Agreed they are just doing their jobs, but...

speak for yourself

HA! I would not be surprised either..LOL..

its all tied into obama so you may be right

something im sure you'd personally enjoy

HAHA...I'm seriously doubting I'm going to receive a pat-down from a chick like that at the airport. For one thing my wife would gouge her eyes like like some feral cat when she got started, and it doesn't matter I still wouldn't want them doing it to my son who is 7.

im under the impression that almost without a doubt, most people like sex, and that gays prefer the gay sex

yeah, take maasanova for example

What does that mean?

it means the ploy of using the innocence of childhood as a heart string to pull is bullshit.
gay marraige argument is how do we explain it to the kids.
who the fuck cares, they are kids.tell them what ever you want.they think a stork brings them right, so apparently crazy bullshit is what we tell our kids, so make up what ever you like.just cuz a kid is confused isnt a reason to stop any grown up endevour.maybe we should all stop having kids, cuz explaining where babies come from is just too difficult.

once upon a time is was what do we tell the kids about inter-racial marraige.
what do we tell kids about women in the work place.

all a bullshit ploy.
unless we want to live in a world were our policies need to be explainable to our children.i like to think we do what is needed, regardless if your little fucker can grasp it or not.

sorry, i just hate this bullshit argument of "what about the children".

"What about the children" does have a place in the debate, SOMETIMES. But I agree, absolutely not in ALL cases. However, in this particular instance, I think it is relevant.

i just dont get how.
i just dont see how "what about the children" has any bearing on national security.it never has before, so why would it now.
i mean even in through out all of history, no nation has held such a policy.

just how i see it.maybe im missing something.

In this case the TSA Screeners are basically molesting children in the name of National Security.

ive seen a child forced to take his shirt off classified as molestation, wich would mean every gym coach for the last century has been molesting our kids.(shirts vs skins)

actions are one thing, but explaining to a child is another.like saying we cant give kids shots at the doctor cuz they cant understand the need, and just cry.im sorry i just have like no sympathy for this issue in general.dont like it, dont fly.

they're not asking to get rid of the pat downs because "what about our children" they're asking to not pat down our children.

...how don't you see THAT argument?

This post/article has nothing to do with pat-downs in general, just on what is done to kids. we shouldn't tell them it's a game. I agree with you in terms of, "tell them what you want" because if you believe in the pat downs and want to make your kids comfortable, fine, say whatever.

but this post is about how it could be dangerous, as pro-pat-down (anti-liberal, I assume) as you may be, do you not think pedophiles would want a kid to "play" the same "game?" and if your mom said it was ok to play the game once, "what's one more time?" if it was fine at the airport, what's wrong with my neighbors living room?

are you going to take your bias that far? to discount the idea that there are fucked up adults that mess with kids? and desensitizing kids is bad.

...how don't you see THAT argument?

cuz terrorists dont have a children clause.if it is a matter of security (wich we all know its not) then all passengers must be subject.if old grey haired ladies are exempt, its all for naught.it isnt like jihadis wont exploit what ever means can side step security.

no shortage of material exists on how to pray the gay away either, yet we just arent stupid and think in wiser terms.no shortage of stupid ideas exist, and if you believe you need to make up some easter bunny bullshit, your kids are gunna be fucked up anyway.teach them the truth, or dont.i just dont have any outrage over this.if it is an issue for your kid, dont fly.it is just that simple to me.

flaming liberal by the way.just dont have a stake in this issue.

I agree with you on this particular issue. I am also a flaming liberal, but I find my fellow liberals to be as sheep minded as the conservatives. They sit and scream, and then go get on the plane. YES, it is your right to fly. YES, what the TSA is doing is wrong. BUT, the solution is simple....stop flying. The problem will resolve itself if we all did that. But my fellow so called liberals can not be inconvenienced. They laud MLK, and Rosa Parks, but not one of them would be so inclined as to take the steps that those Giants of progress made. Put themselves on the line. Be a little inconvenienced is all it would take today, but are we willing to do even that? No...we sit at home and feel righteously superior because we Blog about how evil it is. We have the government we deserve.

if i wasnt following you before, i am now.

Likewise...;)

LOL

Yup.

not sure, youll have to check with maasanova

I feel you, love
the whole thing is wrong and an obvious abuse of power by the tsa
ps you are truly intelligent and beautiful

This quote is in a couple of articles: "You try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier." As stated by the regional security director for TSA, James Marchand.

Honestly, I feel as though it's tough to say what's real and what's not real in the news when it comes to quotes, but assuming this quote was actually said Marchand, I'd say that's good proof.

Even that quote does not prove anything that this story is asserting. "If you can come up with some kind of game to play with a child..." How about playing patty cake...or peek a boo...it could JUST as easily be interpreted in that way. I am against the TSA and their practices, however this story seems contrived at best. I am not saying it IS, but, unless someone can show me something other than the TSA is "reportedly" asking...well then, to me this story is just a bunch of shit. Shilling stories like this only make it easier for the TSA and their defenders WIN this battle.

Uhh...if it's not already obvious, the bottom line is that strangers should not be touching little kids period in any capacity. In a normal world, the frisking of children by total strangers would be considered sexual assault.

"Play A game with the kids" is in no way equivalent to "make this into a game." Are you trying to ruin the credibility of those who legitimately oppose the TSA?

I never said it was. The fact is it is not OK for the TSA to pat down ADULTS in such a manner. But this PARTICULAR story is at LEAST not based on facts, and at WORST is an outright lie! I OPPOSE the TSA, but when you start making assertions without any evidence to back them up...or even worse Lying in order to try and swing sympathy is the WRONG thing to do. You can not win the debate with unsubstantiated accusations or lies. In fact, if you do that, you will DEFINITELY lose.

Whatever...now you're just playing semantics now instead of acknowledging the obvious. Who's credibility would I be ruining? Yours?

Dude you asked for a source and we gave it to you now you want to call us liars for giving you what you asked for lol

I see your point, and I completely understand that yellow journalism still exists after all these years. Quotes can be interpreted in numerous ways, and the headline for this is certainly inflammatory.
I just think that relating the pat-downs for children to a game in any way is a little off, despite what kind of game it could be related to. So while this story may be a little contrived, it is based off of a quote that someone said. & Isn't that how a lot of our news is created these days? The least we can do with the mumbo-jumbo out there is interpret it in intelligent ways, based off of practices that we see.

You did NOT show a source showing the TSA make a PAT DOWN into a game. You showed a source where the TSA said PLAY A GAME with your child. Do you not see the difference in those two ideas?

Hey, I am not saying that we should not protest TSA policies. But the reason I get so upset when such an inflammatory interpretation of the information is reported in such a way is because it lends credence to the opposition. The LAST thing we need is to shoot ourselves in the foot, and that is EXACTLY what this story does.

"Isn't that how a lot of our news is created these days?" Absolutely, which is why I find the "news" to be full of shit, and I do not give them ANY credibility. The ONLY thing I use the news for, is to research their cited SOURCES. I look into THOSE and draw my own conclusions. It was a simple matter with this story as well. If I can do it, so can anyone else. This story is the REASON why those of us who oppose the TSA are so easily dismissed. I am not sure how ANYONE could interpret that quote in such an Objective way. To assume that this IS what he meant by that quote...well...that is ABSURD. I even find it hard to believe someone could come to the IRREFUTABLE conclusion that that is the stance the TSA is taking based on that quote.

MASSANOVA: Do not be the Alex Jones of the Anti-TSA movement.

Personally I think that my headline if far more accurate than the Raw Story headline, which is why I changed it to be closer to what the regional director of the TSA actually said. Here is the original Raw Story headline:

Exclusive: TSA frisks groom children to cooperate with sex predators, abuse expert says

My headline at least is at least in the context of an interaction between an agent and a child, and in the video the TSA was patting down the child. The regional director does say to tell the child to put his arms up and play a game to make it easier, which suggests that he is either going to pat the child down or at least scan the child.

I don't see what is so inaccurate about this.

Despite the random capitalization to emphasize certain words... I do see where you are coming from. It makes more sense to oppose something when we've seen problems in action. Since there have been issues with the TSA when it comes to pat-downs, it is easy for people to draw conclusions about any issue that comes under the same scope. People, including myself, start commenting and voicing opinions at the get-go in hopes of prevention, not wanting to wait and end up retaliating against the things we hope won't happen.

Sometimes it feels better to attack an issue right away, hoping to stop the problem at the source. But sometimes we should just wait and see what happens -- facts are easier to legitimately go off of than quotes. Problems could arise from potential future games at the airport gate.

Until then.

That is ALL I am trying to say. I am going to let this fight die as I feel as though MASSANOVA and I are actually on the side of this issue, so it is not worth antagonizing just to make a point over what could be debated is simply semantics. I had my say, and I am behind MASSANOVA 100% on the issue, if not the way in which we choose to express it.

Fine lol I'm going out now

Yeah, like reportedly weapons of mass destruction. Oh, wait, we slaughtered 600,000 and sacraficed 5,000+ of our young on that one.

all we really need to do is bring in the israelies and they'll clean this thing up nice and proper.

Yeah, why search a kid when you can just run over the little shit with a tank. Go Israel.

thats what i'm sayin. go israel!

everyone lies at one time or another whether its taught or not. except me of course

If they know that the next attacks are going to be on buses and subways then why would our vast numbers of law enforcement, government, private and quasi-governmental intelligence agencies, (plus citizen snoop brigades) be unable to stop a terrorist attack?

Plus, I thought that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to enable all of these groups to share information much easier than before 9/11 so you would think that they would be two steps ahead of any terrorist plot, not two steps behind.

Makes no sense.

Ok. An airplane is a relatively controlled area. In order to gain access you have a choke point heading into the secure boarding area. You must have identification and you are scanned/searched/molested. You luggage maybe scanned or opened and if you and your id dont show up in the plane they stop and remove your luggage. People have been domesticated and accustomed to being searched before getting on the plane. You have a reasonable chance of stopping an attack. Not perfect but reasonable. However the area of the airport outside of the controlled boarding area is easily accessible. Bus stations are easily accessible. Sporting events have minimal security with little to no need for identification and have large crowds at ticket gates and entrances. In order to prevent a bomber or shooter, especially one willing to die in the attempt, you would have to provide security barriers, check points and armed guards completely sealing these kind of areas off. Imagine all access to airports being through security checkpoints with armed guards searching your car, using bomb sniffing dogs and demanding identification from every person in your party. Bus stops surrounded by armed guards and dogs and if you so much as set your bag down and step away immediately a full scale security response is put into motion shutting the entire area down. You might as well be living in Baghdad or along the Israeli border. People might be wondering just what we need the goverment for if they cannot keep us safe without all this "inconvenience". Better to let the attack happen first and pretend to be surprised. Sort of like 911.

9/11 could have been stopped and if you believe the official 9/11 story, various agencies had all the intel that the attacks were coming and some intel agencies were even running various drills of a pending attack days before and during the 9/11 attack.

Drills were also ran during the London 7/7 bombings and a drill was also being ran during the first WTC Bombing in 1993. In fact, the FBI actually paid a former Egyptian military officer to build a real bomb for the drill after they told the guy to only build a fake bomb.

We are the greatest military nation in the world, we have an unbelievably vast surveillance network that has been in existence since at least the 1980's, and believe me they are monitoring everything. Nothing is going to slip through unless they want it to slip through.

they were also running drills months and years before. And running drills months and years after. If you put all the drills together as if they were all occurring simultaneously its looks overwhelmingly suspicious. If you actually look at the timeline and specifics it just looks like a bunch of drills. This sounds like the theory explained to me that norad was separate from all other government and military and no one had a clue on 911 what they were doing and never communicated all morning long about what was happening. allegedly norad was looking at real radar and thinking the blips were fake. Somehow no communication was taking place between norad air controllers and civilian controllers yada yada yada.

Well you can rationalize it all you want and call it a "theory" but that doesn't change the fact it happened. They run drills, some have gone live and the gov't had the intel for both the 1993 and 2001 terror attacks.

I think it's far more ridiculous for you to be saying unequivocally that the gov't won't be able to stop an attack as if it were a 100% forgone conclusion as opposed to me stating that the gov't runs drills and they have in the past gone live

Yes a terrorist attack happened. Massive government conspiracy involving multiple nations and hundreds if not thousands of co conspirators and unbelievable technology and coordination with out any actual evidence of the conspiracy did not. Damn man look at the info claimed to be released by wikileaks not one bit of credible documentation of this conspiracy.

profiling, the wave of the future

boycot driving, bike,boat and longboard FTW :D

rofl