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and he boarded in Amsterdam.  TSA does not screen in Paris, France nor in Amsterdam.

 

You guys sound like a New York Governor.  Blame Blame Blame.  Remember who you're mad at. 

[Randall53]

"TSA hasn't succeeded in doing anything any better than previous

airport security was doing."

Do you mean the type that did so well on the morning of 9/11/2001?

 

"You make it sound like everything is top secret, yet the famous shoe bomber and underwear bomber was shouted from the rooftops....but they got on the planes anyway didn't they?"

Yep, both on Airplanes.  Robert Reed put a bomb in his shoe and boarded a plane in Paris.

The underwear bomber was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and he boarded in Amsterdam.  TSA does not screen in Paris, France nor in Amsterdam.

 

You guys sound like a New York Governor.  Blame Blame Blame.  Remember who you're mad at. 

 

No, you sound like the New York Governor wanting to take away everyone's rights, in this instance right to personal decency and privacy, which is what the TSA does everyday.  Search my bags, Xray me. Sure I'll take my shoes off, my belt off, everything out of my pockets.....But when you take your hands and vigorously grope my balls, groin and BH in the name of "security", you are way over the line. The TSA gropes everyone from 3 year olds to 95 year olds in a way that is illegal anywhere. But in an airport your doing it without cause.  In both instances I mentioned, the TSA had nothing to do with stopping the bombers. They were stopped by crew and citizens on the planes.  What good is it to have the TSA vigorously probe everybody's privates here in America in OUR airports and not do it in Paris, France and Amsterdam anyway? I've worked in Nuclear Plants several times recently and even they don't carry on like the TSA does.  The TSA might be your hero's.....but they are not mine.

 

Oh and all this to the tune of $43 BILLION in 2011 and $57 BILLION taxpayers dollars in 2012......

Edited March 3, 2013 by Randall53

[Moped]

TSA is trying to be the equivalent of Nazi Germany's Gestopo.  The ones I have dealt with seemingly are a step above uneducated thugs run by a bunch of tyrant wannabes.  I think it should be the first Federal Organization abolished followed closely by the BATFE.  The more we get Washington out of our daily lives, the better we all will be.  That goes for which ever party is in charge.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Moped

[Bear]

No, you sound like the New York Governor wanting to take away everyone's rights, in this instance right to personal decency and privacy, which is what the TSA does everyday.  Search my bags, Xray me. Sure I'll take my shoes off, my belt off, everything out of my pockets.....But when you take your hands and vigorously grope my balls, groin and BH in the name of "security", you are way over the line. The TSA gropes everyone from 3 year olds to 95 year olds in a way that is illegal anywhere. But in an airport your doing it without cause.  In both instances I mentioned, the TSA had nothing to do with stopping the bombers. They were stopped by crew and citizens on the planes.  What good is it to have the TSA vigorously probe everybody's privates here in America in OUR airports and not do it in Paris, France and Amsterdam anyway? I've worked in Nuclear Plants several times recently and even they don't carry on like the TSA does.  The TSA might be your hero's.....but they are not mine.

 

That is the problem.  You don't even know why the screening process is the way it is. 

 

TSA is reactionary.  They have to adapt to previous circumstances.  Every stupid rule, and grope on your little balls is because someone gave them a reason to need to. You have no idea what has been found in Diapers. Here's a hypothetical situation on an old woman screening.  Suppose one put a North American Arms 22 revolver in her hairbun. Would you believe for split second that she "forgot" it was there?  Would you believe she just wanted it for her "personal protection"?  'Course you wouldn't see that on the news if it happened.  Nor would you see a diaper with a bag of flamable liquids on the news either. If it had happened.

 

Are you really so naive that you cannot figure this out on your own? 

 

TSA is not my hero's.  If they let me do things my way.  I would ask a passenger if they were armed.  If they said no, I would point to a rack of pistols and say pick one.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Bear

[Randall53]

No....TSA is an out of control KNEE JERK organization and they get worse every day.

[TMF]

What does the TSA do that private security can't, other than operate with impunity?

[maroonandwhite]

That is the problem.  You don't even know why the screening process is the way it is. 
 
TSA is reactionary.  They have to adapt to previous circumstances.  Every stupid rule, and grope on your little balls is because someone gave them a reason to need to. You have no idea what has been found in Diapers. Here's a hypothetical situation on an old woman screening.  Suppose one put a North American Arms 22 revolver in her hairbun. Would you believe for split second that she "forgot" it was there?  Would you believe she just wanted it for her "personal protection"?  'Course you wouldn't see that on the news if it happened.  Nor would you see a diaper with a bag of flamable liquids on the news either. If it had happened.
 
Are you really so naive that you cannot figure this out on your own? 
 
TSA is not my hero's.  If they let me do things my way.  I would ask a passenger if they were armed.  If they said no, I would point to a rack of pistols and say pick one.

I can't really think of anything someone else could do to justify TSA groping MY balls.

[Guest 556or762]

Um well I'm not getting into the he said she said of this one, however it is correct that prior to 9/11 box cutters were not prohibited the airport security did their job to the best of their abilities. The TSA is the reason I drive wherever I go, last plane I was in brought me home from overseas and I don't plan on being interrogated to fly again, look at airport security abroad they do a much better job and aren't even half as invasive. I'm back out.

[Bear]

I can't really think of anything someone else could do to justify TSA groping MY balls.

 

Could it possibly have something to do with a 34 year old male super glueing a Ceramic Chef knife way up high in his inner thigh?

Edited March 3, 2013 by Bear

[Bear]

Um well I'm not getting into the he said she said of this one, however it is correct that prior to 9/11 box cutters were not prohibited the airport security did their job to the best of their abilities. The TSA is the reason I drive wherever I go, last plane I was in brought me home from overseas and I don't plan on being interrogated to fly again, look at airport security abroad they do a much better job and aren't even half as invasive. I'm back out.

And yet, the Shoe & Underwear Bombers came from abroad.  TSA is successful.  There has not be a single plane hijacked and crashed into a building since they have been around. It is the same old crap.  When a weapon is used to save lives, it rarely gets any attention.  When it is used to take lives, everyone hears about it. It's on every news Channel, and in in every liberal politicians rant about ridding us of our guns.  When TSA keeps a plane safe, no one hears about it.  But, God Forbid, another one gets hijacked, you will know.  Same old story. When they do good, no one remembers, when they do bad, no one forgets. They even make up crap.

 

Stop blaming TSA, they do the job they are hired to do.  There are many reasons why very few airports go to "Private" Companies.  There are just as many as why they often go back to TSA.  There is an option to go to private security.  Few do, and when they do, some go back to TSA.  But no matter what, the private companies are still required to follow the DHS/TSA SOP.

 

The training may not be as good. I do not know for sure.  And private means the airlines, airports and security companies get the blame for everything.  THEY mostly prefer the Government to get the blame.

 

You want to start a different thread on this, I'll be glad to answer questions to the best of my ability, and to the best of my allowance.  But it would be better served to let this thread go back to it's original topic.