If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   In order to do what Tyner did -- firmly assert one's rights against government agents and then vocally and publicly complain about rights infringements -- one has to take one's liberty seriously   (salon.com) divider line 90
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2010 at 8:28 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-27 08:40:48 AM
www.salon.com

Looks like a home schooled Matt Damon.
 
2010-11-27 08:44:30 AM
link es FUBARd.
 
2010-11-27 08:45:39 AM
The liberal green lighters working the weekends again....

So much more red meat to be submitted and this Soros funded website gets the go....

Here is a link to a real "Anatomy of a journalistic smear job" Link (new window)NSFW
 
2010-11-27 08:48:14 AM
The Nation assumes the guy is a Kock-Libertarian, and Greenwald assumes the guy has a justifiable -- progressive grievance .

I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.
 
2010-11-27 08:53:54 AM
printboy: The liberal green lighters working the weekends again....

So much more red meat to be submitted and this Soros funded website gets the go....

Here is a link to a real "Anatomy of a journalistic smear job" Link (new window)NSFW


This isn't a lib/con thing. This is life under the Bush/Clinton/Obama junta.
 
2010-11-27 08:56:37 AM
fta - John Tyner, a software engineer

If he hasn't gotten out of that dying occupation by now he can't be too bright.
 
2010-11-27 08:58:09 AM
printboy: The liberal green lighters working the weekends again....

An article taking to task an anti-libertarian hit piece that appeared in the self-avowedly-liberal The Nation is a "liberal green light"? Is there nothing that isn't part of the vast left-wing conspiracy? Boise State's kicker is in on it, too, isn't he?
 
2010-11-27 08:59:18 AM
The guy is racist. Obama is making us safer!
 
2010-11-27 09:03:23 AM
kronicfeld: Is there nothing that isn't part of the vast left-wing conspiracy?

What a silly question. You already know the answer.
 
2010-11-27 09:08:08 AM
Greenwald delivers an ELBOW FROM THE SKY off the top rope!

Kickass article.
 
2010-11-27 09:27:36 AM
Hypocrisy in my Conservatives? Shocking.
 
2010-11-27 09:28:18 AM
Today, I learned that Fark.com is funded by Soros.
 
2010-11-27 09:38:05 AM
I've been vocal for many years about my utter disdain for Democrats and Republicans, and my support of third-party candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if that sets me up for additional attention from the Republicrat régime. Although I'm not so wrapped in tinfoil as to say that it's certain.
 
2010-11-27 09:38:06 AM
DarnoKonrad: The Nation assumes the guy is a Kock-Libertarian, and Greenwald assumes the guy has a justifiable -- progressive grievance .

I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.


Yes, yes, we know, it's all justified because it was precipitated by an event.

Hey, if my house was almost broken into, would I be justified in strip-searching everybody who came in my door? For security, of course.
 
2010-11-27 09:55:46 AM
What's really going on here is clear. These are Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make: (1) he's not a good, loyal Democrat; (2) he did something that politically harmed Barack Obama; and, most and worst of all (3) he failed to submit meekly and quietly to Government orders like any Good, Patriotic "ordinary American" would and should do.

He's a Monster! You can see why a left-wing publication like 'The Nation' would attack him immediately.

anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions -- or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it -- is inherently suspect. Just as the establishment-worshiping, political-power-defending Ruth Marcus taught us today in The Washington Post, objecting to what the Government is doing here is just immature and ungrateful; mature, psychologically healthy people shut up and submit. That's how you prove that you're a normal, responsible, upstanding good citizen: by not making waves, doing what you're told, declaring yourself a loyal Republican or Democrat and then cheering for your team, and -- most of all -- accepting in the name of Fear that you must suffer indignities, humiliations and always-increasing loss of liberties at the hands of unchallengeable functionaries of the state.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2010-11-27 09:59:43 AM
DarnoKonrad: along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place

None of the modifications to the security screening process have actually done anything to address what prompted the modifications. The TSA is a useless money sink and the largest workfare program since the Great Depression. It provides a theatrical illusion of safety.

Case in point: the underwear bomber, who prompted the naked-scanners, would not have been caught by said scanners. It's nothing more than cronyism- Chertoff had some units of a useless device to move, and so he called up his old friends and got them to buy it for him.
 
2010-11-27 10:09:09 AM
i280.photobucket.com

New scanning procedures will be called "King Cab" for the 3 in the front 2 in the rear manipulations.

/TSA, now with less rectal perforation.
 
2010-11-27 10:12:00 AM
t3knomanser: DarnoKonrad: along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place

None of the modifications to the security screening process have actually done anything to address what prompted the modifications. The TSA is a useless money sink and the largest workfare program since the Great Depression. It provides a theatrical illusion of safety.

Case in point: the underwear bomber, who prompted the naked-scanners, would not have been caught by said scanners. It's nothing more than cronyism- Chertoff had some units of a useless device to move, and so he called up his old friends and got them to buy it for him.


While Chertoff certainly abused his former position in Homeland Security to lobby for the Naked Scanners, they were purchased as part of the Stimulus package that the Republicans voted pretty much in lockstep against.

The TSA website explains where the money came from:

In March 2010, TSA began deploying 450 advanced imaging technology units, which were purchased with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.

Whatever influence Chertoff held with his fellow Republicans didn't seem to come into play here, since they they all voted against the Stimulus anyway.

Records do show that he tried to talk the Republicans into buying naked scanners back before the Democrats took Congress in 2006, so it wasn't that he never tried to get them to buy them, it's just that he didn't succeed.
 
2010-11-27 10:13:14 AM
DarnoKonrad: I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.

You're a good little authoritarian aren't you? A bureaucrat's wet dream.
 
2010-11-27 10:15:47 AM
BullBearMS: Whatever influence Chertoff held with his fellow Republicans

Irrelevant. Someone in his position still has connections in the administrative and non-political side of things. The money for those scanners came because DHS wanted the money for those scanners; the majority party voted to do what DHS wanted. DHS wanted them because Chertoff wanted them to want the scanners.
 
2010-11-27 10:40:17 AM
Bob16: fta - John Tyner, a software engineer

If he hasn't gotten out of that dying occupation by now he can't be too bright.


I was thinking about going in the software engineering direction. What do you mean dying?
 
2010-11-27 10:46:50 AM
t3knomanser: BullBearMS: Whatever influence Chertoff held with his fellow Republicans

Irrelevant. Someone in his position still has connections in the administrative and non-political side of things. The money for those scanners came because DHS wanted the money for those scanners; the majority party voted to do what DHS wanted. DHS wanted them because Chertoff wanted them to want the scanners.


DHS didn't provide the money. The Democrats in near complete control of Congress did, at a time when they were only one vote shy of total legislative control. (Franken had not yet been sworn in.)

In the Senate, they needed at least one Republican vote and ended up getting three.

In the House not one single Republican voted in favor of the Stimulus.

Are you trying to say that the Democrats in control our current, extremely partisan Congress were mind controlled into buying the naked scanners by one former Republican official?
 
2010-11-27 10:53:05 AM
t3knomanser: None of the modifications to the security screening process have actually done anything to address what prompted the modifications.

Okay, but that's a separate issue from the one I'm addressing.

But I think a strip search would have found it.



eiger: I have a god given right to bomb brown people the world over and have inconvenience my life.

Sure you do.
 
2010-11-27 11:14:19 AM
BullBearMS: DHS didn't provide the money

That's not what I said. DHS wanted the money. Congress provided it because DHS wanted it.

BullBearMS: Are you trying to say that the Democrats in control our current, extremely partisan Congress were mind controlled into buying the naked scanners by one former Republican official?

No. I'm saying Chertoff used his connections at DHS to sell DHS on the idea of the scanners, and DHS lobbied Congress into giving them the money for the scanners.

DarnoKonrad: Okay, but that's a separate issue from the one I'm addressing.

Not really. The 4th Amendment allows for reasonable searches, and that's been taken to mean administrative searches. A search that is completely ineffective is by no means reasonable. A search that provides no additional security, or even only minimal security, is not a reasonable search.

So, it's a waste of money, a 4th Amendment violation, and actually reduces real security by distracting people with an illusion of security. It has absolutely nothing to recommend it.

DarnoKonrad: But I think a strip search would have found it.

Of course, a strip-search would also make flying such an onerous experience that we'd have to nationalize the airlines, because they wouldn't be able to turn a profit. We'd also be spending a vast sum of money on security (because strip-searches take more time). And, again, it wouldn't constitute a "reasonable search"- it is impossible to conceal enough explosives on your person such that you could take down an aircraft without making the concealment patently obvious.
 
2010-11-27 11:30:51 AM
t3knomanser: BullBearMS: DHS didn't provide the money

That's not what I said. DHS wanted the money. Congress provided it because DHS wanted it.

BullBearMS: Are you trying to say that the Democrats in control our current, extremely partisan Congress were mind controlled into buying the naked scanners by one former Republican official?

No. I'm saying Chertoff used his connections at DHS to sell DHS on the idea of the scanners, and DHS lobbied Congress into giving them the money for the scanners.


I don't think anyone is going to buy the argument that the Obama Administration (whose appointee is in command of DHS) lobbied for these devices on behalf of a former Republican official.

However, it just so happens that the CEO of the company who makes the naked scanners just happened to get picked to accompany the President on Air Force One on his recent trip to India. Nothing like having friends at the top, is there?

It also just so happens that the wife of the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader is also a high dollar lobbyist for naked scanner makers and is herself a former FAA official.

Aside from all that, the naked scanner makers have spent millions of dollars this year alone in an attempt to get Congress to buy yet more of these devices. How handy of them that Secretary Napolitano is now suddenly talking about expanding these machines to trains, mass transit, court houses, etc.

You don't need a mind controlling former Republican official at all to explain this, unless you need to pretend the Democrats didn't do this themselves.

Did Chertoff try to get the Republicans to buy these when they were still in power? Yes. Does that change the facts regarding the Democrats purchase of them? No.
 
2010-11-27 11:32:26 AM
t3knomanser: Case in point: the underwear bomber, who prompted the naked-scanners, would not have been caught by said scanners. It's nothing more than cronyism- Chertoff had some units of a useless device to move, and so he called up his old friends and got them to buy it for him.

Well, not until Chertoff gets the dutch to buy scanners.
 
2010-11-27 11:44:00 AM
I'm torn because I hate the idea of these scanners but it seems pretty clear that the guy was looking for trouble, as indicated by having his video already turned on and an obviously rehearsed line at the ready. Can't we just admit these things are a mistake, hire the Israelis to start training our TSA personnel and gradually switch over to the extremely effective, and cheap, Israeli model?
 
2010-11-27 11:44:33 AM
Deadite: Looks like a home schooled Matt Damon.

That's the "don't touch my junk" guy? Huh. Looks like the kid in high school who wore his swim trunks in the gym showers.

Methinks his little hissy-fit had less to do with privacy and more to do with avoiding squeamishness.
 
2010-11-27 11:49:52 AM
BullBearMS: You don't need a mind controlling former Republican official at all to explain this, unless you need to pretend the Democrats didn't do this themselves.

Can I blame both parties? The Republicans gave us the TSA, the Democrats made them rapey. I say we bring back the French National Razor and give them all a close shave.
 
2010-11-27 11:52:35 AM
This is yet another thing that is pushing independents towards the GOP. More antigovernment goodness plays very well before the next elections. Really it wouldn't matter who was in power, fickle independents would lean either way, away from current power. You guys are the best. Thank you.
 
2010-11-27 11:55:33 AM
Opposite: fickle independents would lean either way, away from current power.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Independents don't want the Republicans or the Democrats to have too much power, so whichever one's in power, they vote against.
 
2010-11-27 11:57:53 AM
The Name: Methinks his little hissy-fit had less to do with privacy and more to do with avoiding squeamishness.

So you are doing exactly what "The Nation" did. You smeared him without any evidence to support your position.
 
2010-11-27 12:03:09 PM
t3knomanser: BullBearMS: You don't need a mind controlling former Republican official at all to explain this, unless you need to pretend the Democrats didn't do this themselves.

Can I blame both parties? The Republicans gave us the TSA, the Democrats made them rapey. I say we bring back the French National Razor and give them all a close shave.


Blaming both parties is always a safe bet, since the vast majority of the Republicans are sold out and about half of the Democrats are as well.

It's not that the Republicans wouldn't have sold us out, it's just that in this case they had already been stripped of all power so they couldn't.
 
2010-11-27 12:12:48 PM
DarnoKonrad: The Nation assumes the guy is a Kock-Libertarian, and Greenwald assumes the guy has a justifiable -- progressive grievance .

I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.


How do we address pants wetting njustifiable fear? Oh wait it would mean cock punching the media and the politicians. Not gonna happen.
 
2010-11-27 12:15:52 PM
DarnoKonrad:
I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.


So I guess you have no problem with the Patriot act, just with what prompted the security.
 
2010-11-27 12:19:46 PM
liam76: DarnoKonrad:
I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.

So I guess you have no problem with the Patriot act, just with what prompted the security.


Are Spain and the UK also "self appointed police of the world"? Cause they have had similar attacks. Same source against transportation.
 
2010-11-27 12:20:52 PM
SCtF: I've been vocal for many years about my utter disdain for Democrats and Republicans, and my support of third-party candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if that sets me up for additional attention from the Republicrat régime. Although I'm not so wrapped in tinfoil as to say that it's certain.


Oh, FFS.
 
2010-11-27 12:21:06 PM
clambam: I'm torn because I hate the idea of these scanners but it seems pretty clear that the guy was looking for trouble, as indicated by having his video already turned on and an obviously rehearsed line at the ready.

So?
 
2010-11-27 12:21:15 PM
The article is headlined "TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal," and is devoted to the claim that those objecting to the new TSA procedures -- such as Tyner -- are not what they claim to be.

WTF?

Bob16: fta - John Tyner, a software engineer

If he hasn't gotten out of that dying occupation by now he can't be too bright.


Yeah, buggywhips are SO hot right now, who's into computers? No one. Computers never did nothing for nobody nohow
 
2010-11-27 12:29:24 PM
liam76: liam76: DarnoKonrad:
I think he's a whiner, along with anyone that complains about security rather than what prompted the security in the first place -- running around as the self appointed police of the world.

So I guess you have no problem with the Patriot act, just with what prompted the security.

Are Spain and the UK also "self appointed police of the world"? Cause they have had similar attacks. Same source against transportation.


Spain and the UK didn't both have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why yes they did.

Here's a bit more Glenn:

I hope nobody thinks that just because we can't identify who the Taliban leaders are after almost a decade over there that this somehow calls into doubt our ability to magically re-make that nation. Even if it did, it's vital that we stop the threat of Terrorism, and nothing helps to do that like spending a full decade -- and counting -- invading, occupying, and bombing Muslim countries.

Why on earth would any Muslim oppose that? And even if they did, fark 'em! Aren't they mostly brown anyway?
 
2010-11-27 12:32:08 PM
I completely disagree.

We clearly need to devolve to airport profiling and wearing disposable paper suits for the trip.

It's the only way. Who's with me?
*cry from the wilderness*
 
2010-11-27 12:48:06 PM
Hetfield: So?

Just sayin'. This guy is not a selfless, put-upon patriot rising up in righteous indignation against an oppressive system. He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that's par for the course now in these reality TV days, but I still don't like it.
 
2010-11-27 12:53:41 PM
clambam: Hetfield: So?

Just sayin'. This guy is not a selfless, put-upon patriot rising up in righteous indignation against an oppressive system. He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that's par for the course now in these reality TV days, but I still don't like it.


He's Cindy Sheehan?
 
2010-11-27 01:02:36 PM
BullBearMS: clambam: Hetfield: So?

Just sayin'. This guy is not a selfless, put-upon patriot rising up in righteous indignation against an oppressive system. He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that's par for the course now in these reality TV days, but I still don't like it.

He's Cindy Sheehan?


Given that Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq, I believe that makes you, at best, an insensitive boor, at worst, something of a monster. Since when did disagreeing with someone's politics make their personal tragedies fair game? I don't approve of it when it's aimed at Sarah Palin and I don't approve of it when it aimed at Cindy Sheehan.
 
2010-11-27 01:04:44 PM
clambam: He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame.

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion that contradicts his stated claim?
 
2010-11-27 01:06:17 PM
whidbey: I completely disagree.

We clearly need to devolve to airport profiling and wearing disposable paper suits for the trip.

It's the only way. Who's with me?
*cry from the wilderness*


I used to fly between here and the Seattle area abut 2 times a month. That was a few years ago. The good old days when I could walk into the airport and an hour later be stuck in traffic at the S curves near Renton.

Now if I fly, it takes 5 hours to get from the house to the office and I get a bonus groping. If I drive it only takes 4.

/btw, how you guys doing snow wise?
//we're getting hammered
 
2010-11-27 01:13:21 PM
clambam: Just sayin'. This guy is not a selfless, put-upon patriot rising up in righteous indignation against an oppressive system. He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that's par for the course now in these reality TV days, but I still don't like it.

Yeah, I agree that this guy shouldn't have a statue of him holding a flag and wearing a tricorn, and that he was probably setting up the TSA, but I don't think that it really matters in the long run. The point isn't that he was planning to get pulled aside, or that he knew that he was going to get felt up. The point is what the TSA did. I don't see how the TSA response to him not wanting to be fondled is any less obnoxious just because he went in expecting the whole drama.

The TSA procedures are there whether this guy turns his camera on or not. People are getting groped, kicked off airplanes, and threatened with lawsuits regardless if Tyner tries to trigger that outcome. Yeah, he's probably not the innocent guy who accidentally stumbled into the black hole of TSA assholery, but that doesn't make the TSA into good guys.
 
2010-11-27 01:14:56 PM
Cubicle Jockey: clambam: He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame.

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion that contradicts his stated claim?


None whatsoever. I merely point out that in the past few years there have been any number of people pulling PR stunts of one kind or another that suspiciously resemble this one. Hey, if the guy in line behind him had recorded the whole thing I'd have no doubts about this guy's sincerity. It all seems just a bit too pat that he was primed and ready to record his own ordeal, had a line prepared that I personally would not expect from a home-schooled Christian, and almost immediately arranged to have it spread all over the interwebs. All he needed was a UFO-shaped mylar balloon and he'd have had his own TV show by now.
 
2010-11-27 01:24:41 PM
ne2d: Opposite: fickle independents would lean either way, away from current power.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Independents don't want the Republicans or the Democrats to have too much power, so whichever one's in power, they vote against.


I vote against both of them. I've never voted for a Republican, and I haven't voted for a Democrat in well over 20 years. I vote exclusively third party.
 
2010-11-27 01:27:54 PM
clambam: BullBearMS: clambam: Hetfield: So?

Just sayin'. This guy is not a selfless, put-upon patriot rising up in righteous indignation against an oppressive system. He's more along the lines of an attention whore looking for some free publicity for his blog and his fifteen minutes of fame. I realize that's par for the course now in these reality TV days, but I still don't like it.

He's Cindy Sheehan?

Given that Cindy Sheehan's son died in Iraq, I believe that makes you, at best, an insensitive boor, at worst, something of a monster. Since when did disagreeing with someone's politics make their personal tragedies fair game? I don't approve of it when it's aimed at Sarah Palin and I don't approve of it when it aimed at Cindy Sheehan.


Apparently it was perfectly fine for you to call someone standing up for their Constitutional rights an attention whore. That makes you an authoritarian bootlicker at best.

I was just wondering if your real reason for objecting to this was that you are terribly butthurt that people criticizing Obama for this TSA bullshiat he has created, so I brought up Sheehan.

My, didn't you bite? Hard too.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report