more reasons for GA: John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button

On 20 Jul 2003 07:40:46 -0700, idkw wrote:


You tell me, how exactly are people like this button wearing coward
helping our cause against this very real foe?

"our"? who is this "our"?

And who is a coward? My respect to Gilmore that he had the nerve to stick
to his ideals. He could have had an easy flight. Remove the button, saying
"yes ma'am", etc.
There are many people out there who have thrown their ideals south in
favour of _FEELING_ more secure. Aren't you also one of those?

And it all comes down to a matter of viewpoint. I can't second Osama bin
Laden's viewpoints (but there are some valid points, well, ...), but I also
can't follow most arguments of Blair, Bush and some of the other jerks
claiming to fight for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. *bah!*

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

Aloft

You may be right right on GW? Only after I help elect him to a 2nd
term willl history give the full and true picture of his time in
Office..

I'm supprised at the (small) number of my friends (and enemies) who
express the same opinion as you.

It is nice to be able to dissagree in a civilized manner and tone.

And a nice Sunday to you.

Big John


On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:51:38 GMT, "Aloft" wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
I had a Top Secret clearance while on active duty (now honorably
retired), was Project Officer on the Air to Air nuclear rocket and sat
alert with same, I was trusted with a finger on the trigger. I also
have passed the requirements (FBI investigation into my background)
for a gun carry permit here in TX.

I also voted for George Bush.

Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?


Big John


Because you voted for George Bush.

Aloft wrote:

Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?

Because you voted for George Bush.

Last week I got one of those "surveys" that are actually thinly disguised
duns for contributions. This one came from the Democratic party. One of
their top 7 complaints was that the security restrictions put in place by
the Republican party aren't strong enough. The local Dems are pushing for
thumbprints and DNA chips in the driver's licenses.

Thank God Bush is president and not Gore.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

The local Dems are pushing for
thumbprints and DNA chips in the driver's licenses.

US government already requested that Europeans have this info in their
passport for travel to the US.
And what are our governments doing? Guess what? They comply. Idiots. At
least I would demand a reciprocal thing.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmo I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
...
Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended
to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. ...

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. ... Mr. Gilmore's
actions
are no better than those of the Confederacy during the Civil War ...
I have little sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black or
Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore for
suing them, and you'd consider him equally "hypocritical" for thereby
challenging BA's "freedom"--correct? Indeed, you'd consider Mr. Gilmore's
wrongdoing to be just as grave as a slave owner's, correct?

--Gary

"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:6cxSa.18920$o54.10838@lakeread05...
True, but one shouldn't subsequently expect to watch the show.

The TSA lets suspected terrorists onto commercial airliners every day. Why
should Gilmore be any different, just because he's being more obvious about
his status?

"lardsoup" wrote in message
...

What's your
problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
state.

I'm not living in a democracy. It's a republic. Fascist state? Get
real.

The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government can
take. Neither of these are guarantees of freedom. And fascism, though it
is often associated with dictatorship, is more about the policies and
practices of a government, being one that 'exalts' the nation, or the race,
perhaps, above the individual'. But whether or not such a government
becomes in the end a dictatorship, such a government could still conceivably
have in the beginning been democratically elected.

In article f%ASa.93708$GL4.25281@rwcrnsc53,
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black or
Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore for
suing them,

No inconsistency, for two reasons:

1) JG can choose to wear or not wear his button; he can't chose to be
or not be a certain ethnicity, or to have or not have Jewish ancestors.

2) There are laws, extensive and democratically enacted, about racial
etc discrimination, but none I'm aware of about button wearing.

Interesting to see JG "hoisted by his own arguments", or at least
challenged on the basis of his own reasoning, on this issue.

The goverment dont tell me what to do. They did when I was in the Army but that
was expected.
nothing about my life has changed since bush took office and the terrorist
attacks. But then, I dont cause problems, I dont look for problems, I know that
you dont cause problems in an airport or an airplane, why do I know, there are
signs all over the airport that say what not to do.

Its my choice to fly or not to fly. I can always walk or drive if I dont want to
abide by the rules at an airport.


Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "lardsoup" said:
What an ASSHOLE!!!! Protest your problems with the government to the
government leaders. Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
like pilots and passengers. That's what terrorists do. Attack civilians to

Yeah, talking about the government to the people like that. What's your
problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
state.