- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,443
- Reaction score
- 4,479
- Location
- Western NY and Geneva, CH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes, they have a choice. They can choose not to attend. No, advanced warning does not have to be given when you enter a public building. It's a part of security. I had my nail file taken out of my purse and temporarily confiscated when I entered a court house before, and there were no signs specifying that my nail file could be taken.
No one was forced to view the proceedings. People were made aware beforehand, they made their decision and, if they wanted, they could get their (extra) tampons returned.
yes it is absurd they get all up and arms over some tampons being taken away so they wont be thrown at the legislators but will fail to tell you about the crap and piss they also brought to do the same.
I beat the OP feels pretty stupid about now that his left wing so called news organization failed to mention the crap and piss, this is a prime example we have these left wing knuckle heads come to this forum so misinformed and looking foolish
Forget calling it theft. Robbery is theft by threat or force and that's what you're saying happened right? So security actually committed felony robbery. Those people were robbed. :lol:
Funny thing is that people HAVE actually died from tampons. Toxic shock syndrome. The info about it is always included in the pamphlet inside the box of tampons. Lol. Just thought I'd throw that in there for the heck of it.
Menstruation and Toxic Shock Syndrome
This is their government at work. They have a right to watch without having personal items pointlessly confiscated without any advance warning.
This is their government at work. They have a right to watch without having personal items pointlessly confiscated without any advance warning.
No, I don't think so. Nobody said "your tampons or your life."
Veering off subject, there was a local celebrity wrestler here in Dallas that got that.
View attachment 67150296
Mike was married on February 14, 1985, to Shani Garza.[1] He underwent shoulder surgery on August 22, 1985, due to an injury suffered during a wrestling tour of Israel; he was involved in a tag match against Hernandez and Adams with his brother Kevin when his shoulder "went out." He was released from the hospital in good condition, but four days later he developed a fever of 107 degrees. He was later diagnosed with toxic shock syndrome, a rarity among men; it is theorized that this resulted from his surgery, which was performed by Dr. Stonie R. Cotton at Brookhaven Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
Mike Von Erich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When you enter any governmental building the security officials CAN conduct a search and seize your property, if they have a reasonable belief that it would be used for any kind of assault. The fourth amendment only applies if it is considered unreasonable.
They were given advanced notice. No one was forced to do anything.
Really? What kind of advanced notice? Signs? Public announcements? A blurb on their web site? What?
If I walk up to you, display a weapon I'm carrying then hold my hand out and say, "you know what this is", it's a robbery. No specific words required. In Texas, as long as someone is threatened or placed in fear while in the course of committing theft, it's robbery. Were those guards armed? That makes it aggravated robbery. Why do you suddenly want to minimize the crime those guards committed?
There is no excuse for stealing personal hygiene products in an environment that permits civillians to carry firearms.
An announcement, prior to people entering the event.
You think this was done randomly?
I'm sure it wasn't, but that doesn't make it right.
If it was not done randomly, then why was it done?
Show me. I'm not taking your word for it.
Also, you forgot to respond to the rest of my post. Do they clearly announce -- either with a sign, or with regular PA announcements, or on their web site -- the kinds of things they will be taking? Because they do, and those jackasses in the capital didn't. Thanks for playing.
I don't particularly care.
Your hyperbole and misrepresentation of what I said means little. So addressing it would be at the minimum, a waist of my time.
What if it was done because security had been alerted to a possible disturbance planned and involving tampons?
I very sincerely doubt that anybody had a firearm either presented to or aimed at them. Police openly carry, and the fact that a police officer is talking to you is not an excercise of force.
They were given a choice -- allow the police to steal their personal property or be denied their rights.
Did you take it by force with no advance warning? You stole it. It isn't stealing if people are made aware beforehand AND they get to choose whether or not they will give up their personal property AND it is returned to them later.
I still don't care. They were allowing people with guns to walk in, but they were refusing to allow people to keep tampons. The staggering inconsistency is all I can see.
Oh, and Martin/Zimmerman wasn't about freedom of speech - or freedom to carry feminine items necessary for one's hygiene. It is flatly disingenuous of you to imply the two are in any way comparable.
Unlike those on the far right - liberals (and particularly progressives) don't worry so much about things that can't hurt us - like tampons and maxi-pads. Instead, we worry about things that can kill us, like loaded guns in the hands of idiots.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?