My Continued TSA Saga

MegIn light of my recent TSA encounter, I have received national media attention, including FOX News, Drudge Report, InTouch magazine, and more.  Even the TSA published a pair of their own videos, since they had the freedom to do something I was prevented from doing myself – recording.  The videos, which lack even the most standard feature(s) of surveillance videos like a time stamp, the ability to show multiple angles of the same area, or even a clear view of one area in general; are supposed to disprove my claims.  While everyone is free to determine what they believe to be true, to me this another case of government not giving you the full story.  The TSA has continuously been caught in lies to cover the embarrassment of the truth, and this seems to be yet another instance of that, in attempts to misguide attention from the real issue.  The biggest question for me is: why is there a large portion of the secondary screening area not shown in either camera angle?  An area where much of my incident took place, and where countless others have been taken to be put through a procedure I can only describe as molestation.  This should be a concern for everyone.

Directly after this event occurred, I called into Free Talk Live to share what had just happened to me.  Like anyone who has just experienced a traumatic event, I was shaken and attempting to recall these events as clearly as could.  Things I said were either misinterpreted by others, or I may have misspoke while still trying to recall the events to the best of my knowledge.  Once this story went viral, it took on a life of it’s own, and I had no control over the elaborations or misinterpretations others chose to print.  This is to be expected when it comes to media, and I do not feel a responsibility to defend things I haven’t even said as truth.

The issue still remains that I was harassed, intimidated, humiliated, and eventually forced out of a contract I made with an airline by a third party – the TSA.  All this from people who are paid to keep us safe with stolen money.  I chose not to be photographed naked.  I chose to question the purpose of causing me immense discomfort through allowing a stranger to intimately touch my body.  For this, I have now faced great emotional strain and loss of my time and money, as have those who have been kind enough to help me through this difficult ordeal.  I have received countless emails from others who were subjected to the TSA’s dehumanizing treatment, and I can only continue to push the real issue here: Nobody should be forced to endure such intimately invasive procedures for the supposed (false sense of) safety they are meant to accommodate.

If you support my actions, and would like to help me return home, I ask that you please contribute to this chip in that is going directly to George Donnelly, who was gracious enough to front me the money for a return ticket home.  The chip in has been set at $300, and any extra money received over the cost of the ticket price will go to website WeWontFly.com; in hopes of bringing information regarding these degrading practices to light.

Please go here to contribute: Get Meg Home Chip In

If you would like to support more liberty activists like myself, I am also involved in the creation and execution of the Keene Activist Center.  This is a place for liberty activists in Keene to gather, share ideas, and prepare themselves for the activism they will continue to use in bringing about an end to the violent state and introduce people to a society based on voluntary interactions between consenting human beings.  Donations to the Keene Activist Center can be made at: Keene Activist Center Donations

  • Paul

    It might be a very minor improvement, but TSA is in charge — even “private” security must operate under the supervision of the us government, follow the same procedures, and even be paid by the US government (how that makes them private I don’t know … private like halliburton and backwater I guess). Significantly different security policies are illegal.

    What’s more, TSA salaries, as well as the salaries of any alternatives, are still being paid with extorted money.

    It certainly doesn't help problems of mandatory, universal, invasive screening techniques. The possible minor improvement comes because agents may be easier to fire (it's close to impossible to fire federal employees). This might help reduce bad behavior by individual agents.

  • holy_canole

    "even “private” security must operate under the supervision of the us government, follow the same procedures, and even be paid by the US government "

    Can you cite that?

    Regardless, your argument that airports are 'forced' to use TSA is obviously not true.

  • Zeus

    Yes, that can be cited: http://is.gd/hgAeq

    2nd to the last paragraph:

    "The federal government pays the cost of screening whether performed by the TSA or by contractors, and contractors work under federal supervision."

    So now that airlines have been "reminded" they can opt-out, perhaps there will be some competition in the market to provide different and innovative security measures instead of relying on a big dumb parasitic bureaucracy.

  • Paul

    Can you cite that?

    Yes, here's the relevant portion of the transportation security act (full text here: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviation_and_Transp… )

    Bold is mine:

    ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—On or after the last day of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the Under Secretary transmits to Congress the certification required by section 110(c) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, an operator of an airport may submit to the Under Secretary an application to have the screening of passengers and property at the airport under section 44901 to be carried out by the screening personnel of a qualified private screening company under a contract entered into with the
    Under Secretary.
    ‘‘(b) APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.—The Under Secretary may approve any application submitted under subsection (a). ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANY.—A private screening company is qualified to provide screening services at an airport under this section if the company will only employ
    individuals to provide such services who meet all the requirements of this chapter applicable to Federal Government personnel who perform screening services at airports under this chapter and will provide compensation and other benefits to such individuals that are not less than the level of compensation and other benefits provided to such Federal Government personnel in accordance with this chapter.

    ‘‘(d) STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANIES.—The Under Secretary may enter into a contract with a private screening company to provide screening at an airport under this section VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:46 Nov 29, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00071 Frm 00016 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:PUBLAWPUBL071.107 APPS16 PsN: PUBL071 PUBLIC LAW 107–71—NOV. 19, 2001 115 STAT. 613 only if the Under Secretary determines and certifies to Congress that—
    ‘‘(1) the level of screening services and protection provided at the airport under the contract will be equal to or greater than the level that would be provided at the airport by Federal Government personnel under this chapter; and ‘‘(2) the private screening company is owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States, to the extent that the Under Secretary determines that there are private screening companies owned and controlled by such citizens.
    ‘‘(e) SUPERVISION OF SCREENED PERSONNEL.—The Under Secretary shall provide Federal Government supervisors to oversee all screening at each airport at which screening services are provided under this section and provide Federal Government law enforcement officers at the airport pursuant to this chapter.
    ‘‘(f) TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS.—The Under Secretary may terminate any contract entered into with a private screening company to provide screening services at an airport under this section if the Under Secretary finds that the company has failed repeatedly to comply with any standard, regulation, directive, order, law, or contract applicable to the hiring or training of personnel to provide such services or to the provision of screening at the airport.’’

    Regardless, your argument that airports are ‘forced’ to use TSA is obviously not true.

    I was going based on a ppt TSA had on their website a while back, which specifically stated that the act had "authorized" TSA to control security for all commercial flights in the US. I mistakenly inferred that this strictly means TSA employees must operate all security devices.

    This certainly qualifies as control, however — this is really hardly more than TSA wearing different uniforms, and profit going to private individuals. Policies, supervision, even compensation must be the same.

    No important freedom of choice is respected — other than, as I say, perhaps the ability to fire individual agents.

  • Steven

    "Locking the cockpit door and arming the pilots solves the problem. What they did will never work again. It wouldn’t have worked in the first place if it weren’t for boneheaded FAA regulations."

    Well what if some idiot smuggles a gun or some other weapon on board? How would it be caught if their not searched?

    "No, I’d want them left the heck alone, because as long as they don’t harm anyone else, what someone puts into their own body is their own business."

    Excuse me? what…Um, in case you haven't heard, smuggling drugs and other contraband is well…illegal. You "want them to be left alone" and "it's none of their business". How can it be none of their business?? If your carrying drugs or other contraband on you then you should be stopped before your able to smuggle it over. Unless i'm reading wrong here and your advocating people doing illegal things and you think theres nothing wrong with smuggling drugs across the border…

    "I’m scared that you think those things are actually going to protect any of us from a determined nutball and that you’re willing to trade your liberty so casually for the illusion of safety you’re being sold.

    It’s snake oil, plain and simple."

    OK Zeus, if a "determined nutball" is going to do everything in his power to blow up/hijack a plane, then wouldn't you want to do everything possible in order to try and stop him?? It's like your saying reverse logic: your saying if someones going to try something bad hard enough, we should just stand by and not do anything, and because of not doing anything, hes going to get away with it.

    If people were searched and screened, then at least theres a chance (I would hope to god for the sake of people lives) that its a good chance of catching this nutball!

    "Wow, people living their lives without being groped or nudie scanned by their government? What a shocking idea! It almost sounds like a description of a free country.

    But hey, if you want to choose an airline that nudie scans you, gropes you, or even does cavity searches and stomach pumping, feel free. I just want the freedom to patronize a different kind of airline, I want the airlines to be free to choose what kind of security they want to use, and I want to stop being forced to pay for TSA tyranny."

    OK, i'm just totally confused on how you expect this to work. How would you want things to work in order to prevent terrorists from smuggling bombs or weapons on board planes? Do you believe that this would be better handled by an outside, non-government contractor? And if this outside contractor were to conduct airport screenings, then how would you suggest they do it? You object to x-ray screenings because your concerned about the radiation and pictures of yourself. You object to body pat downs because you don't want anybody touching you…so whats left? The honor system?? Do you even believe people should be searched or screened at all before they board a plane?

  • (think)Steven

    Steven on Mon, 15th Nov 2010 10:35 pm

    ——————————————————————————–

    While I agree that the TSA should treat passengers with some respect, for instance that TSA agent had no right to rip up your ticket, and that they should have answered any and all questions you had. I don’t see what the problem is with the primary body scan screening. If you don’t want the primary body scan, then opt out (which you did). Once you opt out, you have to take the secondary screening which is a full body pat down. I don’t see how this “molestation”. It’s a same-sex TSA agent, wearing gloves, patting your body down and searching for anything suspicious. Its just a fact of life now in a post 9-11 world. Would you feel comfortable sitting in a plane with your family/friends knowing that other passengers weren’t screened or searched? Thats just how the world is now, blame the terrorists, like that stupid underwear bomber guy. The TSA needs to do some revamp to treat passengers better, but they are doing their job. You don’t like it, then don’t fly<————-…..WTF???…"same-sex TSA agent"…….So, you're OK with gay & lesbians doing that "same-sex" screening, or would lesbians be forced to screen men, and gays forced to screen females???…Why is it "OK", if it's "same-sex"???…keep thinking…………………………………….~

  • theKINGofKEENE

    …i can see it now: Osama Bin laden, tossing and turning, sleepless, wondering what, oh!, what is he ever going to do!?!?!?!…..Thanks to the TSA, terrorists will *NEVER* be able to strike anywhere, ever again! DAMN THAT TSA….i feel so safe, now, thanks, Nanny-State!…

  • theKINGofKEENE

    Gee, if terrorists didn't get caught everyday at airports, thanks to TSA screening, how would we ever catch them???..~tKoK..

  • Zeus

    OK Zeus, if a “determined nutball” is going to do everything in his power to blow up/hijack a plane, then wouldn’t you want to do everything possible in order to try and stop him??

    Within reason, yes, but not if it means throwing away the principles of liberty, human dignity, and self-responsibility that once made America a place people fought against all odds to get to so they could pursue the promise of the American Dream. If America is turned into an Orwellian police state where pornoscanners, crotch-grabbing and torture are the norm, how is that any different than being invaded by some foreign power or taken over by degenerate nutballs? What then would be my interest in preserving or defending it then?

    You don't keep America safe from "the bad guys" by taking away the very freedoms and principles that inspired it.

    It’s like your saying reverse logic: your saying if someones going to try something bad hard enough, we should just stand by and not do anything, and because of not doing anything, hes going to get away with it.

    No, I'm saying you don't cut the chicken's head off because it might get a headache or sprain its foot. Let common sense prevail. Grabbing the genitalia of men, women and children or irradiating them with gamma rays wasn't needed in the last 9 years, it isn't needed now. Lowering ourselves to the level of degenerate perverts and sado-masochists — for any reason — only makes us as bad or worse than that which we fear.

    If people were searched and screened, then at least theres a chance (I would hope to god for the sake of people lives) that its a good chance of catching this nutball!

    And since necessity is the mother of invention, it stands to reason that security groups competing for business — vs some government bureaucracy that gets paid the same regardless and is completely unaccountable — are a great deal more likely to come up with innovative solutions that don't include deathrays or crotch-grabbing to make us safe.

    If you want your body to be irradiated, photoed nude, and have your crotch felt-up so you can feel safe, I respect your choice. Just have the courtesy to respect the wishes of others over *their* bodies and let them choose other alternatives in a competitive marketplace.

  • Paul

    Well what if some idiot smuggles a gun or some other weapon on board? How would it be caught if their not searched?

    I wouldn't care. In fact, all the evidence shows that average people being armed keeps them safer. Many attacks since 9/11 have been stopped by average passengers, and none have been stopped by TSA.

    Keep in mind though, I'm just describing the kind of airline I would patronize. You're still free to choose one that does any kind of invasive search you want.

    Excuse me? what…Um, in case you haven’t heard, smuggling drugs and other contraband is well…illegal.

    Lots of things have been illegal. It used to be illegal for black people to sit at the front of the bus. It used to be against federal law to help slaves escape. There's a law on the books where I'm from prohibiting people from playing sports on Sunday. Just because a law exists doesn't mean that law is just, or should be enforced.

    You “want them to be left alone” and “it’s none of their business”. How can it be none of their business??

    Because it isn't. Politicians don't own other people's bodies, and what people put in them is none of their business (so long as they don't harm anyone else, of course).

    If your carrying drugs or other contraband on you then you should be stopped before your able to smuggle it over.

    Why? Suppose they made bananas illegal tomorrow. Would you now advocate that people be thrown in jail for having bananas? Think for yourself — don't just blindly go along with what politicians say.

    Unless i’m reading wrong here and your advocating people doing illegal things

    We have federal holidays for people who intentionally did illegal things in this country — because the laws they broke were unjust.

    and you think theres nothing wrong with smuggling drugs across the border…

    Actually, I don't support recreational drug use. I think it's a bad choice in general — and certain drugs can be extremely unhealthy, or even dangerous. But I certainly wouldn't advocate that someone be thrown in jail over it, any more than I'd advocate someone be thrown in jail for eating too many mcdonald's hamburgers.

  • theKINGofKEENE

    What has been the single biggest source of lack of respect for laws in particular, & gov't in general???…Bad laws, & bad gov't???…what else could it be???…If the laws, lawmakers, and lawkeepers, *ALL*, don't respect *ME*, why should *I* respect *THEM*???…….~tKoK.

  • Nick Cash

    Paul on Wed, 17th Nov 2010 8:40 pm

    Actually, I don’t support recreational drug use. I think it’s a bad choice in general — and certain drugs can be extremely unhealthy, or even dangerous. But I certainly wouldn’t advocate that someone be thrown in jail over it, any more than I’d advocate someone be thrown in jail for eating too many mcdonald’s hamburgers.

    Nick Cash.

  • Ambrose M

    I grew up in the UK during the regular bombings by the IRA. I would be lying if I said that I wasn't conscious of the risk when going to the pub when in London, or using the Tube.

    Despite the bombings and many deaths life continued pretty much unchanged. I was, and still am, very aware of bags left unattended in public places. But otherwise everyone just carried on. After every bombing people would be interviewed and would say "I'm not letting these people change my habits."

    This to me is the critical point. The terrorists "win" when we allow our fears to alter our lives.

    Somehow, since September 11th, we have allowed the terrorists to "win" spectacularly in the UK, Canada and the US.

    Yes we need to take steps to protect ourselves. But there must be balance and that seems to have been completely lost. Everyone is treated as a threat. Fear is palpable. Rights are trampled on.

    The whole situation this lady found herself in is wrong. The whole yelling "opt-out" is wrong. The whole security screening is mostly one big Maginou Line. Witness the recent cargo bombs.

    In the UK they now have CCTV camera's everywhere, along with licence plate readers. Finally, last year, The House of Lords cried enough and said that the UK is sleep walking into a surveillance society (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/06/lords_reject_government_data/).

    Sadly the US seems to be heading down a rather different but equally troubling road.

    Incidentally it always struck me as very sad that the republican terrorists who, were blowing up the English pubs, raised so much of their money from the US. I never understood how that could happen.

  • Zeus

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ambrose.

    The more I hear about what's happening in the UK, the more it reminds me of the fascist near-future England featured in the film "V for Vendetta".

  • Babs I

    I don't fly often, but this invasion of folks private space is very disheartening.

    I was watching Cops last week. When people are caught with drugs, where do they attempt to hide them? In the two major orafices for females, and the one for males. How long will it be till internal anal and vaginal checks will be implimented? These mandates could get worse before they get better.

    Fortunately, I only fly for vacations or to visit family. I hope my only brother stays well, because he lives near the West coast. I am a senior citizen and those procedues would upset me tool By the way, how to you explain this groping session to a child who has hopefully been taught that it is not allowed, and they are taught to tell a teacher,their parents when anyone touches them inappropriately. I assume the TSA has no plans to listen to us American Citizens.

  • Paul

    Personally, Babs, I would never take my kid on a US flight while these sort of patdowns are being used. It's one thing to submit to abuse oneself, and quite another to subject a kid to it.

    It's not worth the risk in my opinion.

  • Paul
  • Nick Cash

    Now who's fearmongering Paul?

  • Zeus

    Uhhhh… I think I know this one…. umm… could it be… uhhhh…. the people who want you to believe 500 armored death-ninja terrorists — each as skilled and as intelligent as the best of any James Bond-level arch-villain — are going to jump out from every shadowy corner (or crotch) of every second of every hour of every day if you so much as blink?

    Survey Says….

    DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!

  • Jim

    You are a lying bitch! Wa, wa, wa. If you don't like the rules ride a bicycle!

  • david

    Here are a bunch of opinions from another web site. Hmmm, doesn't seem to be too much support for Mediawhore Meg out there.

    eaglescout1984

    11/18/10

    I'm a libertarian, and my opinion is this girl just needs to STFU. Despising government for how they really screw you and lying about how they didn't are two different things bimbo. I don't date chicks with ugly tattoos anyway, so it won't be hard to avoid dating her and being accused of rape when she gets pissed at me.

    Nürburgring: Varsity Jalop

    11/12/10

    Well she seems annoying…

    grzydj

    11/12/10

    They should have arrested her for having an ugly tattoo.

    Sledgecrowbar

    11/12/10

    I'd lie with her.

    /pun

    Not a face for radio.

    Hedy Lamarr is Stoatmaster

    11/12/10

    I was put through a scanner once.

    It didn't work much better than the time I tried to fax myself.

    ChrisFu

    11/12/10

    Theres a real easy way to figure out if this was a publicity stunt: See what time her scheduled flight was supposed to leave. If she showed up with the intention of starting something, she probably would have come really early so as not to miss her plane after the conclusion of the planned brouhaha.

    Turbineguy – now with Firefox!

    11/12/10

    I'd like to buy some "tattoo space" on her body. It would say "IGNORE ME – I'M AN IDIOT"

    Cheeseslap spanks his ACR for being good promoted this comment

    See 3 replies

    philaDLJ

    11/12/10

    I thought this was about Meghan McCain for a second.

    So did she.

    Dominic Chan

    11/12/10

    Where would she land?

    philaDLJ promoted this comment

    See 2 replies

    Engineerman

    11/12/10

    Touching, Cowboy, touching. Or should I call you, Mr. McClane? Mr. Officer John McClane of the New York Police Department?

    See 1 reply

    Cheeseslap spanks his ACR for being good

    11/12/10

    It's like she woke up one day and said: "I'm an excitable, white, moronic tattoo chick with ideals and a radio show; I can make up whatever fallacy I want and pass it off as the truth. WHO WILL STOP ME?!!! WHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOO??! MWAAHAHAHA!

    See 2 replies

    monsterajr

    11/12/10

    Looking at the video, she seems to start questioning the whole process, which will get you more attention. If you have nothing to hide, nothing concealed then move along, get the pat down, put your shoes and belt back on and enjoy the trip. Body language is an element of screening and hers is not always good. In my line of work I go through the security line a number of times a day (I am badged to go through at a major NYC airport) and as much as I have issues with some of the general quality of the employees, they are nearly always courteous and professional when dealing with the same, even when conducting searches or additional screening. I haven't seen anything in this video that would make me believe her story.

    BrtStlnd promoted this comment

    Coreboy

    11/12/10

    The cute ones are always bat-shit-crazy…

    In the wise words of Jimmy Soul… "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty women your wife… so from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you."

    BrtStlnd promoted this comment

    See 2 replies

    snap_understeer_ftw

    11/12/10

    candidate for batshit babes 2010?

    blakep66

    11/12/10

    Ill give her a full body scan

    snap_understeer_ftw approved this comment

    See 1 reply

    accipiter

    11/12/10

    I fly for business a great deal, occasionally get pulled out of line for a more thorough inspection. One time I had a bag of white sand from the beach in my carry on and that got me searched after it went through the xray machine. Another time I had almost every TSA agent in the screening area investigating my luggage because I had two canisters of honey powder (which I'd seen at a grocery store, thought looked interesting, and had never heard of before) in there and they thought it looked suspicious. Even when they thought I had something suspicious in my luggage–suspicious enough to merit 5 TSA agents searching one carry-on–they were nothing but courteous and professional.

    Meg is probably a nutball chick in love with creating her own drama. Also, she's a radio personality. I'm sure she would never exaggerate something she went through in order to entertain listeners or push a political agenda.

    Cheeseslap spanks his ACR for being good promoted this comment

    cgarison

    11/12/10

    This is a tragedy for those wanting to change the TSA. Although, the only way to get back our civil liberties will be to unionize the TSA once the security personnel working at our airports are being killed by standing beside x-ray machines for 8 hours a day.

    Having grown up in the world of industrial radiography, I know how dangerous these jobs are esp. standing in a radiation area 40 hours a week.

    Van Sarockin, rogue trebuchet promoted this comment

    witless_protection

    11/12/10

    This is Japopnik. How does this have to do with in any way?

    To change the slant of the article, I suggest adding the following…

    "As a top ten list, what car would a bat-shiat crazy Liberalterranium drive?"

    jedchev promoted this comment

    See 4 replies

    foffen

    11/12/10

    how can they release this video when you can see and identify so many other normal passengers? Is this what i should expect, that security cameras filming me will be released to the public and end up on the internet? Wow, that's a blow for integrity…

    cmdrfire promoted this comment

    Geisterfahrer

    11/12/10

    All I got out of that talk show segment was…

    "THEIR TWISTING BREASTS…"

    Fick Yeah!!!!

    SyntheticBlinkerFlui…

    11/12/10

    She's kinda cute.

    cmdrfire promoted this comment

    Zach90Turbo

    11/12/10

    OG_ promoted this comment

    loslosbaby

    11/12/10

    I'm not going into any damned scanner. Thanks, but no!

    See 1 reply

    Jim-Bob-proud new owner of 3 cylinders of Geo fury!

    11/12/10

    I want to guess that she is on "Free Talk Live" as one of the guest hosts. We get that show here on 970 WFLA on Saturday nights, and it is entertaining to say the least. While I do agree with some of their views, I tend to see them as wanting to go too far with open borders and other stances they take. Sometimes I wonder if they take the more extreme stances just to stir up controversy or if they really believe them. Still, the show is entertaining to listen to while delivering pizza on a saturday night. And yeah, I'd do her even if she's batshit insane. Hot is hot, after all…

    From a Buick 6

    11/12/10

    Thanks for the article pertaining to cars, Jalopnik.

  • Vinsum53

    liar liar pants on fire

  • bil

    And from such educated, informed writers! Hopefully, their mothers willn bring them their lunch and clean underwear while they keep the world on course.

    —bil

  • david

    bil, was that an educated guess on their education level? Or is it just that they disagree with your point of view, so you decide to put them all down. Some of the comments were crass and stupid for sure, but I've seen plenty of people on this site that don't right to good neither.

  • Paul

    I entered a post with a number of news links, that I believe got caught by the spam filter. Could a mod check it?

  • bil

    Yes,it was. There were several that were well written, but on the whole, if you were looking for comments that support your position, these were not them.

    The level of education is not suggested just by the spelling, on a blog there is usually some leeway. It is the remarks themselves that show the mental level of the writers. As you said, some had very valid points, and I am sorry that my wording included all. Apologies for: First two sentences of Eaglescout. Nurburgring, Chris Fu, Monsterajr, accrpiter, cgarison, Jim-Bob, and especially foffen.

    So you see,I am not putting them down because they disagree with my point of view. I agree with several. But you are the one that provided the quotes! If you are trying to prove a point, pick better examples. —bil

  • david

    I chose to list all the posts so that I would not be accused of 'cherry picking'. I was just using it to point out that, on a site which isn't supposed to be quite as slanted as this (it's supposed to be about cars), Meg isn't getting such a glowing reception. I agree, and I even stated that many are crass and juvenile, but Meg is not viewed quite the same in the real world as she is in the comfy confines of the shire. The opinions here, don't even come close to the majority of the country.

  • bil

    I would hope not!! So your list was from one place-that makes more sense, especially if it was to prevent cherry-picking. In that case, it just confirms my suspicion of the average internet poster. There are a lot out there that just toss out anything, without even checking out the subject. As someone that travels quite a bit, I would tend to agree with your conclusions about the opinions here as compared to 'out there'. Not as far as the majority goes. —bil

  • david

    Not just the majority bil, but the vast majority. This 'group' is a small sliver of a subsection of the fringe. Zealots always yell the loudest, and usually have the least to say.

  • bil

    I don't know about the last-there sure is a lot said here! I think you may be right about the 'vast' also. But I think if the people of this country really knew what was going on how the whole process is manipulated, they would rise in indignation and….get another beer, and see what is on tv. I also agree this site is on a fringe, there are much bigger things going on that need to be exposed. However,I am worried that the whole big craphouse will fall in of its own weight before too long.

    Please don't think that because I agree with some here that I agree with all. Both sides have valid points, and arguements made on a forum are not always practicable when the computer is off, and the real world is at the door.

  • Realist

    WOW, this is so amazing. You are just like that "TSA STOLE MY BABY" girl, not realizing there was video (dangit!) Which none of it shows handcuffs – at all – not even at your departure in the second video where you are wringing your hands and probably tearing up the tissue that you snotted in because you didn't get your way. I've been around cuffs extensively, and you were clearly not cuffed at any moment.

    I saw a lot of government waste in those videos. Too many people wasting their time trying to patiently listen to your jacked up whining – and then further trying to get others to explain it to you.

    There were no cuffs, there were not 12 LEO's and 7 TSA Screeners. You were given paper towels to dry your eyes after you were told the word "NO" (first time you've heard it??). NO ONE was staring at you (not even the passengers who had to wait in line longer because you took all the checkpoint resources for your stupidity). No one tore up your ticket. Didn't you initially claim they twisted your breasts?

    What I saw – and what TSA shows – and the reality is – nothing. You want to claim innocence and so does TSA. You want them to be proven guilty by your claims, but when they show EVIDENCE of innocence, you 'misspoke' like Hilary Clinton. Funny!

    And didn't you say that the airline was extremely helpful in helping you – yet now you want donations to 'get home'? Which MEAN airline was it that wouldn't re-issue travel due to your circumstances? Poor victim that you are…

    You are not only a liar, but an ignorant one. Video killed the radio star – LOL

  • Zeus

    It's always fun to see another supporter of the American Gestapo blaming the traumatized victim for not wanting to be irradiated, molested, and humiliated.

    No means No. Even if you wear a nice uniform with a badge sewn onto it.

  • Realist

    If No means NO – and she obviously said NO – and they obviously said OK because no one groped her or handcuffed her…

    What is the issue? She said No, they escorted her out. Where is the violation?

    Traumatized victim? She cried because someone told HER no? That's the pot calling the kettle, black. The irony.

  • Ngdgt

    Maybe the airline refused to give her another ticket after they poked around and saw the TSA video?