Congress Is Not Subject To The Laws and Rules We Are

So now our wonderful members of Congress have been exempted from the sexual assaults all of us peasants have to endure. Son's in Congress all need to be fired.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/no-security-pat-downs-for-boehner/?partner=rss&emc=rss

If there's anything Boner can do to put a stop to that kind of exception -- or better yet, the bullshit he got an exception from -- he should.

:frustratedno:

Yeah, Skin knows his name is "Boehner" -- but "Boner" is faster. And funnier.

Idiots, all. If they really want admiration, they should travel Amtrak, and only First Class if it's coming out of their own checkbook.

I'm having a really hard time caring about this.

Boehner is in a position of high-level trust. He's about to be second in line for the presidency, and as a member of the Gang of Eight, he has access to all kinds of classified information. If he were an agent intent on causing destruction, letting him onto a plane with a box cutter would be the least of our concerns.

I think you are missing the point. These are people. They aren't royalty. If the average person in this country have to be subject to the laws passed by Congress so should Congress.

So we should X-ray and pat down John Boehner because seeing him inconvenienced would make us feel good? Because there doesn't seem to be any security-related reason for it.

Some people, due to their jobs, are in positions of trust. The incoming speaker of the house is in a position of more trust than I am. I can live with that, just like I can live with the fact that he gets Secret Service protection and I don't.

He should volunteer for it. Heck, he should be first in line because he's setting an example to all of us that a) government officials are not "higher class" citizens than the rest of us and b) he really believes in what the government is doing here and is willing to prove it.

It's not that he's a "higher class" citizen; it's that he has a different job. One that, yes, entails a high level of trust.

No, we should subject John Boener to the same security provisions We The People have to suffer to get on a lane or into a Federal Building. It is out government after all, and they are just the hired help. If it's good enough for the masters of this country, the people, then it's good enough for the members of Congress.

I guarantee that if Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein had to get groped everytime they got on a plane or had to get their papers rifled through just to get to work each day that we wouldn't be in this mess simply because they would have demanded change. But since they exempt themselves from the laws they create, they never actually see what they are doing.

So? Driving a bus requires a high level of trust as well. Performing open heart surgery requires a high level of trust.

Napolitano and others, supposedly, have gone through the screening at least once and I respect that. However, as has already been said, high-level government officials normally don't have to deal with the screenings and, hence, don't have a real appreciation for the policies they're enacting. They need to be seen, in public, repeatedly showing that they believe the things they're enforcing are the best available choices. The "average" person would then believe they're more likely to be really pushing for a better alternative.

Yes, and the doctor performing open heart surgery is allowed into more areas of the hospital, and with fewer restrictions, than I am.

99% of the people are no threat and are being forced to be sexually assaulted. These are not standard patdowns. The members of Congress are no different then all of us and should be subjected to the same outrageous laws and rules that we are.

Clearly you're laboring under the mistaken impression that 100% of passengers are subject to AIT.

Good point but the doctor? He's got the education, training, experience, and, at least, grudging respect of the people he's working with. He's not setting arbitrary, apparently meaningless, politically correct standards for millions of people he's not willing to live by himself.

Good thing all of you raised objections back when the TSA was first established.

Fixed...

Prove it if you did. Prove that we didn't. Otherwise, quit raising the dead issue.

Seriously, though. This wasn't going on back then so you're point is moot. Do you have one that's actually applicable to this situation?

Irrelevant to what you did or did not do.

Prove a negative? Who are you, KIRK1ADM?

If you did, I'm sure you can dig up a thread or two about it.

So the fact that if there were no such thing as the TSA these events would not be occurring is a "dead issue"? Wow.

Define "this." Granted back-scatter x-rays were not being used in 2001, but pat-downs were. And if you've got any evidence that a greater percentage of passengers are being subjected to pat-downs now than were between 2001-2008, I'd love to see it.

That's not what's really bugging you, though, is it?

You two make a cute couple. I'd like to think that maybe if you combine your intellects you can come up with something other than "nanny-nanny-boo-boo," but I doubt it.

You're right. That's not really what's bothering me. It's that I know you're smarter than this and I allowed you to aggravate me with another of your inane comments about something completely pointless.

You just made my entire case against democracy in ONE damned sentence. You really trust ANY of those people you go to the polls to vote for???????

Big deal. I have a security clearance and I'm trained in calling in air and artillery strikes. I still have to go through security.

If the pilots are being forced to endure this shit then Congresscritters should too.

99% of the people being ogled and felt up are there because it makes people "feel good" and not for any real security reasons...and we all know it.

If those fuckers don't want to endure it, then they shouldn't inflict it on everyone else, either.

It's horseshit. While you won't deign to actually articulate a point (ever), the inference is that they held some other position than the one which they're claiming today.

That they're not able to cite some internet posts doesn't support your angle in the slightest.

Bock worded his challenge in kind of an unfortunate way. In keeping with your model of message board discussion, he should have asked you to prove that he held the opposing (or, for that mater, any other) viewpoint.

If he did, I'm sure you could dig up a thread or two about it. C'mon...you owe it to Bock.

For garamet to do something like that would require her to actually be interested in discussion. She little more than a troll. She isn't worth the time bandwidth.

I trust the incoming speaker of the house not to hijack an airplane or try to blow it up with a C4 vest, yes.

Look up an incident that happened in NY a few years ago. The elected officials were allowed to do a "walk around" the screening set up that everyone else entering the building had to endure. After losing his seat, one official used this to smuggle a gun into the building and shoot his replacement. Because of that, they've done away with the "walk around" policy.

Yep. There isn't any real security-related reason for the rest of us to do it. Security-theatre-related reason, they'll argue till the sun goes nova (and that won't stop them -- that was a terrorist attack on the sun!).

Tell that to the armed forces that have to go through this security bullshit.

Uh-huh. I won't dignify that with any response, as it'll veer into a strawman.