Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard Placed on Terror Watch List After Criticizing
 Biden/Harris Admin
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:04:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v9gann$13f2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qdWcnVtAVZ_w6yf7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <585lbj5ghnhj1t62oklmqr48n6dktajqfm@4ax.com>
 <atropos-D5FF13.16132312082024@news.giganews.com>
 <3qklbj9efj08b9r9cuf1d12i3jeho2dli0@4ax.com>
 <mKKdndDCBc5BRSf7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v9fve4$3uvrs$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-3929F0.10515813082024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:04:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="01cd859ad4bd18e46ba9429bb7d57497";
	logging-data="36322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187QJnKAEpRojch8SkGLYY/VIEHzyLaUlM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w8MNiywl4rnjbT2sGZgO3NwPbR8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-3929F0.10515813082024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 4681

On 8/13/2024 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v9fve4$3uvrs$1@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/12/2024 11:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 12, 2024 at 8:31:13 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:13:23 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <585lbj5ghnhj1t62oklmqr48n6dktajqfm@4ax.com>,
>>>>>    shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:55:57 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>    >In article <v9dv7t$3fq89$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>    > moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >> On 8/12/2024 4:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >> > Immediately after going on national TV and criticizing the
>>>>>>    >> > Biden/Harris administration, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
>>>>>>    >> > was placed on TSA's Quiet Skies terror watchlist, which subjects
>>>>>>    >> > her to FAM surveillance, bomb dog screening, and aggressive
>>>>>>    >> > pat downs and luggage screening every time she boards a flight.
>>>>>>    >> >
>>>>>>    >> > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RJBygvtNfSY&pp=ygUaTWF0dCB0YWliYmk6I
>>>>>>    >> > HR1bHNpIGdhYmJhcmQ%3D
>>>>>>    >>
>>>>>>    >> Did you watch your own video? The outrage here (if there is one) is
>>>>>>    >> that such a hidden haphazard watchlist exists, and not that Gabbard
>>>>>>    >> would somehow get placed on it.
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >There can be more than one outrage.
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >> Ted Kennedy was on such a list.
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >He was accidentally placed on it because he had a common name. How
>>>>>>    >many other Tulsi Gabbards are out there, do you suppose, that could
>>>>>>    >make the same excuse here even remotely credible?
>>>>>>    >
>>>>>>    >And Kennedy's list was one for actual suspected terrorists and so had
>>>>>>    >some basic justification for its existence. Quiet Skies is apparently
>>>>>>    >for anyone the government merely deems problematic.
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>    And it looks like it was created during the Trump administration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he should have to answer for it. As should Biden/Harris (they're
>>>>> one and the same these days) for Gabbard's placement on it. Or any of
>>>>> the people from Jan. 6 who are on it merely because they attended
>>>>> Trump's speech on the Ellipse that day and never went near the Capitol.
>>>>> That's actually an impeachable-level offense as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that depend upon who made the decision to add her to the
>>>> list. It's one thing if the President was to have made the decision
>>>> but what if it was someone in the TSA that decided to add those names
>>>> to the list.
>>>
>>> Has the president fired that person? If not, we can assume he endorses that
>>> decision and he should therefore be impeached.
>>
>> Nonsense. If the President fired that person, "we" would assume he's
>> merely trying to hide his endorsement and should therefore be impeached.
> 
> As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You're pretending that there's some action the President could take that 
would pry you from your latest conspiracy theory.