A question for conservatives

No, in fact I am perfectly willing to put myself in great danger to ensure it is upheld.

 

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

No. Period.

What every happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"?

If the government officials must take an oath to the Constitution to perform their office, they have zero permission to violate one iota of it willingly.

If any "normal citizen" is found to violate any law on the books, he or she will be presumed to endure the prescribed punishment. Why should someone in government be held to a different standard?!

 

He who fights and runs away . . . .

File "Give me liberty . . . " under "Sucker born every minute" or "Darwin Award" or . . . why should anyone give him anything? Americans have forgotten the connection between "earn" and "diserve."

 

So you and Ken would be ok in having a non-govt employee pat you down, but if that same person was working for the govt somehow it makes it the worst thing in the world? Talk about a distinction without a difference. To be consistent you need to be against both.

 

So you guys do think it should be legal for your next-door neighber to keep an atomic bomb in his basement?

 

I'd like to call attention to the false statement made in this thread.

I am a conservative, and it has never been OK with me to violate the U.S. Constitution - by anyone - for any reason. The problem is that there are different brands and levels of liberals, not conservatives who sometime act like liberals.

 

What about the constitutional right to bear arms?

 

Can you life an A bomb in your arms? :laugh:

 

He did not start this thread. Being a pro establishment Republican, it is easy to see why you would not like it.

 

No, I am not willing to violate the Constitution for anything, liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican. Those who argue the differences between the two parties would violate the Constitution at the drop of a hat.

 

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

 

Is that where you get your understanding of the Constitution, government and history?

 

Its a technical and legal point. The government cannot perform search and/or seizure without a warrant, probable cause or your permission.

The fact that you are at the airport and acknowledge the fact (they explain the exam and ask if you understand) that you are to be searched/examined then you have prima facie given your permission.

Otherwise drive yourself to your destination or take a bus, train and/or boat.

If those doing the exam are from the private sector then the government involvement and meddling is not an issue.

No, I don't like or want to be pat-down or imaged. It's an inconvenience just like going to the doctor who probes and pokes in certain areas and then often takes images of said probed and poked members.

It's a price to be paid for an objective, there are alternatives in the travel industry.

However, I have no doubt that the present administration/government (which is undergoing a "fundamental change") is slowly (well not so slowly lately) imposing and legislating a Big Brother mentality upon us to prepare us for our up and coming UN approved government.

Hmm, where did I put my aluminum foil hat?

HankD

 

I did not say that Crabby started the thread.

I was answering his question - as to why I did not answer Ken's question.

I did not answer his question in this thread - because I had already answered it in one of the other duplicate threads that Ken also started.

So you see - my not answering that question in this particular thread has nothing to do with my particular political leanings.

Perhaps if you read with more care it would not be necessary to spell it all out like this for you.

 

No - but it is where I learned tolerance for certain types of people.

If not for that experience I would no doubt have less patience for you. :smilewinkgrin: