NationStates Jolt Archive

Kissing (http://www.newstarget.com/021105.html) on a mutha f**kin' plane...Not anymore!!!

Where is the love?

Kissing (http://www.newstarget.com/021105.html) on mutha f**kin' plane...Not anymore!!!

How in the HELL would this violate the Patriot Act?! :confused: Sex on a plane... Odd, but illegal?! :eek:

God bless America... :headbang:

How in the HELL would this violate the Patriot Act?! :confused: Sex on a plane... Odd, but illegal?! :eek:

God bless America... :headbang:

According to the Patriot Act, anyone who breaks a law imposed by a governing body (can also, probably, include the airlines company, and companies in general) is a terrorist.

America = Police-State! Thank you, Bush-Administration and those members of Congress who are too dumb to read the whole bill before signing!

How in the HELL would this violate the Patriot Act?! :confused: Sex on a plane... Odd, but illegal?! :eek:

God bless America... :headbang:

Sex on a plane is illegal for good reason. When i wanna use the restroom, I don't wanna be held up by a couple of people expressing their love... Nor do I want to hear them rolling around in the aisle. However, kissing on a plane is perfectly ok, unless they are combining matter and anti-matter thus creating a powerful explosion to blow up the plane, which is obviously gonna happen:rolleyes:

:fluffle: :sniper:
that just seemed to fit what the new bill was saying

According to the Patriot Act, anyone who breaks a law imposed by a governing body (can also, probably, include the airlines company, and companies in general) is a terrorist.

America = Police-State! Thank you, Bush-Administration and those members of Congress who are too dumb to read the whole bill before signing!

I can see why sex on an airplane would violate some type of law or rule, but the Patriot Act wasn't quite what I had in mind.

I can see why sex on an airplane would violate some type of law or rule, but the Patriot Act wasn't quite what I had in mind.

They broke their abstinence pledge.

Sweet, finally a terrorism charge you can feel proud about.

Personally, I think they should let people boink in the aisles, nothing would keep religious whackos off planes more then the thought of having to sit next to three people in a messy, moaning triangle while waiting to hijack.

Sweet, finally a terrorism charge you can feel proud about.

Personally, I think they should let people boink in the aisles, nothing would keep religious whackos off planes more then the thought of having to sit next to three people in a messy, moaning triangle while waiting to hijack.

I like the cut of your jib! :D

In addition, Persing was apparently witnessed with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area, while Sewell was observed smiling.

Hmm, I wonder what he was doing down there with his face. . .

*sings*
"Sit on my face and tell me that you love me
I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you too
I love to hear you oralise
When I'm between your thighs
You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you
I'll sit on your face and then I'll love you truly
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
If we sit on our faces
In all sorts of places
And play till we're blown away."

...umm...guys, they were charged with a crime due to the threatening of the flight attendent, not for a public display of affection. ~_~

was I the only one who noticed that the couple was in their 40's?

I don't know if that's funny or scary or both........

oh, and yeah, it's totally not a good idea to threaten anyone on a plane.

Awww, c'mon now, he wasn't feeling well. ;)

William Peregoy -- Persing's lawyer -- stated that Persing was not feeling well when he rested his head in the lap of Sewell.

These people need to be shot. The patriot act guys, I mean. Not the couple.

It couldnt have been this, that made all the fuss: :rolleyes: "After a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing apparently had an outburst that included him shouting that there would be "serious consequences" to the flight attendant if the pair was not left alone."

OMG! I'm a terrorist! :eek:

It couldnt have been this, that made all the fuss: :rolleyes: "After a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing apparently had an outburst that included him shouting that there would be "serious consequences" to the flight attendant if the pair was not left alone."

Hey hey hey, who asked for your "logical explanation"? Everyone was just happy cracking jokes and screaming "OMFG FUCKING FACSISTS!!!" and then you had to come along and point out the obvious. Jerk. :(
I kid because I love. ^^

Hey hey hey, who asked for your "logical explanation"? Everyone was just happy cracking jokes and screaming "OMFG FUCKING FACSISTS!!!" and then you had to come along and point out the obvious. Jerk. :(
I kid because I love. ^^
Haha, dude. That was really good. I actually was convinced that you were being serious like for half of that! :D Hahahaha, I'm giggling like a school girl now!:D :D

OMG! I'm a terrorist! :eek:

:eek:

OMG! I'm a terrorist! :eek:

*check to see how much i get if i bring Goofballs in*

*check to see how much i get if i bring Goofballs in*

If the guys in white coats can't catch me with their giant butterfly nets, what chance does the CIA have? :D

If the guys in white coats can't catch me with their giant butterfly nets, what chance does the CIA have? :D

:D

Haha, dude. That was really good. I actually was convinced that you were being serious like for half of that! :D Hahahaha, I'm giggling like a school girl now!:D :D

Glad I made someone laugh, my sarcastiposts usually tend to go ignored, or not gotten. :(

If the guys in white coats can't catch me with their giant butterfly nets, what chance does the CIA have? :D

they after me now to get to you dam got to run
*run away fast*

I don't know if that's funny or scary or both........

It was so funny, it was scary?

Kissing (http://www.newstarget.com/021105.html) on a mutha f**kin' plane...Not anymore!!!

Well they must be terrorists. Dubya promised that it would only be used on terrorists. Or maybe drug dealers.

Yes, that's it. They were threatening to undermine Western society be introducing a culture of sexually liberal secularism which would convince children to abandon their abstinence-only training. Anti-American mother-fuckers. Why don't they move to Iraq. :D

Well they must be terrorists. Dubya promised that it would only be used on terrorists. Or maybe drug dealers.

Yes, that's it. They were threatening to undermine Western society be introducing a culture of sexually liberal secularism which would convince children to abandon their abstinence-only training. Anti-American mother-fuckers. Why don't they move to Iraq. :D

I agree.

Anyone find this image creepy?
In addition, Persing was apparently witnessed with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area, while Sewell was observed smiling.
Why wasn't the perv who was 'observing' them arrested as well, that's what I'd like to know!


As for Persing's outburst about "serious consequences" to the flight attendant unless they were left alone: C'mon, here's a 40-something year-old guy with wood AND opportunity for prob the first time in years.
If you were him, wouldn't you get real shitty if someone kept telling you to stop?

As a technical note, probably the best place to join the mile high club is in the aft toilet in a boeing 777. Not that I am saying you should have sex in the toilet, but it is probably the most roomy place available.

Kissing (http://www.newstarget.com/021105.html) on a mutha f**kin' plane...Not anymore!!!

Time to move to Denver..

Every copulating couple there is in the Mile-High Club :D

America is fuck up

You have to be way more discreet when on an airplane, if you don't want to be caught. It's not that hard, there are (usually) free blankets available. That being said, oral on planes might be a bit difficult, I would stick to something more manual. Not that I would know or anything...

Shivers up my spine just thinking baout it, Oral Sex on a plane? What if you hit some turbulance? Gee Honey, you didn't really need that part did you?

Please, for safety's sake, stick to mutual masturbation and regular coitus while in moving vehicles.

Shivers up my spine just thinking baout it, Oral Sex on a plane? What if you hit some turbulance? Gee Honey, you didn't really need that part did you?

Please, for safety's sake, stick to mutual masturbation and regular coitus while in moving vehicles.

Painful? Yes.

Member severing? No.

If CAT gets that bad, the least of your worries is the penix.

Painful? Yes.

Member severing? No.

If CAT gets that bad, the least of your worries is the penix.

There was once a John Irving book which included a scene with a member severing oral sex, small child killing car crash scene. Ugh, I didn't need to remember that book. UGH.

Actually, I was thiinking in terms of oral sex on the female ( the instanteous case), where a short, quick uncontrolled movement can be most painful. Of course that may be highly individual, I have a gap between my upper front teeth and, well, I have been told it produces (inter alia) "interesting", "sensational" and "mind blowing" sensations when combined with various techniques and placements.

As a note trains are probably the worse for this sort of thing, 40 minutes of constant steady motion lulling you into a sense of security then wham over a bridge or radd and the swaying of the train is 4 times as strong. From personal experience, I can say even kissing can be painful if your faces get mashed together unexpectedly and teeth hit teeth.

Actually, I was thiinking in terms of oral sex on the female ( the instanteous case), where a short, quick uncontrolled movement can be most painful. Of course that may be highly individual, I have a gap between my upper front teeth and, well, I have been told it produces (inter alia) "interesting", "sensational" and "mind blowing" sensations when combined with various techniques and placements.

Never ever be so detailed ever again

It couldnt have been this, that made all the fuss: :rolleyes: "After a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing apparently had an outburst that included him shouting that there would be "serious consequences" to the flight attendant if the pair was not left alone."

Well there was also "William Peregoy -- Persing's lawyer -- stated that Persing was not feeling well when he rested his head in the lap of Sewell, and that Persing also only threatened the flight attendant by saying he would report him to his superiors once the plane landed."

But there's no way to know who told the truth until its revealed later.

...umm...guys, they were charged with a crime due to the threatening of the flight attendent, not for a public display of affection. ~_~
Two people were charged due to one of them 'threatening' the flight attendant. Evidently I have made the kind of threat the pair's lawyer claims was made, ie to report staff to their supervisors.

Sex on a plane is illegal for good reason. When i wanna use the restroom, I don't wanna be held up by a couple of people expressing their love... Nor do I want to hear them rolling around in the aisle. However, kissing on a plane is perfectly ok, unless they are combining matter and anti-matter thus creating a powerful explosion to blow up the plane, which is obviously gonna happen:rolleyes:

:fluffle: :sniper:
that just seemed to fit what the new bill was saying
You have to be flying the plane at the time
(member mile high club since 1962)

What if the two people in question each had a chemical in their mouth...
One chemical is highly volitile when mixed with the other...
What if they kissed and blew the plane up?

Damn TTTewrrorists!
*I just gave up my secret plan*

Banning sex on a plane would only make joining the mile high club more special, and I for one encourage such a thing. That and putting condom vending machines in the aeroplane toilets.

iWTF?

Did anyone bother reading the article? Even if they wern't kissing they would've been arrested for threatening a flight attendant with ambiguously dangerous or existent consequences. Good way to get thrown the fuck off a plane. Both the article author and everyone here is overreacting and reading it wrong.
Public planes have practically turned into prisoner transports but these two wern't arrested for necking.

It seems you don't even need to mention a bomb any more just get slightly annoyed at a flight attendent and its 20 years in prison.

How in the HELL would this violate the Patriot Act?! :confused: Sex on a plane... Odd, but illegal?! :eek:

God bless America... :headbang:

First of all, what they were doing was inappropriate for an airline flight.

Second: THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT! Then again though, I don't recognize the Patriot Act. I've sworn to fight that fucking piece of paper until the day I die, or it is repealed.

Did anyone bother reading the article? Even if they wern't kissing they would've been arrested for threatening a flight attendant with ambiguously dangerous or existent consequences. Good way to get thrown the fuck off a plane. Both the article author and everyone here is overreacting and reading it wrong.
Public planes have practically turned into prisoner transports but these two wern't arrested for necking.

2 people arrested for 1 person's threats.

20 years in prison.

Oh yeah, that's justice.

First of all, what they were doing was inappropriate for an airline flight.

Second: THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT! Then again though, I don't recognize the Patriot Act. I've sworn to fight that fucking piece of paper until the day I die, or it is repealed.

At the time I wrote that, it was very late so I wasn't thinking clearly. I know it is probably legal, but I didn't know it would violate the Patriot Act.

And threatening to report a flight attendant to her boss does not qualify as terrorist material.

Second: THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PATRIOT ACT! Then again though, I don't recognize the Patriot Act. I've sworn to fight that fucking piece of paper until the day I die, or it is repealed.

Which probably won't happen, unfortunatly.

But, it does violate the Patriot Act. You break the law of any governing body that is recognized by the government, then you are a terrorist. If I J-Walk, liter, "disturb the peace" in any way (that includes blasting loud music when passing by in my car; that disturbs the peace), or disobey my parents before I'm 18, I would be a terrorist. That helps the government spy on "terrorists" now that they've established that every American citizens has once been a terrorist (and once a terrorist always a terrorist).

Which probably won't happen, unfortunatly.

But, it does violate the Patriot Act. You break the law of any governing body that is recognized by the government, then you are a terrorist. If I J-Walk, liter, "disturb the peace" in any way (that includes blasting loud music when passing by in my car; that disturbs the peace), or disobey my parents before I'm 18, I would be a terrorist. That helps the government spy on "terrorists" now that they've established that every American citizens has once been a terrorist (and once a terrorist always a terrorist).

Good thing they haven't come on NSG eh?

Then we'd all be terrorists. :(

Which probably won't happen, unfortunatly.

But, it does violate the Patriot Act. You break the law of any governing body that is recognized by the government, then you are a terrorist. If I J-Walk, liter, "disturb the peace" in any way (that includes blasting loud music when passing by in my car; that disturbs the peace), or disobey my parents before I'm 18, I would be a terrorist. That helps the government spy on "terrorists" now that they've established that every American citizens has once been a terrorist (and once a terrorist always a terrorist).

Of that you are right. I've read the act and know if front to back (I had to do a project on it for a class I'm taking).

Actually, I think you helped me out with that.....I posted a thread on here asking for ideas on how to write the speech I had to give on it.

For those of you saying they just got charged with threatening a flight attendant, did you read the article?

...were charged with obstructing a flight attendant in addition to being charged with criminal association

Now, I'm not too sure precisely what defines "criminal association," but apparently in this case it has been defined as quasi-sex on a plane. Not that they shouldn't have taken it into the bathroom or at least kept it more on the down-low after being warned that people were noticing, but it doesn't even sound like the guy was threatening the flight attendant with any sort of harm to her person, but rather that he was going to report her and the "serious consequences" could easily have been talking about her job. Notice they were charged with obstructing a flight attendant, not something that would suggest an actual threat of assault or something else.

This is, clearly, precisely as outrageous as the media is portraying it. The "PATRIOT" <GAG!RETCH!VOMIT!> Act is one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation ever passed in the United States. It is my opinion that anyone who supported the bill should be charged with treason and jailed.

2 people arrested for 1 person's threats.
Yes, in America there is this crime that involves being an "accessory" to some one committing a crime.


20 years in prison.

Oh yeah, that's justice.
No one has been sentenced or even convicted.

Yes, in America there is this crime that involves being an "accessory" to some one committing a crime.


No one has been sentenced or even convicted.

There were no charges of being an "accessory." They were both charged with "criminal association." It is not clear if both or just the man were charged with "obstructing a flight attendant." (Keep your feet out of the aisles, folks.)

While no one has been sentenced yet, it has been made pretty clear that they are both facing 20 years if convicted. It is a travesty, excessive, tyrannical and distinctly un-American based on what most of us were taught in school. It is unacceptable. The idea that you're trying to make it seem acceptable is offensive. Maybe if I dig through the PATRIOT Act and some other recent legislation I can find something to charge you with, based solely on the fact that I take offense to you and what you say, and put you on the stand facing 20 years in prison. Land of the free, indeed.

The world is now officially a sad, sad place.


When did lovers become terrorists now?

There were no charges of being an "accessory." They were both charged with "criminal association." It is not clear if both or just the man were charged with "obstructing a flight attendant." (Keep your feet out of the aisles, folks.)

Show me who is being charged with what.

The idea that you're trying to make it seem acceptable is offensive.
I'm not trying to make it acceptable, I'm trying to convince a bunch of blockheads that they wern't arrested for kissing.

Show me who is being charged with what.


I'm not trying to make it acceptable, I'm trying to convince a bunch of blockheads that they wern't arrested for kissing.

I DID show you: scroll up. That is a direct quote from the article. But I'll try here one more time, and I'll include the beginning of the quote to prevent ambiguity. Ready?

The couple -- who are in their 40s -- were charged with obstructing a flight attendant in addition to being charged with criminal association

So it seems I was just a bit wrong. The article states that both were charged with both "crimes." So, yes, they were arrested, and have had their freedom curtailed, for the "criminal association" of kissing and either simulating or performing (that part still seems ambiguous to me) oral sex on a plane, in addition to undermining the sacred authority of a flight attendant. Outraged yet?

So it seems I was just a bit wrong. The article states that both were charged with both "crimes."
No, it implies that for simplicity.

So, yes, they were arrested, and have had their freedom curtailed, for the "criminal association" of kissing and either simulating or performing (that part still seems ambiguous to me) oral sex on a plane,
See the fucking point I just made. They were not arrested for kissing or performing oral sex.

Now I should be afraid of Middle Easterns and couples kissing on the airplane. Great! :rolleyes:

No, it implies that for simplicity.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were the one who wrote the article, and so know exactly what the author meant and why he wrote what he wrote.

And, by the way, the statement, "The couple...were charged..." is not an implication according to the rules of English grammar. It is a definitive statement of something that is presumed to be fact, with no ability to be interpreted otherwise. If you say, "The sky is blue," you're not implying anything. You're stating that the sky is blue. Notice the similarity between that and "The couple were charged." Couple means a pair, as in two people, and the only real difference between that and the sky statement is the pluralization of the subject. No wonder you're a journalist.

See the fucking point I just made. They were not arrested for kissing or performing oral sex.

See the point I just made. Yes they WERE. Oh, wait, I forgot. Since you're obviously the author of this article then I'm just reading it wrong. Please clarify what you meant when you wrote "criminal association" then? Perhaps it was simply the two sitting next to each other on the plane? What exactly was the "criminal association" in this case?

Did anyone bother reading the article?

I did.


Even if they wern't kissing they would've been arrested for threatening a flight attendant with ambiguously dangerous or existent consequences.

In the United States where people can sue you for battery because you put a hand on their shoulder (Jack Thompson was one such case), there's even money on odds that the threat could have been completely unthreatening from the physical and mental standpoint.

For example: "Go away or I'll complain to your boss" could be translated to a threat, just not in the way that should get you jail sentences.

Did anyone bother reading the article? Even if they wern't kissing they would've been arrested for threatening a flight attendant with ambiguously dangerous or existent consequences. Good way to get thrown the fuck off a plane. Both the article author and everyone here is overreacting and reading it wrong.
Public planes have practically turned into prisoner transports but these two wern't arrested for necking.
Did you even bother to read the posts in the thread? Even if some people didnt read the article, some posts contain information that couldnt have come from anywhere else, making me wonder why any reasonable person who had read the thread would ask such a redundant question.

In the absence of the flight attendent approaching them due to the alledged inappropriate behaviour, why would either person have engaged in any hostile or vaguely threatening behaviour? Since you contend they would have been arrested regardless of kissing, I suggest you front up with some kind of argument explaining how that might have come about because I'm not seeing it.

Unless you live in some kind of police-state there is nothing wrong with making threats of something other than illegal acts. There is no evidence whatsoever that illegal acts were threatened. As anyone who has read the article knows the lawyer for the charged pair claims that the threat referred to perfectly legal acts (ie taking up the issue with the attendant's employer). As anyone who has read the article knows, only one of the two people arrested actually issued any threat (lawful or otherwise) of any kind, yet 2 people were arrested.

As anyone who has read the article knows both were arrested, not merely thrown off the plane. And not on misdemeaner charges as may be appropriate but under the Patriot Act, you know the one US citizens were assured wouldnt be used for minor, non-incidents like this but only deployed against very dangerous people who posed a threat to national security.

Down-play it as much as you like, but prior to the Patriot Act neither would face up to a 20 year sentences for a minor incident that ought to have resulted in a misdeamenor conviction and fine at worse, and more appropriately in simply being banned from using the services of the airline concerned.

Keeping in mind that only one issued any threat of any kind and the other did no more than alledgedly engage in a bit of 'petting' at least one was arrested for nothing more than necking, as anyone who has read the article well knows.

Show me who is being charged with what.
Again?:confused:


I'm not trying to make it acceptable, I'm trying to convince a bunch of blockheads that they wern't arrested for kissing.
We are all so impressed with your inability to understand simple English, your inability to deduce that if posts contain information that must have come from the article that the posters read the article, but most of all with your flamebaiting. Gee what a hero!:rolleyes:

Did you even bother to read the posts in the thread? Even if some people didnt read the article, some posts contain information that couldnt have come from anywhere else, making me wonder why any reasonable person who had read the thread would ask such a redundant question.
I wonder why any reasonable person, including the article author themself, could come to such a fucking retarded conclusion that they were arrested for kissing or any other such behavior.

Since you contend they would have been arrested regardless of kissing, I suggest you front up with some kind of argument explaining how that might have come about because I'm not seeing it.
9/11. The end, I win. If you can't figure out how or why veiled threats on planes can get you in some deep shit, no one can help you.

Down-play it as much as you like, but prior to the Patriot Act neither would face up to a 20 year sentences for a minor incident that ought to have resulted in a misdeamenor conviction and fine at worse, and more appropriately in simply being banned from using the services of the airline concerned.
No one is facing shit. If they are even convicted, it will be for a misdemeanor asshole charge and they will be let off with some pussy punishment. It's just formality to say people are facing the maximum possible punishment.

Keeping in mind that only one issued any threat of any kind and the other did no more than alledgedly engage in a bit of 'petting' at least one was arrested for nothing more than necking, as anyone who has read the article well knows.
Apparently I am the only person in this thread not living in some all sunshine and rainbows fantasy world. They were fucking arrested for making threats on a fucking plane, not for kissing. The only one more incompetent than those people in this thread who thinks they were arrested for kissing is the retard who wrote the article implying it, if he isn't a freelance fucktard.



EDIT: No wonder the article is stupid trash, it isn't written by a journalist who has to follow realistic rules, it was obviously written by some nobody for that non-reputable news site.

I wonder why any reasonable person, including the article author themself, could come to such a fucking retarded conclusion that they were arrested for kissing or any other such behavior.
That doesnt address your inability to conclude that if information that must of come from the article is included in posts, that the poster probably read the article. it doesnt address your blanket insults directed at the entire thread including those who there is no reason to conclude ever reached such a conclusion.


9/11. The end, I win. If you can't figure out how or why veiled threats on planes can get you in some deep shit, no one can help you.
Your answer to 'why would either of the passangers concerned have acted in a hostile manner had they not been approached because they were acting inappropriately is 9/11? Really, what about these two particular people compelled them to act in a hostile manner just because of 9/11 and how many others are effected? Surely if 9/11 forces otherwise law abiding folk to turn into hostile and aggressive passangers who are compelled to engage flight crew in a belligerent manner, all such person ought to be banned from air flights for their own good. Since you are the only person who is able to identify the people with this mysterious condition, can you tell us how to recognise them prior to their boarding the plane?
Or maybe you'er already done with that inadequate and pitiful strawman. Did you even read the question you were responding to?

No one is facing shit. If they are even convicted, it will be for a misdemeanor asshole charge and they will be let off with some pussy punishment. It's just formality to say people are facing the maximum possible punishment.
They are facing the maximum charge if convicted. If you think otherwise, you need more help in understanding the law than I can give you.

Apparently I am the only person in this thread not living in some all sunshine and rainbows fantasy world. They were fucking arrested for making threats on a fucking plane, not for kissing.
One made a threat (which may or may not have been an unlawful threat), two were arrested. Further the charge of criminal association is inconsistent with your analysis.

The only one more incompetent than those people in this thread who thinks they were arrested for kissing is the retard who wrote the article implying it, if he isn't a freelance fucktard.
How eloquent....not. Wow the fact that you can cuss, name call and swear at someone not present to defend themselves impresses us almost as much as your inability to recognise the all-pervasive technique of hyperbole employed in headlines by any and all news-media in order to grab the attention of readers.

I have had it with these motherfucking trouser snakes on this motherfucking plane!

I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.

I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.

Was it not the "Consequences" threat that got them in trouble? I would think so

I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.
Probably just as well, no one likes getting hay in their undies, so it'd be most appreciated if you would kindly take your strawmen beat-up elsewhere.

Probably just as well, no one likes getting hay in their undies, so it'd be most appreciated if you would kindly take your strawmen beat-up elsewhere.

The quoted poster or the others? cause how you quoted him made it sound as if he was the one with the strawman

The "PATRIOT" <GAG!RETCH!VOMIT!> Act is one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation ever passed in the United States. It is my opinion that anyone who supported the bill should be charged with treason and jailed.
What if it was called the "Patriot Act of America, Love It or Leave It; If You Don't Support This Act You Aren't a Patriot"?

If he was going down on her while she was seated next to him he should really advise other men on how to do that, my early sexual experiences probably would have involved much more reciprocation...

The quoted poster or the others? cause how you quoted him made it sound as if he was the one with the strawman
The quoted poster. Since the argument that was occuring at the time was with me and since it is not true that I have ever stated that I believe both persons were arrested for kissing, that's a strawman and not the only one either. Take for instance the response to being asked why either passanger would have engaged in an altercation with the flight attendant if they had not being engaged in acts that resulted in them being approached in the first place
"9/11. The end, I win. If you can't figure out how or why veiled threats on planes can get you in some deep shit, no one can help you."
A strawman predicated on my having argued something entirely different to that which I did argue (in fact it was in response to a question).

The response to being pulled-up on that strawman was
"I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.".
Never argued that, yet mine was the most recent response to the poster concerned and I was the last poster that the poster was engaging.

The poster is predicating their argument on an untrue fact (that everyone concerned believes that both passangers were arrested for kissing). That's not the case. In trying to argue this strawman, more strawmen were pulled in until the original strawman was penultimately retreated to. If one cannot argue without making up arguments that have not been made in order to argue against, then the thread is better off without them.

The quoted poster. Since the argument that was occuring at the time was with me and since it is not true that I have ever stated that I believe both persons were arrested for kissing, that's a strawman and not the only one either. Take for instance the response to being asked why either passanger would have engaged in an altercation with the flight attendant if they had not being engaged in acts that resulted in them being approached in the first place
"9/11. The end, I win. If you can't figure out how or why veiled threats on planes can get you in some deep shit, no one can help you."
A strawman predicated on my having argued something entirely different to that which I did argue (in fact it was in response to a question).

The response to being pulled-up on that strawman was
"I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.".
Never argued that, yet mine was the most recent response to the poster concerned and I was the last poster that the poster was engaging.

The poster is predicating their argument on an untrue fact (that everyone concerned believes that both passangers were arrested for kissing). That's not the case. In trying to argue this strawman, more strawmen were pulled in until the original strawman was penultimately retreated to. If one cannot argue without making up arguments that have not been made in order to argue against, then the thread is better off without them.
Ok then it was the quoted order of things that threw me off as he was not quoting you ...

I apologize, whiskey does that to me lol

Ok then it was the quoted order of things that threw me off as he was not quoting you ...

I apologize, whiskey does that to me lol
No apology needed, especially since clearly it's the whiskey that's really at fault.;)

I am no longer continuing this wholly unneeded argument with anyone who can't figure out two people wern't arrested for kissing.

You do not have any publicly available information regarding the nature of the threat at this point of the time. Threats of legal action are for example, not, and never should be, arrestable offences. If so, then another piece of the legal system has collapsed.

So, what paragraph of the PA does this violate?

Chapter, verse anybody?

Did anybody read the thing? The FBI? The President? Congress? SOMEBODY?


[quoteIn addition, Persing was apparently witnessed with his face pressed against Sewell's vaginal area, while Sewell was observed smiling.[/quote]

I believe we need to have more of this on aircraft, not less.

These people were clearing gay, lesbian, liberal, democrat, islamofascist appeaser agents trying to use psychological warfare against good christian Americans, we must prepare ourselves for this kind of terrorism.

These people were clearing gay, lesbian, liberal, democrat, islamofascist appeaser agents trying to use psychological warfare against good christian Americans, we must prepare ourselves for this kind of terrorism.
Yes, but we have a secret weapon to use against these types. We simply need 300,285,598 well fitted tin-foil hats and we're untouchable. Problem solved, emergency averted.

Sweet, finally a terrorism charge you can feel proud about.

Personally, I think they should let people boink in the aisles, nothing would keep religious whackos off planes more then the thought of having to sit next to three people in a messy, moaning triangle while waiting to hijack.

Haha, I had a teacher who did archeology in middle east and when the authorities came by to try and stop them all the women had to come over and flirt with them to make them feel uncomfortable so they would leave.

(I'm reviving a lot of old threads (LOL))