*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 12:56pm PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

A ridiculous story, all TSA agents are well trained highly paid professionals who can be fully counted on to uphold the rules of confidentiality at all times. That's why I e-mail the TSA pictures of my genitals every day.

I'd love to hear the TSA's side of the story. I mean I don't doubt that she was harassed....but the idea that they picked her out because she's cute...but something tells me she isn't totally innocent either.

The whole TSA is full of unnecessary bullshit. The whole shoe-scanning thing has probably tripled the incidence of athlete's foot without any effect whatsoever on security.

@VoodooV

Sure, it would great to get both sides of the story and also see the security cam footage. But I don't get why people are being apologists for the TSA. We know they're in a position of 'authority' and therefore we should be suspicious of them always because we know absolute power corrupts how? We also know they lied when they claimed the body scan images would be immediately deleted, which as far as I'm concerned should be grounds for immediate revocation of that administration's right to conduct searches entirely.

Ugh, this is such a biased and skewed argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems the left out a few major details (if she later agreed to the body pat-down or not) and instead tried to add some badly-timed humor.

She has every right to refuse being body-scanned, but last I heard, flying isn't an inherent right but a privilege!

@blankfist

I'm not apologizing for the TSA at all. I think you're looking into my comment a little too much. I agree with you completely about the TSA.

I just know from experience that there are always two sides of a story...that's all. I didn't say whether or not I would believe the TSA's story. I don't believe the girl 100 percent either. There is always *some* bias.

Since this is a one sided account, given to a libertarian talk radio show, I'm gonna take it with a grain of salt.

That said, I'm sure the TSA massively overreacted to her being annoying, and I agree that no one should have to go through those "porno scanner" things. I also think these new rubdowns are just like she said -- they should just let sex offenders do them as community service.

I also think that the whole TSA exercise should be stopped. It has just gotten more and more invasive, despite the severe lack of evidence that it's been effective.

Daughter of John McLane?

If I was a pedophile, I'd work for the TSA.

Same thing happened to my girl in the same airport. @youmakekittymad and @handmethekeysyou can corroborate that she's got similar assets to the lady in this audiosift. I cannot fucking beGIN to explain how fucking crazed I'm gonna get when they randomly select her in my presence.

ugh

Hot chicks, grandmas, children, and most other people have never, ever blown up or hijacked an airliner. I think we all know who has. I know it sounds bad, but we should stick to racial profiling and common sense to keep ourselves safe.

More Government control.


If this was non governmental than the airport would get lamed by the media and then they would back off of this bullshit.



Always vote for smaller government.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Since when is the free movement into, around and out of your country a privilege? Dangerous slippery slope there.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Ugh, this is such a biased and skewed argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems the left out a few major details (if she later agreed to the body pat-down or not) and instead tried to add some badly-timed humor.
She has every right to refuse being body-scanned, but last I heard, flying isn't an inherent right but a privilege!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I always hear conservatives clamoring for small government- until the topic of the defense budget comes around. You want small government? Start at the Pentagon.

>> ^bobknight33:

More Government control.

If this was non governmental than the airport would get lamed by the media and then they would back off of this bullshit.

Always vote for smaller government.

I made the mistake of leaving the passenger area in the Kansas City airport and had to go back through with the picture thingy. Everyone had to be scanned.

I wasn't emotionally prepared for it and got pretty upset. Said I didn't want to do it. I was then told that I would have to be patted down if I opted out, and that it was pretty invasive. So I went for the scan, but I really felt violated. I even walked away without my stuff, because I wanted to get away from there as soon as possible.

Maybe because everyone has to be scanned at that airport the TSA folks didn't flip out like these folks did.

It was horrible though. I learned my lesson. No more leaving the passenger area when going through Kansas City.

Ugh. Ugh. UGH.

Can someone please fucking tell me why I've been in TWO fucking wars that were supposed to be about our FREEDOM, yet crazy shit like this happens? Where the fuck are those freedoms that I was supposedly fighting for?!


Knowing that every single person that's ever flown in the past few years LOATHES the TSA, why has nothing on the federal level happened to look into it? Some kind of study of new security measures vs. dangerous items confiscated? And I'm not talking about a fucking pair of tweezers. I mean guns, bombs and that shit.

Oh cmon, have some sympathy for the TSA. Imagine having to sit in front of the body scan monitor at an airport looking at random people's bodies. You'd be ready to gouge your eyes out after the first day. If you had to scan someone, wouldn't you choose the more aesthetic looking people?

The problem is that people are being scanned, not who is being scanned and who isn't.

Also the people talking in this video are doucebags.

"Yeah they chose me because I'm hot." Nice train of thought there, Paris.

"Don't you feel like this is germany." I suppose they meant Nazi Germany, considering that these scanners caused quite some outrage in Germany, resulting in the scanner image being toned down to the point were you can't recognize any detailed body features.

>> ^dag:

Since when is the free movement into, around and out of your country a privilege? Dangerous slippery slope there.


I said flying was a privilege, not the movement in/out of your own country. Also, you can try and move in and out of your country at free will and you will run into tons of customs officials/officers/security on your way there, regardless if you're driving/flying/taking a train/etc.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

>> ^dag:

Since when is the free movement into, around and out of your country a privilege? Dangerous slippery slope there.

One has the right to move freely about the country, but doing so on someone else's flying machine is technically a privilege.

In that light, I wonder how people would react if, during the ticket purchasing process, they were required to agree to a full body search or scan before being allowed to board the plane (don't agree = no ticket). My guess is that far fewer people would fly.

There is a slippery slope between convenience and safety, and it runs both ways. At one end there is no search and anyone can bring any concealed items/weapons they want... at the other end, cavity searches. =)

Where's the followup to this story? Seems like if this was true, there would be hell to pay.

Those wars were fought for two major reasons, neither had anything to do with freedom.

1) Profit for Big Oil, Military/Weapons Industry, Halliburton, Blackwater and other corporations friendly to Bush and Cheney.
2) To raise the deficit to justify cutting social services that don't directly benefit corporations.

There will be no freedom till we get corporations out of our government.


>> ^MarineGunrock:

Can someone please fucking tell me why I've been in TWO fucking wars that were supposed to be about our FREEDOM, yet crazy shit like this happens? Where the fuck are those freedoms that I was supposedly fighting for?!

Knowing that every single person that's ever flown in the past few years LOATHES the TSA, why has nothing on the federal level happened to look into it? Some kind of study of new security measures vs. dangerous items confiscated? And I'm not talking about a fucking pair of tweezers. I mean guns, bombs and that shit.

I need to travel more...I usually pay good money for that type of "molestation"

This shouldn't happen, pretty disgusting.

That said, I don't quite understand anyone being uncomfortable with the scanning. Have fun jacking off to my x-rays; I've got a plane to catch.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Those wars were fought for two major reasons, neither had anything to do with freedom.
1) Profit for Big Oil, Military/Weapons Industry, Halliburton, Blackwater and other corporations friendly to Bush and Cheney.
2) To raise the deficit to justify cutting social services that don't directly benefit corporations.
There will be no freedom till we get corporations out of our government.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Can someone please fucking tell me why I've been in TWO fucking wars that were supposed to be about our FREEDOM, yet crazy shit like this happens? Where the fuck are those freedoms that I was supposedly fighting for?!

Knowing that every single person that's ever flown in the past few years LOATHES the TSA, why has nothing on the federal level happened to look into it? Some kind of study of new security measures vs. dangerous items confiscated? And I'm not talking about a fucking pair of tweezers. I mean guns, bombs and that shit.


I agree with your points, though Ben & Jerry's Inc. isn't scanning the bodies of little children at the airport. The government is. Blame deserves to be levied on the corrupted as well as the corrupters.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I get your point - but I would still say that flying should not be a "privilege" controlled by the government - if that's the current accepted groupthink of US citizens - we're in trouble.>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^dag:
Since when is the free movement into, around and out of your country a privilege? Dangerous slippery slope there.
One has the right to move freely about the country, but doing so on someone else's flying machine is technically a privilege.
In that light, I wonder how people would react if, during the ticket purchasing process, they were required to agree to a full body search or scan before being allowed to board the plane (don't agree = no ticket). My guess is that far fewer people would fly.
There is a slippery slope between convenience and safety, and it runs both ways. At one end there is no search and anyone can bring any concealed items/weapons they want... at the other end, cavity searches. =)

See http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2010/11/full_body_scanners_video_from_meg_mclains.php for security footage

CCTV videos of the event can be found here.

edit: Beaten to the punch by a few seconds.

^ hamsteralliance's linked website has better commentary with link to TSA blog.

>> ^dag:

I get your point - but I would still say that flying should not be a "privilege" controlled by the government - if that's the current accepted groupthink of US citizens - we're in trouble.


I love you, dag. You big hairy socialist freedom loving motherfucker, I could kiss that goatee mouth of yours.

National defense is a legitimate Constitutional duty. Overall, U.S. defense spending is a surprisingly small portion of the budget, not even 10%. Meanwhile, the federal mafia now gobbles up almost HALF of the total American economy (GDP) compared to about 22% sixty years ago.

Where's the bulk of the money going? Entitlements, social programs and bureaucracy.

Why is any liberal complaining about the TSA whilst pushing for TSA-quality health care?



>> ^dag:

I always hear conservatives clamoring for small government- until the topic of the defense budget comes around. You want small government? Start at the Pentagon.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Sorry, those figures are incorrect. Very conservative estimates put defense spending at over 20% of the budget. More realistic estimates put it much higher.

>> ^quantumushroom:

National defense is a legitimate Constitutional duty. Overall, U.S. defense spending is a surprisingly small portion of the budget, not even 10%. Meanwhile, the federal mafia now gobbles up almost HALF of the total American economy (GDP) compared to about 22% sixty years ago.
Where's the bulk of the money going? Entitlements, social programs and bureaucracy.
Why is any liberal complaining about the TSA whilst pushing for TSA-quality health care?

>> ^dag:
I always hear conservatives clamoring for small government- until the topic of the defense budget comes around. You want small government? Start at the Pentagon.

>> ^dag:

I get your point - but I would still say that flying should not be a "privilege" controlled by the government - if that's the current accepted groupthink of US citizens - we're in trouble.

I should have also included that I believe the security should be handled by the individual airlines rather than the government. At least that way people would have more choice in the level of security/convenience they want.

If we had a government by, of and for the people, we could change or disband the TSA. Instead, our only option is to complain about it on the internet. The plutocrats love them some security, so that's one government program that will never go away so long as they are calling the shots.

And, what's up with the Ben and Jerry's thing? I don't want ANY corporations controlling our government, not even socially conscious ones. Not Ben and Jerry's. Not Google. Not Trader Joe's or Ikea. Not Valve or Blizzard. Old Abe never said anything about government by, of and for disembodied, unaccountable, corporate persons. Neither did the framers.

@dystopianfuturetoday, as government grows you cannot have a government of, for and by, because it becomes an apparatus for violence and force at that point. Even Obama has labeled government as the monopoly on force. And it just so happens to be force that we all pay for and only the privileged get to use it. Sounds a lot like how kingdoms worked.

When's the last time we had a politician in an important role that was 'one of us'? They're all CEO fat cats or corporatists. The politicians themselves ARE the plutocracy. You seem to think you have a voice in that, but you simply do not. You vote maybe once every 2 to 4 years, and the politicians that win get to do whatever they want for the next four years with no say from us.

But, you're right, corporations are part of the problem. But they didn't do it on their own. Why won't you lay blame on the government as well? Why is that monolithic beast always devoid of scrutiny from the Democrats except when Republicans do something bad with it?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

People think that means you have to fight wars to protect your freedom; it means more.

More importantly, IMO, it means you have to accept risk if you want freedom. The only way you can be 100% "safe" from terrorism is to have all people under observation at all times. If you want guarantees that nobody will hijack or blow up your plane, you have to give up your privacy and freedoms. If you want to be free, you have to accept that someone might try to hijack or blow up your plane.

You can be free or you can be safe; they are mutually exclusive. The general population, unfortunately, seems to prefer safe.

>> ^moopysnooze:

See http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2010/11/f
ull_body_scanners_video_from_meg_mclains.php for security footage


Huh, turns out the staff were mostly women. Bull-Dykes?

I'll be vigilant tomoooroooww...*stomps*.

Even government is in the firm claw of wow... muahaha. Nerf TSA rogues!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If we had a government by, of and for the people, we could change or disband the TSA. Instead, our only option is to complain about it on the internet. The plutocrats love them some security, so that's one government program that will never go away so long as they are calling the shots.
And, what's up with the Ben and Jerry's thing? I don't want ANY corporations controlling our government, not even socially conscious ones. Not Ben and Jerry's. Not Google. Not Trader Joe's or Ikea. Not Valve or Blizzard. Old Abe never said anything about government by, of and for disembodied, unaccountable, corporate persons. Neither did the framers.

The thing I never get about QM is that he never does any research but continually uses statistics that he just makes up. This it the internet - we all have access to the numbers, for chrissakes!

They say she was 'singled out' and that she was the only person chosen for the scan, right? In the video footage linked to above, there's a steady stream of (none-too-attractive) people who appear to be doing scans while she sits on the chair.

So, basically you want to cut out the middle man and let corporations rule us directly. No thanks.
>> ^blankfist:

As government grows you cannot have a government of, for and by, because it becomes an apparatus for violence and force at that point. Even Obama has labeled government as the monopoly on force. And it just so happens to be force that we all pay for and only the privileged get to use it. Sounds a lot like how kingdoms worked.
When's the last time we had a politician in an important role that was 'one of us'? They're all CEO fat cats or corporatists. The politicians themselves ARE the plutocracy. You seem to think you have a voice in that, but you simply do not. You vote maybe once every 2 to 4 years, and the politicians that win get to do whatever they want for the next four years with no say from us.
But, you're right, corporations are part of the problem. But they didn't do it on their own. Why won't you lay blame on the government as well? Why is that monolithic beast always devoid of scrutiny from the Democrats except when Republicans do something bad with it?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He follows the Fox doctrine- say something enough times and it must be true.>> ^kymbos:

The thing I never get about QM is that he never does any research but continually uses statistics that he just makes up. This it the internet - we all have access to the numbers, for chrissakes!

Corporations don't need government to exist. They are autonomous. They have their own media and their own armies. Internationally speaking, the weaker the government, the more power corporations wield over them. Government, however weak and corruptible it may be, is the only body with the potential to check corporate power. This is why corporations hate government so much and give so much money to the anti government think tanks that you hold so dear.

Less government power = More corporate power.

Why do you think they want a government so small you can drown it in a bathtub?

Government is like a car. It's neutral until someone turns the key. It can take you to work, or on vacation or ram a bus full of school children off a cliff. It all depends on who is driving. Right now, the corporate-sponsored, anti-government teapartiers are in control.

There are two arguments that blankfist is making here. One rational, one irrational.

The rational argument: This particular situation demonstrates an abuse of government power and it sucks.
The irrational argument: ALL GOVERNMENT, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD IS EVIL.

Don't let his attempt at smearing the line between the two trick you into justifying something that appears to be a legitimate abuse of power. You may agree with the rational argument and disagree with the irrational broadbrush at the same time.

This a game that the corporate think tanks play all the time. It's also a fallacy of logic. It's an inductive fallacy, to be specific. Here's how it works: An agent of the government did something bad, hence all government is bad.

Another example: A libertarian crashed his plane into a government building, purposely murdering an innocent man; another libertarian blew up an Oklahoma government building purposely murdering 168 innocent people; another libertarian sent mail bombs to innocent people, murdering 3 innocent people. Therefore, all libertarians are sadistic, murderous sociopaths.

I don't agree with this last sentence, it is here to make a point.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Ugh, this is such a biased and skewed argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around this but it seems the left out a few major details (if she later agreed to the body pat-down or not) and instead tried to add some badly-timed humor.
She has every right to refuse being body-scanned, but last I heard, flying isn't an inherent right but a privilege!

Corporations don't need government to exist, @dystopianfuturetoday? They're autonomous? Nothing could be farther from the truth, but you keep saying it plenty and often.

I think your belief system is challenged when I show how corporations and government tend to work pretty closely, and that corporations exist solely because government affords them charters and franchise monopolies. You seem to cling blindly to the idea that government is great and when not in the hands of Republicans it seems to work quite well, and it's hard to reconcile that maybe that same well functioning machine could also be responsible for larger evils of our time: namely corporations like Halliburton.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There are two arguments that blankfist is making here. One rational, one irrational.
The rational argument: This particular situation demonstrates an abuse of government power and it sucks.
The irrational argument: ALL GOVERNMENT, EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD IS EVIL.


You've officially become no better than @NetRunner. I think it's a response to having your belief system challenged that makes you two so desperately need to put words in my mouth in order to disprove my points. But now that you bring it up, it's true that there's never been an incorruptible political body in the history of man, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Is the problem you think government is good because it builds the roads? Okay, it's good then. Happy?

Thank you. NetRunner is awesome. His arguments are thoughtful, well reasoned and intelligent. I welcome the comparison, tho he's a much better writer than I; Spelling, sentence structure and all that jazz... I'm not about to let you drive a wedge between the two of us with that kind of passive aggressive bullshit. Shame on you.

Also, what did I put into your mouth? Do you not hate the very concept of government? Have you changed your mind?

I'd love a full response to my argument instead of you just comparing me to someone else who disagrees with you.

@blankfist, and you're no different from QM anymore. You never respond to arguments we make, you just toss insults at us and inveigh against straw men when we lay out an argument you can't refute.

I think if they can choose who to randomly scan/screen...perhaps it'd be fair if you could pick who does the pat down. Im sure they'll insist that males should do males and females do females, but cmon....line em all up and let me pick which one gets to feel the goods. Might as well at least try to enjoy myself at their expense...since it seems right now they get to enjoy themselves at our expense.

And once you get this passed, you can pressure to up the physical fitness requirements of the job.. get some physically fit male and females to choose from in the line up on who gets to invasively touch your goods.

It's kind of like going to the bikini car washes, they get their money you get the show...even if you have to put up with a little inconvenience of washing your car again yourself. You can tolerate the time, money, and inconvenience mysteriously.

So basically what Im saying is, hot strippers doing the grabbing will make the machines obsolete and allow for even more pat down action.

.....

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Thank you. NetRunner is awesome. His arguments are thoughtful, well reasoned and intelligent.


I am a Democrat therefore I like Democrats.

I am a liberal and, in general, like other liberals. I like you too, which, according to inductive reasoning means you must be liberal too. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Thank you. NetRunner is awesome. His arguments are thoughtful, well reasoned and intelligent.

I am a Democrat therefore I like Democrats.

OK, this is just devolving into stupidity. Are we having a discussion here or not?

Kymbos: The thing I never get about QM is that he never does any research but continually uses statistics that he just makes up. This it the internet - we all have access to the numbers, for chrissakes!

Dag: He follows the Fox doctrine- say something enough times and it must be true.

Ah, and yet we're all supposed to believe the numbers from 'The War Resisters League'.

US Military spending as a Share of GDP 1946-2009

If socialism "worked"--and it works for a short while until one runs out of other peoples' money--Greece wouldn't be bankrupt, there'd still be a soviet union and the scamulus would've "created" jobs.

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

--FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in 1939


I'm merely observing results, Dag & Friends. I don't expect different results from the same doomed social experiments.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

There's a big difference between GDP and a government budget QM.>> ^quantumushroom:


Kymbos: The thing I never get about QM is that he never does any research but continually uses statistics that he just makes up. This it the internet - we all have access to the numbers, for chrissakes!
Dag: He follows the Fox doctrine- say something enough times and it must be true.
Ah, and yet we're all supposed to believe the numbers from 'The War Resisters League'.
US Military spending as a Share of GDP 1946-2009
If socialism "worked"--and it works for a short while until one runs out of other peoples' money--Greece wouldn't be bankrupt, there'd still be a soviet union and the scamulus would've "created" jobs.
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."
--FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in 1939

I'm merely observing results, Dag & Friends. I don't expect different results from the same doomed social experiments.

I'm talking about you inventing statistics. You invent statistics. It's not a disagreement about what the statistics signify, it's that you make them up.

Oh, whatever.

Yeah, I don't think even gwiz could get any wood out of that thumbnail. >> ^Xax:

This shouldn't happen, pretty disgusting.
That said, I don't quite understand anyone being uncomfortable with the scanning. Have fun jacking off to my x-rays; I've got a plane to catch.

You are one of the most ill-informed disingenuous windbags ever.

I'm about to show you these things called "Facts". You will deny them.

It's okay, I understand how delusional and prone to compartmentalization you are.
~~~

#1
The only time the Constitution mentions national defense is in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union".. [and] .."provide for the common defense".. .."do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Hence the Second Amendment, to ensure the continuation and growth of the state militias as a means of defense.

Today those militias are known as the National Guard.

#2
All Transportation Security Administration [TSA] spending falls under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense budget is a completely different budget.

Moreover, both budgets are Discretionary [Non-Mandatory] Expenditures.

Department of Homeland Security's Budget for FY 2010 = an estimated 42.7 Billion.

Department of Defense's Budget for FY 2010 = an estimated 663.7 Billion.

.0427 + .6637 ÷ 3.55 Trillion = 22.96% of the FY 2010 Budget

Small portion my ass.

#3
Every year, Social Security and Medicare taxes are stolen out of our wages with a guarantee that we'll be repaid.

62% of the entire Fiscal Year 2010 Budget, 3.55 trillion dollars, goes to Entitlements because they are what are known as Mandatory [Non-Discretionary] Expenditures.

Are you suggesting the government should renege on its 2 Trillion dollar obligation to tax-payers?! *GASP!*

#4
Being harassed at the airport isn't a necessity nor a fundamental right.

Healthcare [Well-being] is.

Attempting to rationalize otherwise is dumb and sadistic because no person ever asked to be born.

Not to mention the pursuit of Life Liberty and Happiness is pretty difficult if you're dying from the flu.
~~~

I know I've completely wasted my time and breath in yet another vain attempt to point out your fallacies.

All so that, one day, you might be honest and finally acknowledge verifiable facts or simply go the fuck away.

Willfully ignorant blowhards like you are the bane of my existence and a scrounge upon civil rational society.

Hence why I'll continue to point out the ENORMOUS contradictions in your consistently flawed rhetoric until those ideologies [or genes if that's the source] wither from all time and space.

-_-

>> ^quantumushroom:

National defense is a legitimate Constitutional duty. Overall, U.S. defense spending is a surprisingly small portion of the budget, not even 10%. Meanwhile, the federal mafia now gobbles up almost HALF of the total American economy (GDP) compared to about 22% sixty years ago.
Where's the bulk of the money going? Entitlements, social programs and bureaucracy.
Why is any liberal complaining about the TSA whilst pushing for TSA-quality health care?

If you don't like it take the train. It's that easy.

Look I'm not saying I'm for full body scanners, for shoe checks, and all that other BS. But don't show up to the airport and expect to be able to "Opt Out" of all the of the security checks.

If you don't a body scan, get frisked, if you don't want to get frisked or a body scan? Take the train.

IF you don't think you deserve to do ANY of that, then protest and try to change the world works. But don't be an asshole and show up at the airport and expect this not to happen.

Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

I think hookers would be cheaper.

>> ^rottenseed:

I need to travel more...I usually pay good money for that type of "molestation"

>> ^ReverendTed:

Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?


She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.

The camera angles kinda suck.

The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.

So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.


A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.

At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Boo. Completely disagree with this opinion.

For one - living here in Brisbane Australia, I find the trains to Los Angeles to be very infrequent.

For another - why should we show up at an airport and "normalize" this kind authoratarian overreach by demurely consenting to it.

Resist if you can - if you can't, then at least support the resisters. (FTR, traveling with my kids to the US this December - I'll only be doing the latter. :-( )

>> ^Darkhand:

If you don't like it take the train. It's that easy.
Look I'm not saying I'm for full body scanners, for shoe checks, and all that other BS. But don't show up to the airport and expect to be able to "Opt Out" of all the of the security checks.
If you don't a body scan, get frisked, if you don't want to get frisked or a body scan? Take the train.
IF you don't think you deserve to do ANY of that, then protest and try to change the world works. But don't be an asshole and show up at the airport and expect this not to happen.

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.

Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

Military spending by the pentagon and homeland security doesn't reflect all the money spent on "defense". There are billions in military spending through the department of energy (anything nuclear) as well as other bureaucracy such as NSA, NASA, commerce and transportation, all charged with the illusionary goal of "security". Hidden billions upon billions.

Further, there is billions in veterans benefits, and interest on loans for past spending. We also have over 450 military bases around the world, the operations of which do not fall solely within the pentagon budget. And that is before we get to the sweet tax deals given to the military industrial complex, which basically sub-contracts out work to almost every congressional district in the country, ensuring that our economy and our employment are tied to military spending, and that congressional representatives never vote against a "defense" measure, no matter how retarded. (Notice how Obama goes to India and claims to be creating jobs because the Indian government has ordered a whole bunch of C-47's? ... our own president is chief sales rep for the military industrial complex.)

Most importantly, as a factor in DISCRETIONARY spending, we are way past 50% of the discretionary budget on military spending. The US, by quite a margin, is the most militaristic nation in the world.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, as government grows you cannot have a government of, for and by...


Oh, we can't? How do you know? Because we've been trying for thousands of years? Well. Plenty of righteous people have been fighting religion for thousands of years. We haven't given up on that, and I think we're finally making some headway.

It's fucking hopeless you're saying. We should just give up and devolve. That's a damned sad perspective, because a world in which we cannot work together, by governing humanity, is a savage world not fit for your children.

My cognitive dissonance must border on religious because I CANNOT and WILL NOT give up my hope for a government of, for and bi [sic].

P.S. Would be great if vs could fix the damned quote system.

@Matthu: of, for and bipartisan. Good one.

I am not disagreeing with you. The video shows 1 guy being scanned before she was lined up to go through and refused. I think she was behind the blocks arguing with them at the start of the video or close enough to the start. We can say she was just in her own little world and didn't care that other people were being picked as long as she wasn't, which is a pretty common trait in all things lately.

She's young and she might even be on the coddled side. But I've personally seen women and especially "enforcement" women being harder on other women than anyone else in the vicinity, especially if the women are roughly the same age or a few years younger. It looked to me that the girl with her hair pulled back was demonstrating this, she seemed more agitated than any other person there aside from the girl being surrounded by however many people "against" her.

It doesn't even have to be her being attractive or not, but to me the whole thing seemed off. They can tell her scan or pat down or she needs to leave. If they thought she was trying to smuggle something onto a plane roping her off a few feet away from other passengers is doing nothing to contain the situation. It's an attraction, if you don't comply we'll rope you off and try to embarrass you and yammer at you instead of making our point and expelling you from the airport. Again if she was that much of a nuisance, they could no-fly list her. The video tape release being split and non-time stamped doesn't exactly eliminate all of my doubts. That they screen more often than the girl noticed (after she had already balked) is apparent, but no idea if they were doing this prior to the the beginning of the situation...one guy was scanned at the beginning. I'll say that for professionals to not be consistent would be doubtful, but professionals wouldn't consider a roped off area sufficient either or showing emotion toward a possible threat.

Most people being surrounded by a lot of unfriendly people after a disagreement would have a different perception than an onlooking, especially if they are young and sheltered. I think it was a lot of over-reaction on both sides part, except the TSA is supposed to a free pass because she might be packing a bomb as underwear......yet they leave her around the rest of the public and in the airport for 20+ minutes as shown in the video instead of isolating or removing.

>> ^nanrod:

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.
Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:
>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

Meg addresses the TSA video release:

You are one of the most ill-informed disingenuous windbags ever.

~~~
Oh okay. Let's see what you brought for lunch.

#1
The only time the Constitution mentions national defense is in the preamble.
Today those militias are known as the National Guard.

Your point being? That the militia is the only "authorized" defense? Is there no oath to “preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

You can argue the size and scope of the military, but not the mandate of its existence.

#2
All Transportation Security Administration [TSA] spending falls under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense budget is a completely different budget.

Not sure what your point is here. I mentioned nothing about the monies of the TSA, only that if you love government sloth and ineptitude, you can expect more of the same from theoretical "Health Security" workers just like TSAers.

Small portion my ass (referring to military budget).

The necessary FIFTH of the economy is dwarfed by the entitlements that are bankrupting the future.

#3
Every year, Social Security and Medicare taxes are stolen out of our wages with a guarantee that we'll be repaid.

You said it, not me. I merely pointed out that there is no Constitutional basis for such programs, both of which are rife with fraud and waste. You can argue the merits of these programs (there are many) but not their Unconstitutional origins. Oh, BTW, Social Security is a tax. And the government doesn't have to pay you a dime of it.

Are you suggesting the government should renege on its 2 Trillion dollar obligation to tax-payers?! *GASP!*

There is no one solution for the Ponzi scheme of SS, but if it's going to be realistically tackled, none of the solutions will be pleasant.

#4
Being harassed at the airport isn't a necessity nor a fundamental right.


Right now, it's their bullsh!t rules. If public opinion turns against the TSA, it's gone. Has it? Not yet.

Healthcare [Well-being] is.

Hope you are able to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. "Health care is a human right" is an opinion, but why do you stop there? Do you believe housing, food, jobs, transportation, etc. are also "human rights" that the State is required to provide?

Put government in charge of health care and you give some people who might have had no care some mediocre care while condemning others to rationing and life-threatening bureaucracy.

And if you think health care is made cheaper and more efficient by government, well, good luck with alllll that.

~~~
I know I've completely wasted my time and breath in yet another vain attempt to point out your fallacies.

You've wasted your time to the extent there's nothing new here. I observe the results of socialism, the trade-offs disguised as solutions, and remain unimpressed. I'm not buying into this BS which isn't worth my money or my freedom, and as Nov 2nd proved, neither is the rest of the USA (except in the usual dummy areas). I'm less of a threat to you than the bureaucrats you're fighting to have take over your life and mine.

While I understand that the point she wants to make is that she shouldn't be subjected to either a full-body scan or a full pat-down, I bet she wishes she'd settled for the body-scanner. I mean, in the end, it would have been far less traumatic and invasive to be scanned, and she would have been able to fly. As it is, she was denied flight and subjected to a far worse indignity than the causual, disinterested eye of a security professional checking her scan for suspicious concealed items and then moving on the the next person.

As for her being singled out because she's good-looking, we only have the interviewer's word for that, and he wasn't there. How self-absorbed would you have to be to think that you were being picked on because of your good looks?

Jesus.

K, so new video posted by blankfist, they say she never said she was cuffed to a chair. Tried to find the portion of that in this video around 4:15 it sounds like she says "Cuffed me in the chair", he tries to question that and she ignores it. I don't like that she hasn't watched the videos during this video interview, or claims not to have. But I caught that the interviewers said no one on this show said she was cuffed to a chair....but she does say she was cuffed, the guy even tries to confirm it.

So hopefully they do a better job of addressing it because I'd like to believe her but the interview and description process, plus the interviewee not watching the video in question is not working in their favor.

TSA squeezed my no-nos! =(

I think I'm in love with GenjiKilpatrick.

Is it time for qm to get the blank name treatment?

>> ^dag:

Sorry, those figures are incorrect. Very conservative estimates put defense spending at over 20% of the budget. More realistic estimates put it much higher.
>> ^quantumushroom:
National defense is a legitimate Constitutional duty. Overall, U.S. defense spending is a surprisingly small portion of the budget, not even 10%. Meanwhile, the federal mafia now gobbles up almost HALF of the total American economy (GDP) compared to about 22% sixty years ago.
Where's the bulk of the money going? Entitlements, social programs and bureaucracy.
Why is any liberal complaining about the TSA whilst pushing for TSA-quality health care?

>> ^dag:
I always hear conservatives clamoring for small government- until the topic of the defense budget comes around. You want small government? Start at the Pentagon.



Since when has accuracy or reality for that matter had anything to do with the majority of his posts. Why bother when you can just make up fun numbers to prove your point.

I always love the double standard of corruption in gov't vs corruption in business.

If gov't is corrupt, OMG!!! FASCIST STATE!! POLICE STATE!! ARMAGEDDON!!

but if it is a business it's corrupt, it's always..oh well, suck it up, that's life...vote with your dollars.

I like neither of those options, but why do businesses get essentially a free pass and we just hope it gets fixed if they lose profit...nevermind that they are still making profit off their corruption.

Who do you think lobbies the gov't with their corrupted dollars to get those body scanners into place?

GET CORPS OUT OF GOV'T and you'll see a much better gov't. Fuck small government, give me efficient government. Give me government that is answerable to the people, not corps. Small gov't is just code for "lets turn everything over to corps"