TSA --> TYJA?

[sirs]

Folks are being MADE to endure the nakedness at airports,

No they are not

Yes, they are

they can choose many other ways to travel. 

They're PURCHASING the opportunity to get to their destination faster.  This is again a Capitalist country

NOT for their own well being, but to make OTHERS feel safer. 

It is for my own well being to not get blown up at 33,000 feet.

Fine then.  YOU drive.  Leave the rest of us alone

Your rights end when they start infringing on mine....so says the Constitution

Exactly you can not impose danger on my flight by choosing to fly and then
refusing to comply with the standard safety measures.

We already have "standard safety measures" that were not unreasonable.  Merely inconvenient

You demanding that
my flight be more dangerous is a violation of my rights.

That doesn't even warrant an explanation of just how crazy a thought process that is.  Translated: I don't support global warming --> ergo I must want a completely polluted country/globe.      As I said Cu4, this is one of the few issues you're really letting your emotions dictate your thought process vs sticking to conservative principles at the core of the Constitution

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yes, they are

Ridiculous. Your lame attempts to pretend the TSA scan is some type of porn
or of a sexual nature just exposes the desperation of your position, along
with your repeated refusals to answer direct questions from myself and BT
that you know if answered would blow holes in your stated positions. So
you either ignore the questions or like with BT pretend the questions are
not relevant so you don't have to answer. It borders on intellectual dishonesty.

They're PURCHASING the opportunity to get to their destination faster. 
This is again a Capitalist country

Exactly and by PURCHASING the ticket (which is a contract) they are agreeing to be subject
to safety regulations and procedures. Don't buy/agree to the contract and then bitch about
the rules you agreed to!

Fine then. YOU drive. Leave the rest of us alone

I am not the one buying and agreeing to the contract and then
bitching about what I agreed to. I am fine with current airline
travel regulations...so why should I drive? Logically the ones
that should drive are the ones not ok with current airline travel
procedures. Of course the crybabies will run to the courts
and see if they can get a judge to legislate from the bench
so they can get their way. I am sure Bin Laden hopes their
efforts make his job easier to kill Americans.

We already have "standard safety measures" that were not
unreasonable. Merely inconvenient

Security like the Constitution is not stagnant.
Sorry but the terrorists caught up with the "already" in place measures.
It's exactly like myself and XO said earlier in this thread
You're gonna bitch if they try and keep you alive with scanners
and you're gonna bitch if a plane explodes at 33,000 feet

Translated: I don't support global warming --> ergo I must want a completely polluted country/globe. 

No translated...it is people that of free will agree to airline/airport security should not be able to
change the rules in the middle of the game....bitch about what they agreed to...and try to bully
safety measures to be lessened thus making my travel less safe.

As I said Cu4, this is one of the few issues you're really letting your emotions dictate your
thought process vs sticking to conservative principles at the core of the Constitution

My emotions are not involved in my very well thought out position.
You don't decide what is Conservative. I am sticking with conservative principles
and the Constitution. But you can pretend all you want that you are Paul Revere
riding the horse of Conservatism when you are on the same side of this issue as the ACLU.
Go Figure.

[sirs]

Yes, you are.  As more and more conservative pundits reference my position, you'll see even more so.  And if/when the Conservative Justices on SCOTUS echo the same thing, then what will you say?  Nvm, no need to answer it.  I can already work out the emotional rationalization

[Christians4LessGvt]

SIRS I am not opposed to a better idea. I just honestly have not seen a practical better
answer at this time. Like my business partner sometimes reminds me if I want to fire somebody
"before we fire him/her do we already have a better replacement?". It's easy to fire someone,
but who is going to do that job tomorrow morning at 8AM?

SIRS obviously we disagree but I feel the same way about this issue. I see lots of complaining
but not many practical better specific solutions. Like you say we'll see what the Supreme Court
says. But I would think they will be very, very careful on a ruling because there will be "hell to pay"
if for example they rule the full body scanner is unconstitutional and planes full of innocent civilians
start blowing up.

[sirs]

SIRS I am not opposed to a better idea. I just honestly have not seen a practical better answer at this time. .... I see lots of complaining but not many practical better specific solutions.

I have, even presented them in this thread, but it's apparently too politically incorrect.  It actually requires a pro-active approach, and not a reactive one.  It requires the use of intelligence & common sense, vs relying on technology.  And it doesn't blatantly disregard the Constitution, though some could argue its a "smallish infringement"

Like you say we'll see what the Supreme Court says. But I would think they will be very, very careful on a ruling because there will be "hell to pay" if for example they rule the full body scanner is unconstitutional and planes full of innocent civilians
start blowing up.

I don't think a Supreme court justice is supposed to allow the emotion of what might interfere with the clear wording of the Constitution, when making rulings