College sex tribunal gets it right for a change

[Arctish]

You say you understand that schools enforcing rules and police and courts enforcing laws are different things, but then you go right on conflating them. Either you're unable to see the error or you're unwilling to correct it.

I go on conflating them because the universities are acting on government orders.

You go on conflating them because the error you're making supports the argument you're presenting.

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not rebutting anything.

There is nothing to rebut - your argument is ridiculous on its face.

I pointed out what the Constitution requires.

And I pointed out that the schools are acting at government orders--and thus should be treated as an extension of the government in this regard. All of your responses have either ignored this, tried to derail or been personal attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

I go on conflating them because the universities are acting on government orders.

You go on conflating them because the error you're making supports the argument you're presenting.

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

I guess you're ok with it then. Does the Constitution mean anything to you??

 

[Arctish]

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

I guess you're ok with it then. Does the Constitution mean anything to you??

What is the 'it' you are guessing I'm okay with? You mentioned abuse, but you didn't say what it was or why it's abusive.

And how is this even remotely on topic in this thread?

 

[Toni]

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

I guess you're ok with it then. Does the Constitution mean anything to you??

What is the 'it' you are guessing I'm okay with? You mentioned abuse, but you didn't say what it was or why it's abusive.

And how is this even remotely on topic in this thread?

It's not like Loren will respond in any meaningful way. He certainly isn't going to bother to substantiate any of his assertions.

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing to rebut - your argument is ridiculous on its face.

I pointed out what the Constitution requires.

And you are mistaken. These are not trials. Your "walks and quacks" analogy is inappropriate.

And I pointed out that the schools are acting at government orders--and thus should be treated as an extension of the government in this regard.

Using your "reasoning", any time someone obeys a law or regulation, they are acting under gov't orders. That is inane

All of your responses have either ignored this, tried to derail or been personal attacks.

Like your inane argument, you are wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

I guess you're ok with it then. Does the Constitution mean anything to you??

What is the 'it' you are guessing I'm okay with? You mentioned abuse, but you didn't say what it was or why it's abusive.

And how is this even remotely on topic in this thread?

I described it--switching from the metal detectors that could actually see weapons to the nudie scanners that are completely blind to metal carried beside the body--but are a lot more effective at catching drug mules. In other words, using the TSA to perform searches that would otherwise be Constitutionally prohibited.

 

[Arctish]

I suppose you're also ok with the government using the TSA as drug enforcement agents rather than airline security agents? (They have actually weakened airplane security in favor of catching drugs and drug money.)

TSA is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It's a law enforcement unit of the US government, so it should come as no surprise that it acts like one.

So you're ok with the abuse?

What abuse? And why would pointing out the fact that TSA is a government law enforcement agency within the Dept. of Homeland Security indicate I'm okay with something?

I guess you're ok with it then. Does the Constitution mean anything to you??

What is the 'it' you are guessing I'm okay with? You mentioned abuse, but you didn't say what it was or why it's abusive.

And how is this even remotely on topic in this thread?

I described it--switching from the metal detectors that could actually see weapons to the nudie scanners that are completely blind to metal carried beside the body--but are a lot more effective at catching drug mules. In other words, using the TSA to perform searches that would otherwise be Constitutionally prohibited.

You didn't describe it; you just threw the accusation out there without explanation. But now that you have described it, I'd be interested in participating in a new thread about it. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion the new scanners are "completely blind to metal carried beside the body", or why TSA shouldn't be trying to catch drug mules. But that discussion is out of place in this thread.

You used an example of a government law enforcement agency acting as an arm of the government to dispute what, exactly?