Grayma, tenacious need to make everything about Bush? really? when did you join AD? December 11? that's just a few weeks ago. you've reviewed all of my posts and concluded I make it all about Bush and tenaciously so? That's a very blanket generalized statement to make on just a few of my posts. I didn't realize one could get to know me so well as to know my political stances on politicians, and by the way, I'm not a hardcore supporter of Obama by any means. I'm very disappointed with him in some ways.
Are you a supporter of Bush?
i was talking about the actual legislation and violations of it. i never defended TSA - I had a personal experience dealing with them and it wasn't pleasant.
I was also talking about how much immunity should politicians receive in regards to airport security screening. because what if one of those politicians should not be exempted for a very good reason?
My point was - all this grey area regarding exact legislation in relation to airport security. Why should an elderly gentleman who never did a single thing wrong in his life be subjected to TSA pat downs and interrogations even if he didn't set off the alarm but a politician who had an entire day to get to Senate has the right to create a big fuss about a pat down even though he did set off the alarm?
Reba's first post did raise very good questions about all of this.
I checked out the link you posted: didn't see anything written about Democrats refusing to cut or cancel TSA funding.
I joined in December, but I have been reading about a month or two before that. I read a lot because I'm trying to learn as much as I can about Deaf/deaf stuff, and that is how your posts strike me. I withdraw the observation, however, because you're right, it's still not fair- there have to be thousands of posts I've not read and what people post about in an online forum is not a reflection of their entire lives. I hope to keep peace.
No, I am not a supporter of Bush. I'm a staunchly Pro-life Libertarian. At this point, I'm not a supporter of any of them. They all disappoint me.
Politicians, meh.
As for your point about the elderly gentleman (or my little girl, for that matter) vs Rand Paul- you're right- that's the point. TSA exceeds its authority but doesn't increase security. They need to alter the way they screen completely (or rather, go away).
But it feels like to me you are saying, 'Rand Paul should stop whining, TSA abuses other people, so he should just shut up and take it,'
Whereas my response is never that just because a government office abuses one person, it's okay for them violate the law with another person. It should be, "Finally, now that they've targeted a Congresscritter, somebody with the power to fix it, maybe something will be done." And also, TSA just lies, to my personal knowledge, so I do not believe their version anyway, but that's deeply personal.
As for the idea that there might be a good reason to detain a Congressman- if there was good enough reason, really, TSA wouldn't have it. They wouldn't recognize a threat if it spit in their eye and shouted "Arrest me!" If there was a genuine reason, a real suspicion that a congresscritter was a threat, no other government agency would leave that to TSA to take care of- and, at any rate, as Reba pointed out the Constitution does list three exceptions. An automatic beeping that Paul did not deliberately set off is not a 'breach of the peace' under any circumstances.
As for your last point- this is not fair, but I posted a lot of links, and I can't remember which one you're referring to and can't check it. I really, really, really should have gotten off the computer an hour ago. If I don't fold laundry now, my husband and I will have to sleep on the couches or kick the kids out of one of their beds.
going by memory, my point was that the first two years Obama was in office his own party had full control of both house and Senate. Therefore, there was nothing preventing the Democrats from repealing anything they wanted- if you have a majority, it's actually quite simple. So it's no longer reasonable to blame everything on Bush. If Democrats didn't like it (and in most cases they do like what Bush did and intend to capitalize on it, just as much as any other politician), they could have repealed any of it- the Patriot Act, TSA, renditions, Guatanomo, everything- it was entirely within their power for a full two years. Republicans could not stop them. Republicans still only control one of the Houses now.
Secondly, there was an attempt by Republicans to reduce funding on the TSA. But it failed. Not because of the Rebublicans.
This is a link I still had up, but I didn't post before because, well, I just figured I was already over some limit somewhere.
It's from december of 2011:
"It looks like Congress' recent jabs at TSA were just posturing after all. Last Friday, President Obama signed a spending act passed by both houses of Congress. The act gives TSA a $7.85 billion budget increase for 2012 and includes funding for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams and 140 new behavior detection officers. It even includes funding for 250 shiny new body scanners, which was originally cut from the funding bill last May."
Click on the link- they have a lot of hyperlinks in the text. Also, it's from Slashdot, which is not a conservative stronghold. Democrats didn't repeal it when they controlled both Houses, and they increased its powers last year- the Republicans must have helped because they have a majority in one of the Houses now, but with Democrats controlling the other and a Democrat in the executive branch, you can't keep blaming the TSA on Republicans.
I'm not saying they'd do better. I'm just saying you can't blame this one on them anymore if you ever could (I'd still like to see the actual voting record for the earliest vote on the TSA).
But... laundry. I blame.... The Supreme Court. They haven't come up yet and somebody should blame them for something.
I would have been content to just like that comment, but you made me spray my water, and the like button wasn't showing up for me.
