Excellent. Enjoy !!
Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:
Thought I would post this again for those that haven't seen it or for those that would like to see it again. Love it! Have a laugh!
and a boat load of days on facebook
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"give me control of my own permaculture and I care a lot about what makes law"
Don't have a problem with the TSA, As long as they do their job the right way. But when they pat down old ladies or old men, little children proves nothing. Even if the old lady was planning on taking down a plane. She would never succeed so why are we focusing on real Americans, other than the ones that really did crash our planes?
And I don't have a problem with Congress, except when they take too much of my money, spend too much of it, regulate businesses to death, vote for bills without reading them, ignore the Constitution, insider trade, sell votes to lobbyists...
How many TSA agents do you think there are who haven't been complicit in rubbing down children, touching private parts, watching the naked body screen, and otherwise making passengers feel violated? I'm not saying they all enjoy it, but they do it just the same. Maybe there are some TSA desk jockeys somewhere who just fill out forms and leave people alone, and in turn I would imagine the reporters with cameras pretty much leave them alone.
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.
really pissed me off !!
Dr.Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions
Romney is Obama - DONT vote for more of the same!!
They love their position of power and authority. Pathetic.
the powers that be knew that when they set the whole thing up. Take the most poorly educated people in the population and give them badges with authority over others and you can get them to do anything you want. I bet if and order came down to beat a wheelchair bound old woman with a nightstick in an airport line 95% of them would have no problem with it. This country is so many shades of screwed up I have a hard time keeping it straight in my head anymore.
The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson
as opposed to the exact opposite thing they are "supposedly" doing.
ADAM, GOD BLESS YOU GOOD SIR.
You are going to change the world!
...on our nation today, and how many stupid people we have in the TSA. Not surprising when they hire a lot of these part-time, to temporary low IQ people and just handed them HIGH PAYING FED jobs, gratis of the spendthrift politicians.
There are no terrorists, except in the imagination of the billionaire elites who contrived them. Bill Meehan died 9/11, and his guilty murderers are NOT to be found, and I think you know why...
There is more than one reason they say.....Don't fight the Fed....in fact don't challenge the WH, the Media, or any branch of government--from the lowly plebe workers to the rich lowly politicians.
They don't have a Walmart preshift meeting or something. Say if someone starts filming give them "Joe's" card or get Joe who can at least give a coherent statement. Not some goon who looks like someone out of central casting . The fact that none of them seem to know that filming is not illegal tells me there is very little training .
There was not one person in this film that made me feel one iota safer. In fact just the opposite.
"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
gadfly on sh*t, adam at his best.
"Put the camera down."
Adam: "No. That's OK, but thank you."
"I'm sorry I'm making you uncomfortable."
Adam: "I don't think you are (laughs)"
Because I'm confused about something, and I want to make sure I have it right in my head.
Adam is asking, "How many terrorists has the TSA caught?" and when they can't answer or answer "zero", we are espousing this as the reason we don't need the TSA.
Yet, months ago people were arguing about the attempts and attacks on 2nd amendment rights, and when pressed in to a corner one of the responses on why we needed guns for home protection was that the thief would not know if someone was armed, so therefore wouldn't want to rob a place if he wasn't sure. And yet, we could have had someone from the "other side" like Adam, asking us, "How many burglars have you shot in your own home with an AR-15?" and most of us would have had to say, "Zero". Would that have been counted as a "win" for the opposition?
Guess what I'm saying here is:
TSA's presence is to people being unsure if they can get through security without getting caught, as having an AR-15 in your home is to burglars not wanting to break in to your house so they won't get shot.
Does that make sense? Don't get me wrong I hate the TSA. I'm simply trying to find the logic here, so that I don't get blindsided by someone who has the argument that the TSA's position isn't so much to catch Terrorists as much as it is to Deter them. Just like owning a gun and protecting your property isn't so much to go around killing people as it is to Deter people from trying to hurt you or your family.
Please help me find the flaw in the argument here. I realize it puts me as playing devils advocate, but I'd like to make sure I have it right in my head.
You're actually asking a very complicated question on what is commonly called "deontology" vs "consequentialism".
Basically it's the difference between a moral defense of an action and defending that action based on it having good consequences.
Ayn Rand was known to chastize people who were ostensibly "on her side" in that they were arguing for the same conclusions as her, but were doing so for bad reasons, beacause even if the "bad" argument works *this time* for *this issue*, it implicitly concedes some awful things.
It's expected you'd get downvoted on DP, as this is a political blog, not a philosophical one, and people here "want people on their side" and will downvote those who criticize people "on their side" regardless of why they're being critical.
If this is unclear let's use your gun example. below Is a rough example of: (1) consequentalist argument (2) moral argument, (3) why I think one of these arguments is "better" even though they both argue FOR gun rights, (4) yet why it's understandable that bashing the "bad argument" on DP gets you downvoted:
(1) Consequentalist Argument: "If more people own guns that would be better for YOU (or SOCIETY or whatever)."
(2) Moral argument: "I have a right to own a gun because i have a right to own property. period. Whether MY owning a gun makes YOU or others more safe is entirely irrelevant. I don't have to justify my rights in terms of what you feel leads to a better conclusion. The burden is on YOU to say why my exercising a right is, in and of itself aggression (a negative). The burden is on you to show how any individual and specific action is a negative, there is no burden on me to show why exercising a right is a positive for you, your society or your value system. If my having the right to own guns happens to help your society (which it does) this is merely a byproduct of my having the right to own a gun, not the source of the right."
(3) The comsequentalist argument is, in my opinion, extremly dangerous. Even if it works in convincing the listener to side with rights ON THIS ONE ISSUE, it doesn't contradict the bad premise that "rights come from whats best for society" but rather it strengthens this premise and merely convinces them that in this one specific case, this one right is what is best for society. As if it's essential to examine every single issue, collect data and then analyize whether every individual aspect of rights is a net negative or a net positive based on how the data plays out.
(4) very few on DP think this deep or read this closely into an argument and if you say "dude! Saying that you have a right to own guns because they make the world safer is horrible in that it presumes rights come from some implitcit obligation to make society safer in the first place. I only have an obligation not to harm others." what they hear is "I am in favor of gun control." and will downvote you.
Adam is admittedly using bad (consequentalist) philosophy here. But I believe, unlike rand, that one can use consequentalist arguments in conjunction with moral ones. Moral arguments are better and should be the intellectual foundation of any defense of rights, sure... but there's no reason why you can't also use consequentalist arguments as marketing or to drive the point home. Which is exactly what Adam is doing here. I'm friends with Adam and know fully that he is entirely aware of the fact that ethical frameworks cannot be solely based on consequentalist thinking and that he only uses it for marketing/persuasion. (he often uses moral ones too, depending on his mood or audience etc).
doesn't mean I am feeling up old people and little kids day in and day out. Me owning a gun doesn't mean I can go through your stuff and steal whatever I desire. Owning a gun doesn't give me free reign to bully everyone and even go so far as to test their drinks for no reason. Me owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. The TSA douchebags serve NO purpose except to get us used to being bullied! DUH!
are ill-informed and mis-informed
ar-15s are the perfect weapon for a kid to grab if he is home alone ,
a pistol would be more unmanageable than a rifle , especially for a 15 year old kid
look up the movie
also adam was asking the QUESTION because the answer is ACTUALLY ZERO!!
he also demonstrated how he snuck in pepper spray past the screeners
"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL
Since we're constantly being reminded about the scary terrorists, it's not too much to ask TSA to scrounge up some kind of estimation or cite a scenario.
I don't think his goal was, "gimme a precise number or I got you," but more to inspire/remind people that we're the boss. Or at least supposed to be. Adam does a great job of that.
Well, I guess Adam's point was to question the actual, objective "performance" of an "administration" (arguably questionable) that essentially spawned out of the 9/11 event along with the Patriot Act.
I mean, for instance, there have always been customs in ports and airports - they're objectively useful re: import/export regulations that sovereign countries decide for themselves as far as flows of tangible goods are concerned - and whether we like those (laws) or not... Now, what about the TSA and those supposedly so terribly threatening "terrorists"?
I can't help but also think about the Broken Window fallacy re: a suspect, veiled intent for that TSA, anyway.
My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".
"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle
Why not ask the ceo of tsa? Bet he tells you they haven't got any terrorists to report because they are doing a good job.
I'm not saying their harrassment of customes isn't offensive and upsetting, but I still think asking the folks who are happy to have a job how many terrorists has tsa caught is mean.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Mean to the TSA dumbasses? How about how mean THEY are to the innocent people that pay to be abused and robbed by THEM? Geez! If they are going to have jobs that are illegal and downright evil then WHO CARES how mean Adam is to them?
How mean TSA is? to me it appears that they have been trained to PROTECT US FROM TERRORISTS, and so they adopt a "everyone is a terrorist" attitide on the job, because that's the job, and "common sense" can make you lose a job, depending who watching.. and that's why I think it's cruel to attack the people with the jobs, when people need jobs, when the real problem has to do much further up the corporate chain of command.
Unfortunately, Michael Moore (who I am no fan) has more balls or brains than Adam because at least he's got interveiws with people who have power. Why not go after the CEOs of TSA and airports for an interview? Come up with an "ISSUES TOUR" and pull some bands together, get a freedom train, go coast to coast or around the nation, take some breaks and see some places. Drop the 1990 Howard Stern set and punk act .. hell you could have been touring the GOP conventions.. CA is this weekend.. I hear Raimondo is speaking.. climb out of the box allready your starting to look like a cracker.
"Why not go after the CEOs of TSA and airports for an interview?"
That won't work anymore than going after the workers. They have no interest in the Constitution, your rights, this so-called free country, other than protecting their own jobs which makes them feel stronger than dictators. They are sell-outs.
What is beneficial is having this material to show to the public, especially those who don't fly and may not be aware.
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
besides phobias, already know and why they don't fly.
It's one thing to damn a person for doing a job when you have alternatives for him, and another to damn him for working when there are few jobs or no jobs other than military.
It's being paid to abuse others.
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
It's paying bills in a country that has few jobs available.
LOL! Adam is such a badass.
Thanks for posting. :)
Win a free pat down.
I'm guessing 20. Did I win? I'll pass on the prize.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: