Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 04:20:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard Placed on Terror Watch List After Criticizing Biden/Harris Admin Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <585lbj5ghnhj1t62oklmqr48n6dktajqfm@4ax.com> <3qklbj9efj08b9r9cuf1d12i3jeho2dli0@4ax.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 93 Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:20:51 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 5336 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17eb8dda6cd3b701$15$1999369$50d51a61@news.newsdemon.com> On 8/13/24 3:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , moviePig > wrote: > >> On 8/13/2024 3:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , moviePig >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/13/2024 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/12/2024 11:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2024 at 8:31:13 PM PDT, "shawn" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:13:23 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <585lbj5ghnhj1t62oklmqr48n6dktajqfm@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>>> shawn wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:55:57 -0700, BTR1701 >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >In article , >>>>>>>>>> > moviePig 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=ygUaTWF0dCB0YWliYm >>>>>>>>>>>>> k6IHR1bHNpIGdhYmJhcmQ%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. >>> >>> Ah, so you're pretending to read my mind again. Gotcha. >> >> No reading necessary. It screams aloud. > > Nope. I never said the things you claim, so you must be doing another of > your Kreskin acts. On the other hand, Kreskin actually gave the correct > answers, so I don't know if that's really the best comparison for > whatever it is you're pretending to do. So mpig was incorrect? As usual, instead of clearly stating that, you danced around it in a dainty, drag queen fashion.