You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #45: Post 47 is my post refuting your citation of two cases [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-23-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Post 47 is my post refuting your citation of two cases
as the two cases cited do not even claim to create a right to travel by any means one chooses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -The right to fly..... monktonman  Nov-23-10 08:15 PM   #0 
  - this is not a good argument  Skittles   Nov-23-10 08:16 PM   #1 
  - how so?  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:19 PM   #3 
     - You can simply do without many things.  LisaL   Nov-23-10 08:21 PM   #6 
     - *sigh*  Skittles   Nov-23-10 08:36 PM   #25 
        - Totally agree.  truedelphi   Nov-23-10 10:42 PM   #79 
  - Free travel is a right,  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-23-10 08:17 PM   #2 
  - free travel IS a right  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:20 PM   #5 
     - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Nov-23-10 08:21 PM   #7 
  - Federal tax dollars support /sustain air flight.... argument FAIL!  hlthe2b   Nov-23-10 08:19 PM   #4 
  - So the feds are forcing you to fly???  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:22 PM   #10 
     - I have a right to fly and I have a right to expect my constitutional  hlthe2b   Nov-23-10 08:24 PM   #11 
     - you have the right to agree to be searched  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:28 PM   #14 
     - Read the 4th amendment and knock off this flamebait  hlthe2b   Nov-23-10 08:30 PM   #18 
        - It is in my sig  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-23-10 08:31 PM   #19 
     - You could say it 5 times, but you would be wrong 5 times.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:33 PM   #20 
        - We all have the right to fly. I am not saying we can refuse all  hlthe2b   Nov-23-10 08:35 PM   #23 
           - you have the right TO WALK  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:38 PM   #28 
           - Say it all you want... doesn't make it right.  hlthe2b   Nov-23-10 08:40 PM   #32 
              - It happens to be right REGARDLESS of who says what. n/t  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:41 PM   #34 
           - Again, if you asserted such a right in any court, you would be laughed out of court. n/t  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:40 PM   #31 
              - Using that logic, you don't have a right to drive either.  LisaL   Nov-23-10 08:48 PM   #44 
                 - you DONT have the right to drive...  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:50 PM   #50 
                 - you DONT have the right to drive...  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:51 PM   #51 
     - Nah that is the argument of the RIGHT WING  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-23-10 08:25 PM   #12 
        - you could always say ....NO  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:29 PM   #15 
        - Knowing a tad about security  nadinbrzezinski   Nov-23-10 08:30 PM   #17 
        - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Nov-23-10 08:34 PM   #21 
  - Blah...  demmiblue   Nov-23-10 08:22 PM   #8 
  - OBEY!  sarcasmo   Nov-23-10 08:22 PM   #9 
  - Could you explain what good the "pat down" procedures do?  LibDemAlways   Nov-23-10 08:27 PM   #13 
  - I don't think the OP is claiming that the policy is a good thing  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:35 PM   #24 
     - I asked a question. I assume since the OP thinks I have no right to fly  LibDemAlways   Nov-23-10 08:43 PM   #36 
     - Why do you assume he thinks "pat downs" enahnce safety?  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:45 PM   #37 
        - I have no intention of going to court to prove my right to buy an  LibDemAlways   Nov-23-10 08:50 PM   #47 
           - If you wanted to exercise such a right and were denied doing so, your only option would be to go to  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:54 PM   #56 
     - the pat downs suck...  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:56 PM   #63 
  - When your kids get molested by TSA agents, let's see if you still say that  derby378   Nov-23-10 08:29 PM   #16 
  - AIRLINES ARE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES  monktonman   Nov-23-10 08:35 PM   #22 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-23-10 08:38 PM   #29 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-23-10 08:53 PM   #55 
        - you are describing yourself  Skittles   Nov-23-10 08:55 PM   #58 
           - Oh... good comeback  monktonman   Nov-23-10 09:00 PM   #68 
              - there is "free enterprise"  Skittles   Nov-23-10 09:02 PM   #70 
              - No I don't believe in free enterprise (Capitalism) - it sucks and we need a new system. nt  TBF   Nov-24-10 05:47 PM   #83 
     - It's not airlines who is providing the security, it's TSA.  LisaL   Nov-23-10 08:38 PM   #30 
        - Exactly  derby378   Nov-24-10 05:46 PM   #82 
  - yada yada yada. why od you have the right to walk down the street. if cops want to grope you  seabeyond   Nov-23-10 08:37 PM   #26 
  - Since US Code said so. If you need the proof, let me know  sabrina 1   Nov-23-10 08:37 PM   #27 
  - The OP should read: U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:46 PM   #39 
  - Of course, neither of these cases even claims to assert a right to travel by plane.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:47 PM   #43 
  - Doesn't have to. eom  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:50 PM   #46 
     - The fact that it doesn't implies you have no right to travel by plane. If you asserted such a right  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:50 PM   #49 
        - That is, at best, a straw man argument.  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:53 PM   #54 
           - Actually, it is true. If you think otherwise, go try it. Try convincing a court to buy your bullshit  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:55 PM   #59 
              - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:56 PM   #62 
                 - You act like you have a choice in the matter. You don't.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:57 PM   #64 
  - Thank you, Swamp Rat. I don't know why people are so willing to accept  sabrina 1   Nov-24-10 12:44 AM   #81 
  - You can't really use the US Code here, since the US Code also gives the TSA the right eject you from  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:46 PM   #40 
     - See post #47  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:47 PM   #42 
        - Post 47 is my post refuting your citation of two cases  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:49 PM   #45 
           - Doesn't have to. eom  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:50 PM   #48 
              - Right -- it doesn't have to. You have absolutely no right to travel anywhere via plane.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:52 PM   #52 
                 - I do not think any further discussion will be productive. eom  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:54 PM   #57 
                    - This is true -- after one's point is as thoroughly debunked as your point was, there isn't much left  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:56 PM   #61 
  - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,  Swamp Rat   Nov-23-10 08:40 PM   #33 
  - bugger that shite  ProdigalJunkMail   Nov-23-10 08:43 PM   #35 
  - When did the use of the air belong exclusively to the government?  customerserviceguy   Nov-23-10 08:45 PM   #38 
  - The government obviously has power to regulate air travel, just as it has power to regulate numerous  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:53 PM   #53 
     - And what?  LisaL   Nov-23-10 08:56 PM   #60 
     - The government  customerserviceguy   Nov-23-10 08:58 PM   #65 
        - Actually, they don't, because you have no Constitutional right to fly.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 08:59 PM   #67 
           - If you got to the airport, could they deny you a right to speak?  LisaL   Nov-23-10 09:01 PM   #69 
           - There is actually a significant amount of jurisprudence on public forum/private forum,  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 09:03 PM   #72 
           - You have the inherent right to freedom of movement  customerserviceguy   Nov-23-10 09:09 PM   #74 
              - Just because you are free to travel doesn't mean you can travel on whatever means you want.  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 09:16 PM   #76 
                 - I guess I differ with you  customerserviceguy   Nov-23-10 09:25 PM   #77 
                    - It has nothing to do with what you or I believe -- this is about the law as it exists. n/t  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 10:44 PM   #80 
  - Lame.  HuckleB   Nov-23-10 08:47 PM   #41 
  - Extremely.  customerserviceguy   Nov-23-10 08:58 PM   #66 
  - Our right are not limited to the enumerated ones.  TheKentuckian   Nov-23-10 09:03 PM   #71 
  - The OP is talking about rights in terms of court-enforcable rights, not in terms of philosophy. n/t  BzaDem   Nov-23-10 09:05 PM   #73 
  - If God had wanted us to fly  thelordofhell   Nov-23-10 09:10 PM   #75 
  - Baaaaaaaaa!  Individualist   Nov-23-10 09:27 PM   #78 
  - Locking  Heddi   Nov-24-10 08:06 PM   #84 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC