Fact: Looks like Maddow getting a pat down?

Damn.

Did he offer the guy dinner first, or even a glass of wine? That looks like redneck foreplay – get in the truck, bitch.

Yikes.

Harry Flashman said:
That looks like redneck foreplay – get in the truck, bitch.

LOL,where did that come from?

Rock Steady -

Heh. Just an old joke that seemed to fit the, um, approach to this pat down. Their attitude is, hey, I ain’t askin’. Now, brace yourself, baby, here it comes.

Yeesh.

Ewwww. He should also be wearing a mask. I’m sure there’s plenty of folk out there who don’t maintain things in that region like they should. Stinky.

Newsjunky said:
I’m sure there’s plenty of folk out there who don’t maintain things in that region like they should.

Now just leave Christine O’Donnell out of this story, dude!

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

i don’t know why they have to use the naked scanners. I saw this article that said the lobbyists are responsible for winning the bid for the naked scanners but it looks like the same company also makes the ProVision™ ATD (NEW!) Image-Free Technology scanners. Perhaps because these are newer?

But I don’t think anyone would care about walking through these scanners, they say they use different technology AND the images are seen as unisex stick figures.

http://www.safe-view.com/advancedimaging/provision-at.htm

If you aren’t hesitant to walk through these, you most likely won’t have to get felt up by some airport employee…

‘Naked scanners’: Lobbyists join the war on terror

The degradations of passing through full-body scanners that provide naked pictures of you to Transportation Security Administration agents may not mean that the terrorists have won — but they do mark victories for a few politically connected high-tech companies and their revolving-door lobbyists.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/_Naked-scanners__-Lobbyists-join-the-war-on-terror-1540901-107548388.html#ixzz15PGEjBvD

This is so stupid. This will not make us safer. We are so behind the curve when it comes to airport security

This is a gross oversimplification, but I think there’s some truth in it and I wanted to throw it out there. During the Bush presidency, I remember many conservatives routinely defending the Patriot Act as necessary to maintain our security. Cries of government abuse & misuse and vast invasions of privacy were ignored or shouted down. Many were willing to accept that it was all in the name of domestic security and so the greater good was far more important than anyone’s privacy potentially being invaded. Now, there is this collective outcry over security procedures at airports, often coming from the very same people who never missed a chance to defend the Patriot Act. Is it because the administration is different? Is it completely apples and oranges? What gives?

how do we know what background checks these TSA employees go through? Are we assured they aren’t sexual pervs and child molesters secretly getting their jollies off?

they’re lucky that guy wasn’t facing backwards in that photo…

This is wrong! very, very, very wrong.

They just need to hire ex Ho.oter chics, that way women wouldn’t mind, and men REALLY wouldn’t mind

paulmdoro said:
This is a gross oversimplification, but I think there’s some truth in it and I wanted to throw it out there. During the Bush presidency, I remember many conservatives routinely defending the Patriot Act as necessary to maintain our security. Cries of government abuse & misuse and vast invasions of privacy were ignored or shouted down. Many were willing to accept that it was all in the name of domestic security and so the greater good was far more important than anyone’s privacy potentially being invaded. Now, there is this collective outcry over security procedures at airports, often coming from the very same people who never missed a chance to defend the Patriot Act. Is it because the administration is different? Is it completely apples and oranges? What gives?

my guess is there is far less worry about someone randomly, most likely never, checking your email or phone lines than someone copping a feel or having your naked image seen at the airport. And most likely the Patriot Act was used after persons of interest had been profiled, or were persons of suspicion. This invasion at the airports is for everyone and anyone. Grannies and babies alike. Also, the patriot act was signed like a month after 9/11. People were way more raw back then.

Paul,

Think it through.

There is an huge difference between the Patriot Act and this grab-your-junk knee jerk act. One being the obvious – immediacy. The Patriot Act came on the heels of 3,000 Americans dying a hellish death. This travesty comes ten years later and isn’t directed at a suspect of anything other than someone flying home to see grandma.

Another is that there is a huge difference between listening to overseas phone conversations and grabbing the crotch or looking at a naked image of every single American who wants to board a plane.

Are you defending this?

sarainitaly said:
my guess is there is far less worry about someone randomly, most likely never, checking your email or phone lines than someone copping a feel or having your naked image seen at the airport. And most likely the Patriot Act was used after persons of interest had been profiled, or were persons of suspicion. This invasion at the airports is for everyone and anyone. Grannies and babies alike. Also, the patriot act was signed like a month after 9/11. People were way more raw back then.

Not everyone flies, so the “invasion” at airports does not apply to everyone. Also, you say “most likely” in reference to Patriot Act use, implying that you don’t know for sure what it was used for. Does anyone? Was it simply about checking email or phone records? I do agree that everyone was far more raw right after 9/11.

Harry Flashman said:
Paul,

Think it through.

There is an huge difference between the Patriot Act and this grab-your-junk knee jerk act. One being the obvious – immediacy. The Patriot Act came on the heels of 3,000 Americans dying a hellish death. This travesty comes ten years later and isn’t directed at a suspect of anything other than someone flying home to see grandma.

Another is that there is a huge difference between listening to overseas phone conversations and grabbing the crotch or looking at a naked image of every single American who wants to board a plane.

Are you defending this?

Did I defend it? I was posing questions that came to mind while thinking about responses to the Patriot Act and responses to airport security measures.

sarainitaly said:
how do we know what background checks these TSA employees go through? Are we assured they aren’t sexual pervs and child molesters secretly getting their jollies off?

they’re lucky that guy wasn’t facing backwards in that photo…

There is a criminal background check involved. That’s not that huge a deal, and there are all sort of reporting gaps. The education requirements are minimal – HS, GED or 1 year related work experience. The pay is terrible. Hamburger-flipping type. The working conditions are not the best, and the work itself is pretty boring. Not a prize job. That’s troubling.

You know when I look at this picture, I find it objectionable on so many levels, but what is more demeaning. Getting your junk felt up or spending the day feeling guys’ junk.

Personally, I feel the TSA has severely damaged its reputation by this and a series of ridiculous blunders. The liquids requirement is demonstrably silly. Rarely, I am asked to produce liquids for screening in the US, but far more often in Europe. Rarely, am I asked to remove my shoes in Europe, but always in America. So, the Europeans are more concerned with liquids than Americans, but I can board a Frankfurt bound plane in Houston, and carry unscreened liquids with me. Americans are more concerned about shoe bombs than Europeans, but I can board a Dallas bound plane at Heathrow without having the shoe screening. The whole system is nuts.

So Paul, what is your opinion of this? Just curious.

sarainitaly said:
my guess is there is far less worry about someone randomly, most likely never, checking your email or phone lines than someone copping a feel or having your naked image seen at the airport. And most likely the Patriot Act was used after persons of interest had been profiled, or were persons of suspicion. This invasion at the airports is for everyone and anyone. Grannies and babies alike. Also, the patriot act was signed like a month after 9/11. People were way more raw back then.

And, there have already been examples of naked scanner image pictures being released. The privacy assurances are krap.

KIng here . I travel all the time and at no time have I been subjected to this . Every bus terminal I pass through has been most cordial to my royal visits . I usually stop at the vending machine and allow it to serve me a kandy bar and a kola .

Thanks to Uncle Bush and Cheney with this crap and the yellow lights, assholes.

skyfet said:
Thanks to Uncle Bush and Cheney with this crap and the yellow lights, assholes.

You’re absolutely correct about W and the Big Dick setting us on this course, but you also have to admit Democratic Congressmen and women and President Obama haven’t exactly rushe in to clean up the DHS/TSA mess.

Hey Skyfet, could you translate that for those of use who speak English?

@The Real Royal King
They have loads of stuff to clean up after these jokers from the war, the economy, civil liberties, heck Obama himself has pursued some of these stuff. What kind of crap is this. I didn’t see the phony tea parties then telling ‘W’ ‘ don’t tread on me’, bunch of jokers.

Translate this: Seeing 2012 From My Window – The joker from Utah

Ugghhnnnhhh, gettin’ up in there

skyfet said:
@The Real Royal King
They have loads of stuff to clean up after these jokers from the war, the economy, civil liberties, heck Obama himself has pursued some of these stuff. What kind of crap is this. I didn’t see the phony tea parties then telling ‘W’ ‘ don’t tread on me’, bunch of jokers.

There is tremendous hypocrisy by the ideologues, to be sure. The entertainment of Paul demanding across the board spending cuts, but exempting doctor Medicare reimbursement cuts alone is greatly entertaining.

@The Real Royal King
I wonder if Batchman and the other GOP farmers would stop accepting the farm subsidies they collect and give up their Government run healthcare. I don’t know why people listen to this phonies to begin with.

Hey King and skyfet, if Obamacare is SO great, how come they’ve already handed out over 100 waivers for it?

As expected ‘the joker from Utah’ is diverting attention from the topic at hand. You should be a Politician, you would make a good one, when asked a question about Peter, you would answer by saying, Paul would have done it this way.

Is that Tommy before or after his makeover?
Christopher, please get a grip on reality and control yourself…MAN!

Actually, the ONLY reason I fly is to get those happy-endings pat-downs. (I can’t afford those expense “masseuses” like Crazed S8X Poodle Gore can.) I hope the TSA starts doing them after you get off the plane in addition to before you board. Now that would make for a very relaxing trip.

On a less serious note: Let’s hope that this BIG GOVERNMENT harassment of THE PEOPLE becomes part of the anger against BIG GOVERNMENT in November 2012, when America has a chance to Take Back both the Senate and the White House, in addition to the House. The TSA is the PERFECT metaphor for the BIG GOVERNMENT desired by the lunatic-left d-crat socialists – they want to control EVERYTHING in your life and even be in your pants.

Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

@dummy123
Enters the dummy. AKA DUMB SHIT

Hey, you brought up healtcare, not me! I see your reluctance to answer the question, though! My son says I should be a politician, but I tell him I couldn’t be one, because you have to pretend to like people you don’t. I’d speak my mind too much! Although, Chris Christie proves that the folks like that, so maybe I do have a future!

@Seeing 2012 From My Window
I bet you do.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Looks like Maddow getting a pat down?

thanks. you made me laugh.

Don’t grab my junk, bro!

As a guy I would request a female TSA person to “fondle” my groin. The last thing I want is a guy feeling me up but another guy? No Thanks!!

@Bill Mahwer
Don’t be selfish! just like you like a female to touch you, gays might like a male to touch them. So you are not being considerate by just pointing out that only female TSA would do. Isn’t this America!!!!!!!!!

paulmdoro said:
sarainitaly said:
my guess is there is far less worry about someone randomly, most likely never, checking your email or phone lines than someone copping a feel or having your naked image seen at the airport. And most likely the Patriot Act was used after persons of interest had been profiled, or were persons of suspicion. This invasion at the airports is for everyone and anyone. Grannies and babies alike. Also, the patriot act was signed like a month after 9/11. People were way more raw back then.

Not everyone flies, so the “invasion” at airports does not apply to everyone. Also, you say “most likely” in reference to Patriot Act use, implying that you don’t know for sure what it was used for. Does anyone? Was it simply about checking email or phone records? I do agree that everyone was far more raw right after 9/11.

everyone who flies is subject to the invasion. those who fly are complaining. those who don’t fly i don’t think are complaining… I said most likely because i don’t believe they have the resources to monitor 300,000,000 people and their phone calls. they monitored persons of interest, and foreign people. i don’t think most people feared they would be persons of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

@sarainitaly
If I had used wikipedia as my source of reference at University, I would have failed.

Ugh, do any of these pretty princesses complaining about security even remember the underwear bomber? The shoe bomber? I wouldn’t care if they made us all wear hospital gowns on flights, it’s better than being blown up in air.

I bet if one of the major airlines starting operating their security like El Al, people would fly with them over the others.

TeaPartyPatriot said:

Benjamin Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Did this also apply to the Patriot Act?

paulmdoro said:
Did this also apply to the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

So i’m in the airport and the TSA agent reaches into my pants and pulls out the 5000 shares of NYT stock that I like to keep there and I told him, “Hey man, keep your hands off my junk!”

Mark Steyn

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny.

Easy fix, have all the DADT victims transfer to the TSA and the gay guys can feel up the women and lesbians can goose the males.

This stuff is fantastic. As just one more barrier to a would be Islamic terrorist, he must get felt up before boarding, and presumably be carrying the explosives in his anus. Seems like a cavity search is the only true way to insure against that.

skyfet said:
@sarainitaly
If I had used wikipedia as my source of reference at University, I would have failed.

Indeed.

The Real Royal King said:
here is a criminal background check involved. That’s not that huge a deal, and there are all sort of reporting gaps. The education requirements are minimal – HS, GED or 1 year related work experience. The pay is terrible. Hamburger-flipping type. The working conditions are not the best, and the work itself is pretty boring. Not a prize job. That’s troubling.

thank goodness for background checks. regarding the pay – i believe that to be a huge issue. we are going through these invasive searches by people who, if not for this job, might be flipping burgers elsewhere. not that i have a problem with food servers – i worked as a waitress all through college. but it does cause concern that the security of these planes lands at the feet of people who are paid crap wages, most likely have very little training, and would probably rather not be there to begin with. I also think that the anger towards them is misplaced, and they are only doing their (humiliating and awful) jobs.

As for the naked pictures being leaked, that is disturbing as well. especially when they have the stick figure technology. no one is embarrassed, and no one has to fear their images will get circulated. seems like a no brainer to me.

skyfet said:
@sarainitaly
If I had used wikipedia as my source of reference at University, I would have failed.

well its a good thing you didn’t, than.

do you really think wiki is incapable of being a decent reference for the patriot act or do you just like being rude for no reason?

what is incorrect in the description posted on wiki? please tell me.

i suppose had I grabbed the second link down available in google i would have been spared your unnecessary comment. and pardon me for trying to answer someones question. *eyeroll*
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

@sarainitaly
Are you that naive to ask me the question what’s wrong with wiki?
Answer anyone can write on wiki. How many times has it says on wiki that so and so is deceased, yet they are alive. One of the first warning I received in my first year of uni was never,ever, never take stuff from wiki, because you’d get caught. If I was caught the first time, a warning, second time failure, third time, expulsion.

In summary, it’s not reliable.

sarainitaly said:
most likely have very little training, and would probably rather not be there to begin with. I also think that the anger towards them is misplaced, and they are only doing their (humiliating and awful) jobs.

Are you kidding, since this scandal broke applications for “pat down” officers has gone through the roof. But seriously, shouldn’t they hire lesbians to pat down the men?

And wouldn’t the woman feel better having Ricky Martin doing them?

skyfet said:
@sarainitaly
Are you that naive to ask me the question what’s wrong with wiki?
Answer anyone can write on wiki. How many times has it says on wiki that so and so is deceased, yet they are alive. One of the first warning I received in my first year of uni was never,ever, never take stuff from wiki, because you’d get caught. If I was caught the first time, a warning, second time failure, third time, expulsion.

In summary, it’s not reliable.

i know that, and for a lot of things i don’t use it, but i looked at it, it looked like it was a copy paste from the patriot act and added it. anyone is free to go do their own research. someone asked me a question and i showed them that the answers were readily available.

this isn’t university and i’m not writing a paper. wiki wasn’t around when i was in uni! i don’t think there are a lot of people out there mucking up the info on wiki about the patriot act, and i think the overall info that i wanted to provide to paul was accurate.

what was incorrect on the wiki patriot act page?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Hey King and skyfet, if Obamacare is SO great, how come they’ve already handed out over 100 waivers for it?

This is not an issue, and I doubt I can put it in terms a true Dimwit like you can understand, Michelle-in-Utah, but I’ll sure give it the good old college try (although I know a college education is much despised by the rightists). Some of the waivers apply to insurance companies which have demonstrated that under HCR there would be a premium increase in certain circumstances. This might be because the coverage requirements under HCR are greater or because the largest companies are able to pool more effectively than the smaller companies which employ the greatest number of Americans. In essence, we have a means testing provision, a practical approach to guaranteeing coverage since coverage and not methodology is the key to all of this. Now, I know means testing is much beloved verbiage by rightists, but I have never met a single rightist knucklehead who can articulate what it means. However, drop a line to Tumbleweed. She cannot doubt Google some obscure, discredited, stale source and come up with an explanation on which she cannot expand because she doesn’t understand a word of it. What you need to understand is that HCR was drawn in such a way that it embraced the best methodology available to insure coverage. Coverage, not ideology, is the key here.

Secondly, many of America’s largest and wealthiest companies virtually escape income taxation while those smaller companies which employ the largest numbers of Americans disproportionately bear the burden of taxation. So, the 35% tax credit offered to a large corporation for its portion of healthcare benefits for its employees had little or no practical benefit. Whereas, a locally-owned retail store finds these credits immensely beneficial. It makes more sense for an Exxon to cover its employees receiving merely a deduction than for premiums than it does for Michelle-in-Utah’s Temple Garment Emporium to do so. MUT’s Garment Emporium benefits more. And this further advances the coverage not ideology line doesn’t, it?

Some of the large companies seeking waivers were great advocates of HCR. Is that a conflict? Certainly no more of a conflict than Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann forcefully arguing for ACROSS THE BOARD budget cuts whilst exempting Medicare reimbursement to health care providers and farm subsidies. But, the larger corporations have a motive here beyond simple greed and self-serving interest. They have the financial experts who realize that the pre-HRC healthcare system had reached the point of total collapse and that, by sheer default if nothing else, the US would be in a single payer mode within a decade or two. The single payer mode, they realized, was the most cost-efficient means to provide complete coverage. So, they are transitioning to the inevitable single payer mode. A waiver is a transition device, and it makes sense, because, again, coverage and not ideology is the goal.

I fully realize all of this is well beyond your comprehension skills and doesn’t pander to your flawed radical rightist ideology, but it is the reality.

Personally, on one level, I find the waivers objectionable, but I do understand that it is going to take the mighty wake of the healthcare system falling on you radical rightist’s hard heads to make you see the inevitable.

I wish I could have explained this in simplistic terms you might have some hope of understanding, but while I can teach a cat to use a litter box, I can’t teach him how to clean it out. My limitation, I am sure.

Its funny when people bitch and moan about Wiki…..and then use it all the time. I guess they lack the courage of their convictions.

sarainitaly said:
i know that, and for a lot of things i don’t use it, but i looked at it, it looked like it was a copy paste from the patriot act and added it. anyone is free to go do their own research. someone asked me a question and i showed them that the answers were readily available.

this isn’t university and i’m not writing a paper. wiki wasn’t around when i was in uni! i don’t think there are a lot of people out there mucking up the info on wiki about the patriot act, and i think the overall info that i wanted to provide to paul was accurate.

what was incorrect on the wiki patriot act page?

You’ve actually defined a reasonable approach to using Wiki. The key is one still must use primary sources when applicable, and ought to use Wiki only as a entry level secondary or even tertiary source to begin researching a matter. I’m a big enough man that I can applaud your reasoning and your explanation here, Tumbleweed. And, the next time I see you use Wiki I shall be mindful of this explanation and not pounce on you. For this at least. I still reserve the right to stringently disagree with your reasoning, of course. By the way, I just split an infinitive. I have no intention of editing at this time.

valkyrie101 said:
Are you kidding, since this scandal broke applications for “pat down” officers has gone through the roof. But seriously, shouldn’t they hire lesbians to pat down the men?

why would a lesbian want to pat down men?

i went through this when i flew to rome last month and had to get felt up because my bracelets went off. she was fast and didn’t get all up in my business, so it wasn’t super invasive, and it was fast. but these stories coming out now sound way more invasive and personal.

and no, i wouldn’t want ricki martin getting all vita loco on me, either.
now…george clooney… hmmm

Now that getting on an airplane amount to foreplay, the airlines should replace the seats with couches.

@sarainitaly
Let me break it down for ya! if you want any credibility to your answers, quote directly from the source or a reliable source. Heck, I bet wiki have a link to the patriot act itself, why is it hard for you to go there yourself. Don’t be lazy.

GlennBeckReview said:
Now that getting on an airplane amount to foreplay, the airlines should replace the seats with couches.

and permit smoking.
haha

skyfet said:
@sarainitaly
Let me break it down for ya! if you want any credibility to your answers, quote directly from the source or a reliable source. Heck, I bet wiki have a link to the patriot act itself, why is it hard for you to go there yourself. Don’t be lazy.

if i was lazy i wouldn’t bother to try and help anyone in the first place. and i am not going to paste the entire patriot act here when wiki will do. and yes, there are links within wiki to the patriot act – and if someone is interested in following up they are more than welcome to do their own research. like i said, the top paragraph provided the info that i wanted to give to paul. it served my purposes.

i suppose i could have told paul to go look up his own answers, to not be lazy, but i am not usually rude to people for no reason.

can you please tell me where wiki got the patriot act wrong?

Yesterday I wrote somewhere that flying is a privilege and not a right. Therefore people need to stop the whining and just get on with the necessary security measures being imposed on us by the terrorists. Then I saw an interview on Countdown with an Israeli security expert who explained that this scanning hardware and junk grabbing is unnecessary because one on one interviews with everyone boarding an airplane is more effective and less invasive.

Now I’ve change my mind. The TSA needs to get their hands off your junk (unless you specifically ask for a junk check).

Sarainitaly, when is the last time you changed your mind about something. (I’m asking you because you’re the first conservative I saw going up the page. Don’t take this question personally.)

hey Paul – here is the actual patriot act.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

it is long as hello, and most likely confusing, but the simplified version on wiki is apparently not good enough for skyfet.

hopefully you will prefer this link over wiki, consisting of something like 50 pages, and legal language and will force you to actually search for the authorities granted within the act – unlike wiki that provided the guts to the act, and answered your question, in the first paragraph.

/s

GlennBeckReview said:
Sarainitaly, when is the last time you changed your mind about something. (I’m asking you because you’re the first conservative I saw going up the page. Don’t take this question personally.)

i change my mind a lot. that’s why i prefer to find people that want to engage in civil dialog because i feel a lot can be learned and shared and opinions can be swayed or reinforced by good debate. unfortunately that doesn’t happen here a lot, but i am still trying.

when i flew through Amsterdam once they did personal interviews with the passengers at the gates. while it was FAR less invasive than a body search it was way more effective IMHO. They ask all kinds of questions, why i paid cash, who bought my ticket, why i was travelling, etc. I think a guilty person would be obvious – although the screener needs training. but i was nervous and i didn’t do anything! haha

sarainitaly said:
and permit smoking.
haha

i was kidding here – soooo glad there is no smoking allowed!

Hey Sara, nice to see you here! I haven’t seen this anywhere, I have a caption contest up for the Denver International photo – http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/11/caption-contest-for-tsadenver.html

I bet you would have a good line for it….

hey you! what’s up!? :O)

i said earlier they are lucky that man wasn’t facing backwards in that photo…

Yes, Sara, I had that same experience flying through Holland many years ago, long before 9-11. Do you remember where the underwear bomber boarded the plane he was on when he ended up burning his junk?

I don’t doubt that you change your mind, but pray tell: when was the last time?

Left Coast Rebel said:
Hey Sara, nice to see you here! I haven’t seen this anywhere, I have a caption contest up for the Denver International photo – http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/11/caption-contest-for-tsadenver.html

I bet you would have a good line for it….

ok, I have one for you:

Is Kevin Jennings the new Obama appointed Safe Airport Security Czar?

Found it: the underwear bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam. Hmmm. So much for effective interviews.

CRAP: now I have to change my mind back to junk touching.

GlennBeckReview said:
I don’t doubt that you change your mind, but pray tell: when was the last time?

i have gone back and forth or changed my mind on immigration, healthcare, Democrats….lots of things. i can’t think right now, i have to go make dinner. are you searching for something particular because i might be able to answer if i know what you are looking for.

GlennBeckReview said:
Found it: the underwear bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam. Hmmm. So much for effective interviews.

CRAP: now I have to change my mind back to junk touching.

crap is right! hahah i guess it wasn’t that good….although, it depends on your airline i think, because this was at the gate, by KLM employees.

I think DADT would be appropriate here!
Seriously!
I don’t think you would want gays to wear it on their sleeves
in this job!

GlennBeckReview said:
Found it: the underwear bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam. Hmmm. So much for effective interviews.

CRAP: now I have to change my mind back to junk touching.

Interestingly, however, I had to make a tight connection on a HAM to AMS to IAH trip, and the Full Body Scanners in the “America Room” gate I was assigned to were not working. The scanners were paid for by the US, manufactured by a US company and maintained by that company. The security company said they were constantly not working. That was, by the way, preceded by an interview at the entrance to the security line and followed by a lap top inspection and a wand wave. I actually felt very secure, and it wasn’t all that intrusive.

A New PSA for The TSA? WE’LL Molest Ordinary American Men, Women, Children And their House pets, So the Prophet Mohammed’s Minions, Won’t Have To.

BOOM Shakalaka!!

Thank You For Your Patience And Cooperation America
This Message Was Brought To You By, Big Sis’
Secretary of the uh, Department of uh, Homeland Security

http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/napolitano.jpg Dude!

Are strap-ons legal to wear on an aircraft? Because that would just be too freakin funny.

GlennBeckReview said:
“I don’t doubt that you change your mind, but pray tell: when was the last time?”

sarainitaly says:
“i have gone back and forth or changed my mind on immigration, healthcare, Democrats….lots of things. i can’t think right now, i have to go make dinner. are you searching for something particular because i might be able to answer if i know what you are looking for.”

I was looking for anything specific that you could convey you’d changed your mind about. What I read in your answer is that you’re not especially certain about much of anything.

Maybe I should ask you to name one thing or one ideal that you’ve never wavered on.

All congressmen, women, the president and first lady, all passengers flying on private planes should be required to go through this in the same public area as the commercial passengers. I bet this would stop in a heartbeat!

GlennBeckReview said:
GlennBeckReview said:
“I don’t doubt that you change your mind, but pray tell: when was the last time?”

sarainitaly says:
“i have gone back and forth or changed my mind on immigration, healthcare, Democrats….lots of things. i can’t think right now, i have to go make dinner. are you searching for something particular because i might be able to answer if i know what you are looking for.”

I was looking for anything specific that you could convey you’d changed your mind about. What I read in your answer is that you’re not especially certain about much of anything.

Maybe I should ask you to name one thing or one ideal that you’ve never wavered on.

When you are asking someone for an answer, it is not polite to snarkliy insult them in the process…

I changed my mind about Republicans and Conservatives – and Democrats. Will no longer vote Democrat and realized that Repubs are not the evil monsters Dems try to make them out to be.

I realized the Democratic party is full of hypocrites, race baiters and liars who only care about the rights of those they agree with, only defend those who agree with them, and want to silence the opposition and abhor anyone who doesn’t agree with them. And believe bigotry is bad, except when they are attacking people that don’t think like they do.

I changed my mind about Hillary when she backed Obama. I go back and forth on whether I think Palin should run. I toughened my stance on immigration and think we need tougher laws, and agree with the Arizona law. I’m not as pro-choice as I used to be. I don’t believe Limbaugh is a racist anymore because I actually turned off Liberals ranting about him and bother to actually fact check the smears against him.

I am certain about a lot of things, but I also have grown up and grown more conservative and the 2008 election was a HUGE HUGE HUGE eye opener for me. I was a Hillary supporter and I had my eyes opened where the Democratic party is concerned. No more, no way, no how.

One thing I have never wavered on? equal rights for Gays.

sarainitaly said:
i don’t know why they have to use the naked scanners. I saw this article that said the lobbyists are responsible for winning the bid for the naked scanners but it looks like the same company also makes the ProVision™ ATD (NEW!) Image-Free Technology scanners. Perhaps because these are newer?

But I don’t think anyone would care about walking through these scanners, they say they use different technology AND the images are seen as unisex stick figures.

http://www.safe-view.com/advancedimaging/provision-at.htm

I just saw this article, talking about the machines I was talking about.

TSA could have chosen a less intrusive screening machine

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/17/103930/us-firm-may-have-solution-to-airport.html#ixzz15faYSc2H

sarainitaly says:
“When you are asking someone for an answer, it is not polite to snarkliy insult them in the process…”

You’re not used to that by now from me? Hell, I thought that I was being polite by referring to you as Sara instead of Sarainlalaland. At any rate, I don’t see where I was being “snarkliy insulting.” That can be arranged though. If you can’t see that Limbaugh is a racist, then what does it take? Does he have to come out and use the N word to convince you?

If you can stand to listen to that blow hard, you are wayyyyy further to the right than anyone I know.

You wrote, “I realized the Democratic party is full of hypocrites, race baiters and liars….” That sounds like the Republican party to me. Let me actually cite an example: the tea party insurgents want to cut the deficit and extend the Bush tax cuts. They can’t have it both ways: that’s sheer hypocrisy.

I’d type “your turn,” but I’m nearly done for today.

sarainitaly said:
valkyrie101 said:
Are you kidding, since this scandal broke applications for “pat down” officers has gone through the roof. But seriously, shouldn’t they hire lesbians to pat down the men?

why would a lesbian want to pat down men?

Because presumably a lesbian is not attracted to male men, sexually, so they should be able to touch the male stuff without sexual desire. Isn’t that less offensive for the man? To have his stuff touched by someone who is not doing it for the sexual fun, but as a job. And woman have a natural affinity for homosexual men, who they perceive to be – no threat. For a woman it might be comforting to know that the person who is viewing her naked image or fondling her sweet breasts, is a gay man who is not sexually attracted to her.

I agree with Coulter. Subject the Muslim-looking passengers to a real intrusive hassle, and let the rest of us skate. Maybe give billy clubs to all non-Muslims over 30.

valkyrie101 said:
Because presumably a lesbian is not attracted to male men, sexually, so they should be able to touch the male stuff without sexual desire. Isn’t that less offensive for the man? To have his stuff touched by someone who is not doing it for the sexual fun, but as a job. And woman have a natural affinity for homosexual men, who they perceive to be – no threat. For a woman it might be comforting to know that the person who is viewing her naked image or fondling her sweet breasts, is a gay man who is not sexually attracted to her.

so you don’t think gay men and women are capable of patting down people of the same sex without being turned on?

where do you stand on DADT? Do you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military because they are too turned on by same sex soldiers?

GlennBeckReview said:
If you can stand to listen to that blow hard, you are wayyyyy further to the right than anyone I know.

i don’t listen to him. but more importantly, i don’t listen to the smear merchants who try over and over again, for decades, to try and shut him up. taking a tiny snippit out of context of hours of dialog is wrong and doesn’t make Rush a racist. I fact check the smears. And that is exactly what they are.

A HANDFUL of lies or snippits from a 40+ year long career. hundred, thousands, of hours of shows, and all people can come up with is a 40 year old quote, and some out of context snippits, and unsourced anonymous quotes, that are copy and pasted and repeated millions of times on the internet, to try and smear him.

“What I read in your answer is that you’re not especially certain about much of anything.”

You don’t think that’s snarky?

sarainitaly says:
November 18, 2010 at 9:12 pm sarainitaly(Quote)
0 0

I like everything you said and i second that!!!! Stay strong Sara in Italy, You are making more sense than anyone on here!

My heart goes out to the TSA workers on the line who have to do the deeds dictated by their idiot boss.

Did anyone hear whether or not Janet Napolitano ever answered the question as to whether Muslims would receive the same pat down as everyone else?

teamom711 said:
All congressmen, women, the president and first lady, all passengers flying on private planes should be required to go through this in the same public area as the commercial passengers. I bet this would stop in a heartbeat!

Now that sounds like a reasonable idea!

valkyrie101 said:
This stuff is fantastic. As just one more barrier to a would be Islamic terrorist, he must get felt up before boarding, and presumably be carrying the explosives in his anus. Seems like a cavity search is the only true way to insure against that.

A cavity search with a cattle prod for all Muslims.

BruceGoose said:
Ugh, do any of these pretty princesses complaining about security even remember the underwear bomber? The shoe bomber? I wouldn’t care if they made us all wear hospital gowns on flights, it’s better than being blown up in air. I bet if one of the major airlines starting operating their security like El Al, people would fly with them over the others.

Keeping Muslims from blowing up more planes is simple: Bring back topless (and hopefully good looking) stewardii, free (mandetory?) alcoholic drinks for all passengers, and a requirement that everyone sing “Jesus Loves Me” once the plane reaches 20K’ altitude.

Nahu Tuk said:
A cavity search with a cattle prod for all Muslims.

Just kidding.

GlennBeckReview said:
“If you can stand to listen to that blow hard, you are wayyyyy further to the right than anyone I know.”

sarainitaly says:
“i don’t listen to him. but more importantly, i don’t listen to the smear merchants who try over and over again, for decades, to try and shut him up. ”

I’m glad that Limbaugh has had critics pointing out his racism for decades. It’s not a “smear.” Limbaugh has been pretty racist, but I’d have to do some Googling to get you a quote.

I do remember him recently saying that Communists, Fascists and Liberals are “evil.” That’s an opinion, not a fact, so I can’t claim it to be a lie, but it’s demonizing opponents in a sleazy and baseless manner.

I could accuse Limbaugh of being “evil” just as my wife argues that Beck is evil, but unlike Limbaugh and my wife, I’ve read a lot of Nietzsche, including Beyond Good and Evil which I’ve re-read and studied in a graduate setting. Limbaugh is great to his reactionary fans who are racist and think he’s calling it like it is. Glenn Beck is a hero and a patriot to the gullible and ignorant who do not realize how much he distorts the reality of what he addresses.

Beyond good and evil then are the facts: Limbaugh and Beck both deceive their audiences. If I wrote The Rush Limbaugh Review, I could point to some posts that prove that accusation, but I’ve heard them covered enough times to know that Limbaugh sometimes gets his facts wrong. That makes him, like Beck, a liar, a beloved liar who confirms the fraudulent ideas held by his fans.

I don’t think Limbaugh is “evil,” but he’s a disgusting, uneducated blow hard, sexist and a reactionary who is out of the mainstream. It’s incomprehensible how anyone who values honesty and decency would defend him in any way. Let that explain why I’m a bit “snarky” toward you. At least, it will do for now.

sarainitaly defending the disgusting propagandist Limbaugh says:
“A HANDFUL of lies or snippits from a 40+ year long career. hundred, thousands, of hours of shows, and all people can come up with is a 40 year old quote, and some out of context snippits, ”

Here’s a recent one: Limbaugh on Obama town hall questioner: If she “had been white … they would be all over [her] like white on a Klansman”

So did he call her the N word? No, because he’s trapped by the political correctness that he bemoans. Is his observation devoid of racism? Not exactly, and there are many more subtle expressions of racist attitudes from him recently and going back over the years. Do your homework:

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/rush_limbaugh

Don’t argue with the smears that are spread by the right: argue with the facts presented.

sarainitaly said:
so you don’t think gay men and women are capable of patting down people of the same sex without being turned on? where do you stand on DADT? Do you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military because they are too turned on by same sex soldiers?

No. I was suggesting that a gay man touching the women’s breasts might be less offensive to them. Like having a gay hairdresser.

All this trouble you all go through when you could just get out of the middle east and stop provoking terrorism. Your government was provoking it long before 9/11 and they continue to and you pay the price for it just so the oil companies can have their pipelines and oil fields. Is it worth it? Should your public tax dollars be going to private corporate profits? That’s all the occupation in the middle east is about. What’s more the underwear “bomber” en route to Detroit was a setup by the FBI in a typical entrapment scheme where the FBI pretending to be “Al Qaida” convinced the young man to be a terrorist and even supplied him the chemicals. It was a scam setup just before the scanners were complete.

The pervert looks like he’s enjoying the job WAAAAY too much.