So which is worse, a TSA employee “accidentally” exposing a 17-year-old’s breasts or the fact that we’ve designed a security system that imposes body gropes on infants, teenagers and wheel-chair-bound grannies?

Obama staff (the one on the left earns $172,000 per year of your money) celebrate new TSA guidelines.

Billions wasted on goons and nonsense.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “So which is worse, a TSA employee “accidentally” exposing a 17-year-old’s breasts or the fact that we’ve designed a security system that imposes body gropes on infants, teenagers and wheel-chair-bound grannies?

  1. Walt

    Dude –
    I think this a trick question. Of course the obvious answer is infants and wheel-chair-bound grannies. But I really can’t toss out the exposed breasts, until I see a picture of the boobs in question. Can you post one so I can properly answer your query?

    In fairness to the TSA, boob bombs could pose a real threat. If this 17 year old hottie was stacked like Dolly Parton, do you have any idea the damage she could do? I feel a potential boob bomb threat of this magnitude must be properly investigated and exposed, for the good of us all.
    What do you think?
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  2. Anonymous

    i thought neo cons liked pro security measures.

    • I wouldn’t label myself a neo con, but anyone with common sense would deplore political feel-good measures that don’t enhance security, do waste billions and, in the TSA example, serve merely as , as AJ puts it,”obedience training”.

  3. AJ

    What’s going on in the US has nothing to do with security and everything to do with obedience training. If they wanted security they’d follow the El Al example. Oddly, there are numerous Youtube videos of interviews of passengers in airports who are ok with the whole thing because “if it makes us safer…” One day people will look back at the movie “Dumb and Dumber” and marvel at the fact that there used to be people who really were that smart.

  4. Anon58

    AJ – Excellent point about the El Al example. Had the U.S. airline industry had El Al security measures in effect (especially a cockpit that is never opened, for any reason), 9/11 doesn’t happen.

  5. Peg

    Part of the problem is that real security would be politically incorrect. Unfortunately, too many in charge would rather have billions wasted and less real security, if the converse would mean venturing into politically incorrect territory.

    I blame the Republicans for not figuring out how to connect with enough voters & sell capitalism, for not moderating their far right social stance, and for not being cool

  6. AJ

    In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?

    Excerpt from: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2029:secession-are-we-free-to-go&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

  7. CatoRenasci

    AJ and Peg are quite correct – it is tyranny creeping in on little cat feet – with a grope and a prod along the way.
    Disgusting. Liberty is something we knew in our youth. We use EzePass which tracks where we go for the convenience of not having long toll waits (and they could take pictures at every toll booth anyway…) and there are security cameras everywhere. Our phones know our location.