RE: Maine National Guard bars Green Party leader from flying
At 12:32 AM 11/4/01 -0800, S a n d y wrote:
Reese wrote:
You didn't really read the interview, did you?
The dumb cunt brought it on herself.
Yeah, just like all those other rape victims...
....Read the article/interview. Every airline passenger is going through heightened security screening. Dig deeper, you'll find that all airline passengers who purchase tickets online get flagged for bag searches (discrimination by auto-selection). Were other green party members detained or singled out? No. Were other green party members denied air transport? No in both cases, else we would have heard about that by now too, right? One of the airport flunkies even says they'll try getting her on the 4 pm flight, she plays stick in the mud a bit more and gets herself bounced out of the airport, so yeah, go through the park naked at 2 AM, you have no grounds to object if approached by someone who is naked - what you do from there is on you. She was not denied right to travel (as Tim thought), she was free to get in her car and drive to another airport, to a private plane or even all the way to her destination if she wanted. She was denied the use of that particular mode of transport at that particular time, "we" cannot ride horses on the freeway either. Yes that is too a comparable example of denial of right to travel in the precise manner "we" want. A true equestrian would not have pissed the nasty guards off, I guess greens think they can act haughty and snub everyone with impunity - wrong answer (aka idealism = 0, reality = 1). Get a clue, S a n d y. Reese
On 3 Nov 2001, at 23:07, Reese wrote:
equestrian would not have pissed the nasty guards off, I guess greens think they can act haughty and snub everyone with impunity - wrong answer (aka idealism = 0, reality = 1).
I don't really like the "greens" type of person as they tend to blame every thing on me and my desire to be like an average person with average consumption of our worldly resources but why exactly should they be targeted for special treatment over other travellers who may be more astute in voicing their beliefs? The decision to permit travel should be a matter of policy and not determined by individuals based on their personal beliefs or attitudes. I have experienced this type of treatment in third-world countries where the person making the determination could be influenced by monetary issues. I have always visited places where the degree of hassle was determined by spiritual specifics, ie - religion. Ring a bell here? Green bad, Republican good, Christian good, Muslim bad?, or the other way round!! It would be very sad if America was to become this shallow! Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Offering PUP - Unbreakable Encryption Techology http://www.fbntech.com/pup.html
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
Ring a bell here? Green bad, Republican good, Christian good, Muslim bad?, or the other way round!! It would be very sad if America was to become this shallow!
Too late. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 01:41 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
On 3 Nov 2001, at 23:07, Reese wrote:
equestrian would not have pissed the nasty guards off, I guess greens think they can act haughty and snub everyone with impunity - wrong answer (aka idealism = 0, reality = 1).
I don't really like the "greens" type of person as they tend to blame every thing on me and my desire to be like an average person with average consumption of our worldly resources but why exactly should they be targeted for special treatment over other travellers who may be more astute in voicing their beliefs?
They weren't, except perhaps by me. Oden was first selected because of how her ticket was purchased, then singled out for special treatment because of how she acted in the airport.
The decision to permit travel should be a matter of policy and not
No, you still don't get it. Try this: <paste>
So you're saying they made this quote up, IOW it is not true that she is blacklisted for her political views?
"An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," a shaken Oden said. "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan."
Dammit! No matter how hard I try to be quiet and lurk, the stupidity on these lists just forces me to decloak! Her name was flagged in the computer, which Ms. Ogen MISINTERPRETED as meaning it was because of her politics. The real story is that it was flagged, but not because of politics, but because she bought her ticket online. People who use Expedia, CheapTickets, LowestFare, Orbitz, and other rock-bottom and somewhat ANONYMOUS ticket services are having their tickets flagged for (S)earch much more frequently than people who use ticket agencies or buy their tickets direct from the airlines. Second, when law enforcement officials are fucking with your shit and tossing your car or your house, you do not interfere. If you feel the need to assist, with a stuck zipper on your l uggage, for example, you ask politely if you can help with that. You do not grab at it as if you were dealing with your clumsy spouse or child. Only a fucking stupid person, whose mind has been liquefied by the benefits of privilege would even remotely think that they could "show ass" in this sort of climate and get away with it. </paste>
On 4 Nov 2001, at 0:05, Reese wrote:
The real story is that it was flagged, but not because of politics, but because she bought her ticket online. People who use Expedia, CheapTickets, LowestFare, Orbitz, and other rock-bottom and somewhat ANONYMOUS ticket services are having their tickets flagged for (S)earch much more frequently than people who use ticket agencies or buy their tickets direct from the airlines.
I understand this. Point is traveller shouldn't be denied travel unless there is something which dictates they are in some way a bad person which at that point they should be arrested or advised to remedy an ID problem. If a group was to persist in such behavior they be open to a class action lawsuit. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Offering PUP - Unbreakable Encryption Techology http://www.fbntech.com/pup.html
At 02:23 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
The real story is that it was flagged, but not because of politics, but because she bought her ticket online. People who use Expedia, CheapTickets, LowestFare, Orbitz, and other rock-bottom and somewhat ANONYMOUS ticket services are having their tickets flagged for (S)earch much more frequently than people who use ticket agencies or buy their tickets direct from the airlines.
I understand this. Point is traveller shouldn't be denied travel unless there is something which dictates they are in some way a bad person which at that point they should be arrested or advised to remedy an ID problem. If a group was to persist in such behavior they be open to a class action lawsuit.
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtml In Godfrey's case I agree, but Oden brought it all on herself. Reese
Reese wrote:
At 12:32 AM 11/4/01 -0800, S a n d y wrote:
Reese wrote:
You didn't really read the interview, did you?
The dumb cunt brought it on herself.
Yeah, just like all those other rape victims...
....Read the article/interview.
Did. I don't care if she were singles out or not. NOBODY deserves the treatment she got. Period. Reese illustrates one of the less advertised benefits of free speech. Because Reese is free to way and write what he thinks, we all get to learn just what a misogynistic apologist for the initiation of force he is. Thanks for the warning, Reese. S a n d y
At 08:07 AM 11/4/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Reese wrote:
At 12:32 AM 11/4/01 -0800, S a n d y wrote:
Reese wrote:
You didn't really read the interview, did you?
The dumb cunt brought it on herself.
Yeah, just like all those other rape victims...
....Read the article/interview.
Did. I don't care if she were singles out or not. NOBODY deserves the treatment she got. Period.
I agree. Yet that is how millions of Americans are treated every day, usually because their skin isn't white enough, their bankbook not fat enough. Sound familiar?
Reese illustrates one of the less advertised benefits of free speech. Because Reese is free to way and write what he thinks, we all get to learn just what a misogynistic apologist for the initiation of force he is.
Thanks for the warning, Reese.
Further, how simple the analysis of S a n d y is, that he resorts to pathetic ad hominem in an attempt to invalidate the truth of what I have said. Reese
Reese wrote:
You stupid prick, what makes you think I am a misogynist? (hint, "misanthropist" is the word you wanted).
No, you are wrong. Misogynist is the word I meant. Saying that the "cunt" was asking for it, was a dead giveaway. (Though you may be a misanthrope as well. You certainly are poorly socialized.) S a n d y
At 06:29 PM 11/4/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Reese wrote:
You stupid prick, what makes you think I am a misogynist? (hint, "misanthropist" is the word you wanted).
No, you are wrong. Misogynist is the word I meant.
Suit yourself.
Saying that the "cunt" was asking for it, was a dead giveaway.
I said she brought it on herself by acting the way she did, which is redundantly evident. It's also clear you are objecting to the word "cunt" so I used "prick" also. If it makes you (or anyone else) feel better I'll retract both the explicatives but I stand by the original assessment - she was dumb to think she could resist the way she did with impunity. Further, she lied about it in the press release we saw yesterday, Declan's interview revealed that and the statement from Walt Sheasby I posted (and which Declan reposted) confirm that.
(Though you may be a misanthrope as well.
Misanthrope is the better word because I do not hate all women, just the stupid lying ones. You use your choice as a pc weapon.
You certainly are poorly socialized.)
Pardon me why I cry myself to sleep. Really. Interested in some property? Reese
At 07:04 PM 11/4/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Reese wrote:
If it makes you (or anyone else) feel better I'll retract both the explicatives...
Good boy! We'll socialize you yet.
(That's "expletives" by the way...)
Shit, I hate it when I misspell words I know or ought to know. Reese
participants (4)
-
measl＠mfn.org -
Raymond D. Mereniuk -
Reese -
Sandy Sandfort