Maximus

He fails at pretty much everything he does.

He wanted to draw attention away from the press conference held today by the Fed.

Interesting concept, but I see that others have already raised my main concern. You would be over-run and killed within a few months. You would have neither the resources nor the experience to defend yourself against even a moderate force on the African continent. Look what happened to Rhodesia, which had a well trained military.

He could have laid this to rest right from the git-go, but chose to remain stubborn. It's his own fault. His incompetence is what concerns me.

It was reported that she was subject to a random enhanced screening. The TSA pulls people out of line all the time for these things. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

Interesting article, TSA screener arrested for distributing child porn... http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-23/news/29466700_1_tsa-spokeswoman-ann-davis-child-pornography-federal-agents

The girl was pulled out of line for a random "enhanced screening," for no good reason. It could happen to you.

They were just "following orders" too.

Plenty of women have had their boobs groped by TSA Nazis. I'd call that sexual assault. Certainly not something one of us are allowed to do in the course of our day. I work in the Security field and can't grope boobs.

You will effectively bring travel to a grinding halt with all this stuff.

I know what they are thinking, but they need to be patting down Mooslim kids instead of blonde white girl. A little profiling goes a long way - reference El Al. Whatever method they would employ, it would not be an increasingly tyrannical government imposing the searches.

The little girl was in distress. She was obviously NOT a freaking terrorist. There was no need to pull a child this young out for a random pat-down. TSA should be abolished and the airlines themselves should handle their own security. I'd rather drive all the way across the country than have some perv look at me with a naked machine or touch my personals.

I wonder how many Muslims were waved through while they were molesting the little girl?

I'm with RB , where are all the rational people? I can practically guarantee this would devolve into utter chaos. I've been around 51 years now, and have no faith in my fellow man, believe me.

It doesn't matter that it is being discussed elsewhere, it was used to illustrate a larger point. I stand by my opinions.

Okay, first off, don't be a smart ass. If you go back to the first page, you will see that I am directly addressing the OP. The thread has already gone off on related tangents. Lets examine that, shall we? Property can be privately owned, and there can be public roads. Nothing Rand wrote conflicts in principle with a Constitutional Republic, such as we have. Certain powers are given to government, with the consent of the governed. In order to have an orderly society, there has to be a certain amount of give and take between individuals. We can not function if every property owner builds a small piece of roadway, a 1/4 acre at a time, posting arbitrary speed limits, having differing road surfaces, disputing the presence of law enforcement on "their" road. Under our system of federalism, broad powers are retained by the states, counties and municipalities. People are free to own private property, but are not allowed to impede the free flow of traffic and commerce - which would grind a capitalist society to a screeching halt. Capitalism does not equate with public roads. Capitalism is a system of economics based on the principle of a free market. The concept of competing governments calls to mind the anarchy that your concept of privately owned roads implies. Let us first examine what Rand had to say about competing governments: From this excerpt, one can see that there is a correlation between the two concepts. A system of completely privately owned roads would be just as anarchistic as competing governments.A public road does in no way impede your ability to engage in trade, and may only tangentially interferes with property rights if the road passes through what once was your private property, neither does it keep you from enjoying the fruits of your labor, unless you plan to plant crops in the strip that is occupied by the road, which is ridiculous on the face of it.. Your assertion that I implied that "private property leads to chaos is a red herring, as I implied no such thing. Parking lots and convenience stores do not require traffic rules, mainly because they are low speed, limited access parking areas. No one in his right mind is going to attempt to drive 70 mph in a 7-11's parking lot. Most people have the common sense to follow the established rules of the road even in a parking lot - yielding, driving on the correct side, etc. One does not imply the other. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is ill used.

The entire premise that "under a fully capitalist society" that there would be no public roads is ridiculous to begin with. I see no difference between the concept of 300,000,000 privately owned roads and the concept of competing governments. In order for commerce to flow freely between states and municipalities, there needs to be a system of publicly maintained roads, and a police force empowered to ensure that traffic flows in a controlled manner, otherwise there would be complete chaos.

It's Salon people, the author is making up crap out of thin air.

Well said Zip.

Here is a piece rebutting the bogus Rolling Stone story. Remember, Rolling Stone's editorial staff are a bunch of anti-military hippie assholes. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/calling-bullshit-on-rolling-stone.htm

No rules means no pants!

Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

Devil's Advocate my man. You still don't know me very well, do you?

Pretty much spot on.

Absolutely. Yes, you need spotters on the ground to use air assets effectively.