Dakota
5/3/2011 12:54:00 AM
On Mon 5/2/11 16:11, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 4:07 PM, Dakota wrote:
>> On Sun 5/1/11 13:57, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Dakota<markp@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat 4/30/11 20:26, China Blue Veins wrote:
>>>>> In article<kP2dnZRgnew-NiHQ4p2dnAA@giganews.com>,
>>>>> Dakota<markp@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That will increase the wait time to board interstate and
>>>>>> international
>>>>>> flights from Texas airports. Passengers will have to wait until the
>>>>>> law
>>>>>> is abolished to board a plane leaving the State of Texas.
>>>>>
>>>>> People have to choose between allowing tiny fraction of all plane
>>>>> crashes to be
>>>>> due to terrorists or being treated like terrorists themselves.
>>>>>
>>>> Four of those plane crashes caused our nation to waste over a trillion
>>>> dollars fighting pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's too
>>>> costly
>>>> to let the terrorists crash another one.
>>>
>>> What bizarre logic.
>>>
>>> So we need to make the US into a totalitarian dictatorship in order
>>> to prevent the terrorists making us do stupid things?
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>> I was trying to make the point that the wars were a stupid overreaction
>> to the terrorist attacks. However, claiming that pat down searches at
>> the airport makes us into a totalitarian dictatorship is a pile of
>> nonsense.
>
> Actually, it is not. To me, pat down searches are patently
> unconstitutional. How many more rights are you willing to give up?
The old 'slippery slope' argument. How can you say that searches
performed on persons who have the right to refuse them is
unconstitutional? Is there a constitutional right to fly on commercial
airlines?