Lol, Biden has this wrapped up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

They must assume that the general public has the same attention span of their moronic minions. I guess they think we don't, or can't, remember what happened in this story and others like it.

All real Americans need to suck it up and boycott all social media. That'll dry up their circulation and their ad fees and cause their bloated organizations to dry up and blow away. I'm not on a single one of them!

Or maybe one of our own can start one called Right Connections and the site could simply ban left wing trolls.

Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Whenever a dim tries to say that the narrative that dims hate law enforcement is false just link this thread.

The damned Obama administration DOJ, even with all of their bias, ruled that the shooting of Mike Brown was righteous. Yet here we are five years later with the left continuing the false narrative and attacking law enforcement.

(08-10-2019 12:58 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Whenever a dim tries to say that the narrative that dims hate law enforcement is false just link this thread.

The damned Obama administration DOJ, even with all of their bias, ruled that the shooting of Mike Brown was righteous. Yet here we are five years later with the left continuing the false narrative and attacking law enforcement.

Shut up bootlicker

(08-09-2019 11:11 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Lol, Biden has this wrapped up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not so fast.

(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

(08-10-2019 01:00 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:58 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Whenever a dim tries to say that the narrative that dims hate law enforcement is false just link this thread.

The damned Obama administration DOJ, even with all of their bias, ruled that the shooting of Mike Brown was righteous. Yet here we are five years later with the left continuing the false narrative and attacking law enforcement.

Shut up bootlicker

LOL

Just stating the facts **** sucker. Sorry if it hurts your snowflake feelings.

(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

(08-10-2019 01:15 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

Point out the Amendment that gives us the right to air travel.

As a former law enforcement officer I'll gladly celebrate the death of someone who intended to kill one of my brothers or sisters, especially when the situation is exploited by you leftists for political gain.

(08-10-2019 01:23 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:15 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

Point out the Amendment that gives us the right to air travel.

As a former law enforcement officer I'll gladly celebrate the death of someone who intended to kill one of my brothers or sisters, especially when the situation is exploited by you leftists for political gain.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That was easy.

So point out where the Constitution states we don't have a right to air travel.

Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

(08-10-2019 01:26 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:23 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:15 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 12:57 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Posting memes celebrating an 18 year old's death is super cool, bro!

Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

Point out the Amendment that gives us the right to air travel.

As a former law enforcement officer I'll gladly celebrate the death of someone who intended to kill one of my brothers or sisters, especially when the situation is exploited by you leftists for political gain.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That was easy.

So point out where the Constitution states we don't have a right to air travel.

The part that granted the legislative branch to create laws. As has often happened in our history as a nation when the private sectors has failed the government has been forced to step in. The Civil Rights Act, various environmental laws, and The Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

Any other distracting questions you want to ask to deflect from the fact that the Presidential candidates of your party are perpetuating a false narrative?

(08-10-2019 01:37 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:26 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:23 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:15 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Who did that?

I posted a meme celebrating the death of a predator of the weak and someone who had no regard for law enforcement. Someone who because of the false leftist driven narrative surrounding his justifiable death has put every single law enforcement officer in this country's life at risk.

**** Mike Brown, and **** the dim politicians that you support trying to bash law enforcement because of his justified death.

And if you have a problem with any of that then **** you too.

We clear?

Yeah, we clear. Clear that you celebrated the death of an 18 year old who made mistakes that led to his death, and while it was totally avoidable by his own choices, that death is still not worth celebrating.

BTW, while I've got you on the horn. Why is it OK to give up our 4th Amendment rights and let the government invade our privacy without a warrant any time we board a plane but when it's about the 2nd you're all about giving up a little security for your liberty?

You hate the Constitution unless it benefits you, huh bootlicking freedom hating scum?

Point out the Amendment that gives us the right to air travel.

As a former law enforcement officer I'll gladly celebrate the death of someone who intended to kill one of my brothers or sisters, especially when the situation is exploited by you leftists for political gain.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That was easy.

So point out where the Constitution states we don't have a right to air travel.

The part that granted the legislative branch to create laws. As has often happened in our history as a nation when the private sectors has failed the government has been forced to step in. The Civil Rights Act, various environmental laws, and The Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

Any other distracting questions you want to ask to deflect from the fact that the Presidential candidates of your party are perpetuating a false narrative?

Yeah, and if those laws are unconstitutional they are supposed to be struck down. Of course, our judicial branch has been derelict on that duty for basically the entire life of our country, but you only selectively care about that.

See, here's the difference between us. I have a personal disagreement with the 2nd Amendment and I don't hide that. However, I believe it must be respected because a major reason the Constitution exists (and its so hard to amend) is to rein in the government and slow the advance of government power.

You on the other hand have a disagreement with the 4th and the 9th because terrorists have made you a scared little b!tch, so you're fine with daddy government stepping in and keeping your records, following every move and grabbing your d!ck in the name of safety. Just as long as you can keep your guns.

Constitutionalist until it doesn't benefit you.

(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.

Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.

Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

A Constitutional twilight zone. How precious. Sounds like free speech zones.

(08-10-2019 01:44 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Constitutionalist until it doesn't benefit you.

No, dumb***, that's more of a description of you than me.



I don't agree with the searches at the airport. I don't agree with abortion being legal. But what I do agree with is the foundation of our government, and if the judicial branch rules that laws allowing searches at airports or abortion are legal under our Constitution then they are legal until proven otherwise. Our Constitution provided checks and balances. If the Legislative branch passes a law the Executive branch can veto it and the Judicial branch can rule if it's Constitutional. Thus far your complaints about the 4th Amendment have been ruled to be bogus by the Judicial branch, thus your complaints do not pass Constitutional muster. If you think you have a case then I suggest you file a lawsuit and follow the Constitutional process to seek redress. If not then shut the **** up with your baseless claims.

(08-10-2019 01:52 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:47 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 01:28 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Oh, in addition here's the 4A since apparently you've only ever read one amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airports are public correct? 4A doesn't apply there? Because....

Too easy. You need to try harder.

Airports much like government facilities, military bases, etc. are secure facilities. They are not "public".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airports...ight-zone/

Quote:Much of the opposition to airport body scanners invokes the Constitution; one company is even selling pasties emblazoned with the Fourth Amendment to protect passengers' dignity while passing through scanners.

But the Fourth Amendment, along with most of the Constitution, does not apply in the airport the same way it does in most public spaces. U.S. airports are a Constitutional "twilight zone" - the rights you have in the outside morph once you step inside the terminal, and it has been this way long before September 11.

Federal law requires commercial airline passengers to be searched prior to boarding a plane and airlines cannot transport any passenger who refuses (49 U.S.C. § 44902). Over the past 40 years, the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of warrantless airport security screenings as part of an overall regulatory effort to prevent hijackings and other terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court states that blanket suspicionless searches are allowed in the airport as long as terrorism poses a risk to public safety.

Quote:["[O]nce a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public." - Aukai v. United States, 04-10226]

According to the courts, airline passengers also consent to be searched when they choose to fly. When a person consents to a government search outside the airport, they have the right to revoke their consent at any time, but not at the airport.

The courts have held that once a passenger elects to enter into the secured area of an airport by walking through the security screener or by merely placing items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine, they have effectively consented to the screening, and they cannot revoke consent.

And you're OK with that because the courts said it? Courts are infallible now? I guess you're not allowed to disagree with Roe vs. Wade then.

No, I can. But I dare you to point out a single instance I didn't disagree from a moral stance and disagreed with the ruling of the law.

Go on. Show me.

(Hint...you can't)