unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination this year Rand Paul will be the next Republican President. I'm ready and prepared to hit rock bottom, and under any other of the four we will.
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
Correct. He knew he didn't have the option to offer another walk through after refusing a pat down. Some people disagreed with me when I said Ron preaches fear. Here's dad's quote about the incident:
"The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities," Ron Paul said in a statement issued by his presidential campaign. "The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe."
Keep eating it up, you guys.
Explain his position on Iran. Explain his position on all foreign policy, explain his positions on the war on drugs...what kind of fear are you talking about? the very real fear that the federal government is stepping on liberty (1st patriot act, 2nd ndaa, wonder what the third installment of rights grabs will complete the trilogy?) in the name of security...for god's sake...they can now detain American citizens suspected of terrorism indefinitely...you realize this includes domestic terrorists right? you know, just about every activist on the FBI radar...its too bad he has the track record of the fears he talks about coming true...
A lot of law makers preach fear to further their agenda, based on his history and integrity while in office, I don't believe Ron Paul uses fears for personal gain...I guess we will have to agree to disagree
I just posted a quote about him preaching fear, and I have in other threads, too. Law enforcement has been miguided and overstepping bounds for many years. But now we're going to lose all our freedoms in 10 years because a white guy can't get on a plane? I'm pretty aware of the patriot act, and I'm also aware of when someone is attempting to manipulate others. Indefinate detainment is much more of a concernt than the TSA, or what Ron calls one of the "ultimate imbodiments" of the American police state.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination this year Rand Paul will be the next Republican President. I'm ready and prepared to hit rock bottom, and under any other of the four we will.
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
Obviously you're much higher evolved than anyone who can see through this. You calling it a "sexual assault" for dramatic purposes shows you've lost your context. The black and white responses to people who said anything contrary to the OP reflects a group succeptable to manipulation.
When the Pauls decided to co-opt the liberal movement for their own profit.
35 years ago? 10-4.
elaborate plot vinny, have to admire their dedication...it just took a while to gain momentum all leading to this... expertly getting his son elected to the senate, having him wait a little while and then denying a pat down on after purposely setting off the scanner at an airport, what a wonderful money making idea, I bet they sell tens of books because of this awesome stunt...also, being the type of politician that literally is ignored at all costs by the media...another great money maker...I can't believe I didn't see it before.
And how many news articles were written and how much camera time did Rand get?
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination this year Rand Paul will be the next Republican President. I'm ready and prepared to hit rock bottom, and under any other of the four we will.
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
I am no Rand Paul supporter, but people, put yourself in his shoes..
You are an elected official in an airport on your way to your job of making the freaking laws of the land.
The machine goes off when you walk through it, and naturally you know there is a mistake and request to try it again, which he did, but was refused a second try and put through a pat down.
Is that not embarassing enough? To be denied a simple request to try to walk through it again when you are an elected official on your way to Washington?
I would be embarrassed as hell and given his political beliefs, how could he not argue with the situation.
I could appreciate all that you said, except for the fact that Rand Paul is a seasoned traveler; he knows what to expect every time he enters an airport facility. He knows the procedures and rather than get into a back and forth about Rand Paul, I chose to focus on the laws enacted that could allow this to occur.
However, the more I hear him and his Dad go on and on about this, I’m beginning to think this was a nothing more than a political move; just another talking point ploy about reducing the government, yet nothing about the fact that he’d still have to secure the airports. Is he willing to bring up the fact that if they elect not to use the TSA, they’d have to contract the same work out to private securities firms, at a higher pay rate, because the law requires them to secure air travel. Wonder how many of these so called private technology firms are part of their portfolios from these insider moves.
Just because the “law” says something doesn’t mean people need to roll over and let their rights and civil liberties be trampled on. No attention would be brought to the injustice of it all if that were the case. It is because Rand Paul is such a seasoned traveler that this was a perfect opportunity to direct more light onto a system that is ineffective.
It shouldn’t matter if Rand Paul (or anyone for that matter) knows what to expect every time he enters an airport. This doesn’t mean people should just shut up and move along. What good does it do to just acquiesce and give in? That is what they want and that is how this country has moved so far away from the protection of everyone’s civil liberties to the oppression of civil liberties.
I just don’t get this mentality of “he should’ve known better and just moved along. It’s the “law””. Does no one here really care about questioning the legitimacy of these laws that infringe on our personal liberties and civil rights anymore?
Your scenario where if it wasn’t the TSA it would just be a private security firm at higher pay is very one dimensional. You are assuming that this terrible law needs to stay in effect. The law itself mandating how security should be handled needs to be repealed itself. It is nothing but a sham and only serves to create a false sense of security. If the airports and airlines themselves were in charge of implementing security instead of relying on the government telling them what to do, I believe a more effective approach to airline security would be realized.
Just look at the incidents that have made it through the TSA’s crack team of inspectors. What stopped these incidents? It certainly wasn’t the TSA. It ended up being either the flight crew or the passengers themselves who stopped them.
First and foremost you need to read my posts a little more carefully before making assumptions. I argued against the legislation that allowed these type of incidents to occur because I believe they are unconstitutional as they supersede the authority of the Constitution. I only started discussing Rand Paul's reaction to incident because of Like's post, then seeing all the media attention with that 'poor Rand Paul' factor and Dad's lets get rid of the TSA it all became petty and self-centered.
I standby the fact that as a seasoned traveler we all know what to expect when we enter an airport facility and he was no different. Your right there have been several incidents brought to light of people being search that made people think WTF. CONGRESS passed this legislation, now they want to cry foul when it's practices don't suit them. Well guess what, things changed when the problems were being caused by domestics and good ole CONGRESS passed more legislation in conflict of the Constitution.
So excuse me if I'm not comforting the Pauls for being upset over TSA's practices because, they want the searches, the scanners and, yes even the pat downs, they just want it restricted. Even if you get the TSA reduced or privatized, nothing changes if they don't go after the legislation they enacted that allows the laws of the Constitution to be superseded.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination this year Rand Paul will be the next Republican President. I'm ready and prepared to hit rock bottom, and under any other of the four we will.
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
These buzz words over this in order make it sound worse is driving me crazy. All just there to incite more outrage for his agenda.
detained
sexual assault
aggresively
"The Kentucky Republican said in an interview that the agency spends too much time conducting invasive searches of people who are not threats instead of devoting resources to identifying people who are."
Every TSA agent should know who the great Rand Paul is and let him pass. Watch out for the brown skinned people, not Mr. Paul.
Every TSA agent should know who the great Rand Paul is and let him pass. Watch out for the brown skinned people, not Mr. Paul.
Imagine if Rand was brown skinned and went to a Mosque? Add on top of it that he wants to chop the Homeland Security budget. He'd be on the no fly list, driving his car to D.C. with a tracking device on it!
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination this year Rand Paul will be the next Republican President. I'm ready and prepared to hit rock bottom, and under any other of the four we will.
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
sexual assault...???? a bit dramatic and sadly, typical fear mongering...
anyhoo...how does the constitution address Air Travel Safety...? I missed that section...
this drama over the TSA is a manufactured outrage...I have a simple solution for those who don't like the TSA rules... don't fly on a airplane...
First and foremost you need to read my posts a little more carefully before making assumptions. I argued against the legislation that allowed these type of incidents to occur because I believe they are unconstitutional as they supersede the authority of the Constitution. I only started discussing Rand Paul's reaction to incident because of Like's post, then seeing all the media attention with that 'poor Rand Paul' factor and Dad's lets get rid of the TSA it all became petty and self-centered.
I standby the fact that as a seasoned traveler we all know what to expect when we enter an airport facility and he was no different. Your right there have been several incidents brought to light of people being search that made people think WTF. CONGRESS passed this legislation, now they want to cry foul when it's practices don't suit them. Well guess what, things changed when the problems were being caused by domestics and good ole CONGRESS passed more legislation in conflict of the Constitution.
So excuse me if I'm not comforting the Pauls for being upset over TSA's practices because, they want the searches, the scanners and, yes even the pat downs, they just want it restricted. Even if you get the TSA reduced or privatized, nothing changes if they don't go after the legislation they enacted that allows the laws of the Constitution to be superseded.
I have read some of your prior posts and know that you didn't like the legislation. This latest one just came off to me as a bit different than what you have stated in the past and I still think you are a bit misguided if you truly feel that this legislation conflicts with the Constitution. Of course congress passed this legislation, but to assume that all of congress agrees with it is folly on your part. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul wasn't a part of Congress when this legislation was being written and voted on and I'm even more certain that Ron Paul voted against it. So, I fail to see how you feel you have any justification as to why members of Congress can't be critical of what past bodies have done if they don't agree with it. Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you automatically support every bill that has been passed. Rand Paul doesn't speak for all of Congress and all of Congress doesn't speak for Rand Paul. They are entitled to be upset with these practices especially since, to my knowledge, they have never condoned them. If you can show me where they have stated they still want the scanners and pat downs, I'll stand corrected. I just haven't seen it in any of the hearings they have been a part of.
First and foremost you need to read my posts a little more carefully before making assumptions. I argued against the legislation that allowed these type of incidents to occur because I believe they are unconstitutional as they supersede the authority of the Constitution. I only started discussing Rand Paul's reaction to incident because of Like's post, then seeing all the media attention with that 'poor Rand Paul' factor and Dad's lets get rid of the TSA it all became petty and self-centered.
I standby the fact that as a seasoned traveler we all know what to expect when we enter an airport facility and he was no different. Your right there have been several incidents brought to light of people being search that made people think WTF. CONGRESS passed this legislation, now they want to cry foul when it's practices don't suit them. Well guess what, things changed when the problems were being caused by domestics and good ole CONGRESS passed more legislation in conflict of the Constitution.
So excuse me if I'm not comforting the Pauls for being upset over TSA's practices because, they want the searches, the scanners and, yes even the pat downs, they just want it restricted. Even if you get the TSA reduced or privatized, nothing changes if they don't go after the legislation they enacted that allows the laws of the Constitution to be superseded.
I have read some of your prior posts and know that you didn't like the legislation. This latest one just came off to me as a bit different than what you have stated in the past and I still think you are a bit misguided if you truly feel that this legislation conflicts with the Constitution. Of course congress passed this legislation, but to assume that all of congress agrees with it is folly on your part. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul wasn't a part of Congress when this legislation was being written and voted on and I'm even more certain that Ron Paul voted against it. So, I fail to see how you feel you have any justification as to why members of Congress can't be critical of what past bodies have done if they don't agree with it. Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you automatically support every bill that has been passed. Rand Paul doesn't speak for all of Congress and all of Congress doesn't speak for Rand Paul. They are entitled to be upset with these practices especially since, to my knowledge, they have never condoned them. If you can show me where they have stated they still want the scanners and pat downs, I'll stand corrected. I just haven't seen it in any of the hearings they have been a part of.
Am I missing something -The search by the TSA was the bases for this whole Rand Paul dog and pony show – was it not?
I realize that it brought another TSA incident of what the public feels is an inept practice; but, what it also brought to light, because of Rand Paul’s job was that the legislation that gives the Department of Homeland Security the right to conduct such searches IS IN VIOLATION OF the CONSTITUTION for all citizens.
Herein lays the major issue that the Rand Paul incident has raised - Does National Security trump the Constitution?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I just posted a quote about him preaching fear, and I have in other threads, too. Law enforcement has been miguided and overstepping bounds for many years. But now we're going to lose all our freedoms in 10 years because a white guy can't get on a plane? I'm pretty aware of the patriot act, and I'm also aware of when someone is attempting to manipulate others. Indefinate detainment is much more of a concernt than the TSA, or what Ron calls one of the "ultimate imbodiments" of the American police state.
Honestly i don't know what to say. You so far have demeaned the intelligence of a few, specifically by likening some of us to absent minded folks who are white and angry that a white man was stopped and that we are easily manipulated.
seriously...he has been preaching civil liberty for about 30+ years, it isn't suddenly...he has talked about the police state, and the vast racial discrepancy in the justice system for years. In fact, a quote of his that talked sarcastically about the percentage of african americans that are criminals was used against him trying to paint him a racist...But apparently he just started now because a white guy got detained...bullshit...Explain to me how saying when the government takes an inch (patriot act) it goes a mile (NDAA) is preaching fear if it is actually happening? I guess if it is, I would rather here fears of tangible, real events rather than what might happen if iran gets the bomb, or we sell a few goods to cuba, or WMD's in Iraq...that is preaching fear.
Ron Paul was right in his characterization of the TSA, it is an embodiment of the police state...it is both ineffective and costly...It wasn't a fear based comment. No one is afraid of the TSA taking you to secret camps...
I would say preaching against things like the TSA is doing the exact opposite of preaching fear...it is showing how the collective, irrational government fear of terrorism has allowed that government to erode civil liberties in the name of safety and security...
How long before the first American citizen involved with green peace, peta, militias, the communist party, the Black Panthers, gang members, or the gay rights movement is indefinitely detained as a terrorist because of NDAA...seriously...at least we have promises they won't use it unless they absolutely have to right...yep nothing at all to be afraid of there...
Keep in mind, I don't think anyone who proposes these laws and rules are evil, I don't think their main goal is to relegate the american people to autocratic control...but it is very hard to go back once the erosion starts...it keeps going downhill as lawmakers are more and more willing to sell out the peoples' liberty in the same of security.
I suppose in all reality one man's mongering is another man's truth, but if what a politician talks about is really happens, is it still fear mongering?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I just posted a quote about him preaching fear, and I have in other threads, too. Law enforcement has been miguided and overstepping bounds for many years. But now we're going to lose all our freedoms in 10 years because a white guy can't get on a plane? I'm pretty aware of the patriot act, and I'm also aware of when someone is attempting to manipulate others. Indefinate detainment is much more of a concernt than the TSA, or what Ron calls one of the "ultimate imbodiments" of the American police state.
Honestly i don't know what to say. You so far have demeaned the intelligence of a few, specifically by likening some of us to absent minded folks who are white and angry that a white man was stopped and that we are easily manipulated.
seriously...he has been preaching civil liberty for about 30+ years, it isn't suddenly...he has talked about the police state, and the vast racial discrepancy in the justice system for years. In fact, a quote of his that talked sarcastically about the percentage of african americans that are criminals was used against him trying to paint him a racist...But apparently he just started now because a white guy got detained...bullshit...Explain to me how saying when the government takes an inch (patriot act) it goes a mile (NDAA) is preaching fear if it is actually happening? I guess if it is, I would rather here fears of tangible, real events rather than what might happen if iran gets the bomb, or we sell a few goods to cuba, or WMD's in Iraq...that is preaching fear.
Ron Paul was right in his characterization of the TSA, it is an embodiment of the police state...it is both ineffective and costly...It wasn't a fear based comment. No one is afraid of the TSA taking you to secret camps...
I would say preaching against things like the TSA is doing the exact opposite of preaching fear...it is showing how the collective, irrational government fear of terrorism has allowed that government to erode civil liberties in the name of safety and security...
How long before the first American citizen involved with green peace, peta, militias, the communist party, the Black Panthers, gang members, or the gay rights movement is indefinitely detained as a terrorist because of NDAA...seriously...at least we have promises they won't use it unless they absolutely have to right...yep nothing at all to be afraid of there...
Keep in mind, I don't think anyone who proposes these laws and rules are evil, I don't think their main goal is to relegate the american people to autocratic control...but it is very hard to go back once the erosion starts...it keeps going downhill as lawmakers are more and more willing to sell out the peoples' liberty in the same of security.
I suppose in all reality one man's mongering is another man's truth, but if what a politician talks about is really happens, is it still fear mongering?
I think the most partisan cross-section of the people need to realize that federal law is unlikely to change once enacted. Both laws and agencies are rarely ever chartered anymore, giving the Congress a chance to NOT renew a bad agency or policy.
Recently on Bill Maher's show, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz was talking about the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. She didn't sound thrilled about it, but she was confident to boast that President Obama would never use it against American citizens. Even if this is true, is Obama going to be president forever? What about the next guy? What if Rick Perry had that power at his fingertips? Who's to say Newt, Mitt, or Santorum wouldn't use it? These laws don't just have effect for the length of "my guy's" presidency-- they are forever. People need to stop looking at the law as being enforced by someone with their values and beliefs exclusively and realize that someone with very opposite beliefs can use some very vague language to force us all into situations in which the government was supposed to protect us against-- not impose on us. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but when it comes to legislation like the Patriot Act, he has always gone to bat for the people.
As for the amount of attention that this story has gotten-- I think that the NDAA is a bigger issue. The Patriot Act is a bigger issue. It's odd how the media picks and chooses it's stories about what is outrageous. Take the example of 500 million in lost money to Solyndra-- wasteful and horrible, for sure. But in the meantime, banks and corporations all over the world actually received 16 trillion dollars in secret loans at a rate of damn near zero, and not a peep.
First and foremost you need to read my posts a little more carefully before making assumptions. I argued against the legislation that allowed these type of incidents to occur because I believe they are unconstitutional as they supersede the authority of the Constitution. I only started discussing Rand Paul's reaction to incident because of Like's post, then seeing all the media attention with that 'poor Rand Paul' factor and Dad's lets get rid of the TSA it all became petty and self-centered.
I standby the fact that as a seasoned traveler we all know what to expect when we enter an airport facility and he was no different. Your right there have been several incidents brought to light of people being search that made people think WTF. CONGRESS passed this legislation, now they want to cry foul when it's practices don't suit them. Well guess what, things changed when the problems were being caused by domestics and good ole CONGRESS passed more legislation in conflict of the Constitution.
So excuse me if I'm not comforting the Pauls for being upset over TSA's practices because, they want the searches, the scanners and, yes even the pat downs, they just want it restricted. Even if you get the TSA reduced or privatized, nothing changes if they don't go after the legislation they enacted that allows the laws of the Constitution to be superseded.
I have read some of your prior posts and know that you didn't like the legislation. This latest one just came off to me as a bit different than what you have stated in the past and I still think you are a bit misguided if you truly feel that this legislation conflicts with the Constitution. Of course congress passed this legislation, but to assume that all of congress agrees with it is folly on your part. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul wasn't a part of Congress when this legislation was being written and voted on and I'm even more certain that Ron Paul voted against it. So, I fail to see how you feel you have any justification as to why members of Congress can't be critical of what past bodies have done if they don't agree with it. Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you automatically support every bill that has been passed. Rand Paul doesn't speak for all of Congress and all of Congress doesn't speak for Rand Paul. They are entitled to be upset with these practices especially since, to my knowledge, they have never condoned them. If you can show me where they have stated they still want the scanners and pat downs, I'll stand corrected. I just haven't seen it in any of the hearings they have been a part of.
Am I missing something -The search by the TSA was the bases for this whole Rand Paul dog and pony show – was it not?
I realize that it brought another TSA incident of what the public feels is an inept practice; but, what it also brought to light, because of Rand Paul’s job was that the legislation that gives the Department of Homeland Security the right to conduct such searches IS IN VIOLATION OF the CONSTITUTION for all citizens.
Herein lays the major issue that the Rand Paul incident has raised - Does National Security trump the Constitution?
I think what you are missing is that I am taking issue with your representation based on what I perceive to be faulty information of how Rand and Ron have no right to state their distaste for these procedures. See, I agree with what you are saying in this last post of yours but prior to this you were stating that Ron and Rand both support these procedures but just want them more restricted as to who has to undergo them when, to my knowledge, this is contrary to everything they’ve said on the topic.
They don’t want these procedures at all. From my understanding they don’t think this legislation should exist. They do not in any form want the scanners, searches, and pat downs to happen to people simply because they are going to travel. Instead, they want good investigatory work to take place before anyone with terroristic tendencies even steps foot in an airport.
We had the ability to investigate potential terrorist threats prior to the Patriot Act, the problem wasn’t with our detective agencies not having enough tools at their disposal, but more with certain higher ups not listening to the agents that were actually doing a good job of outing terrorists and that has been Ron and Rand’s message.
I don’t know, maybe I’m the misinformed one here. If so, I’d appreciate you showing me where you have seen them state that they would like searches to continue to occur but on a more restricted basis.
To answer your last question, no, I do not think national security trumps the Constitution.
I just posted a quote about him preaching fear, and I have in other threads, too. Law enforcement has been miguided and overstepping bounds for many years. But now we're going to lose all our freedoms in 10 years because a white guy can't get on a plane? I'm pretty aware of the patriot act, and I'm also aware of when someone is attempting to manipulate others. Indefinate detainment is much more of a concernt than the TSA, or what Ron calls one of the "ultimate imbodiments" of the American police state.
Honestly i don't know what to say. You so far have demeaned the intelligence of a few, specifically by likening some of us to absent minded folks who are white and angry that a white man was stopped and that we are easily manipulated.
seriously...he has been preaching civil liberty for about 30+ years, it isn't suddenly...he has talked about the police state, and the vast racial discrepancy in the justice system for years. In fact, a quote of his that talked sarcastically about the percentage of african americans that are criminals was used against him trying to paint him a racist...But apparently he just started now because a white guy got detained...bullshit...Explain to me how saying when the government takes an inch (patriot act) it goes a mile (NDAA) is preaching fear if it is actually happening? I guess if it is, I would rather here fears of tangible, real events rather than what might happen if iran gets the bomb, or we sell a few goods to cuba, or WMD's in Iraq...that is preaching fear.
Ron Paul was right in his characterization of the TSA, it is an embodiment of the police state...it is both ineffective and costly...It wasn't a fear based comment. No one is afraid of the TSA taking you to secret camps...
I would say preaching against things like the TSA is doing the exact opposite of preaching fear...it is showing how the collective, irrational government fear of terrorism has allowed that government to erode civil liberties in the name of safety and security...
How long before the first American citizen involved with green peace, peta, militias, the communist party, the Black Panthers, gang members, or the gay rights movement is indefinitely detained as a terrorist because of NDAA...seriously...at least we have promises they won't use it unless they absolutely have to right...yep nothing at all to be afraid of there...
Keep in mind, I don't think anyone who proposes these laws and rules are evil, I don't think their main goal is to relegate the american people to autocratic control...but it is very hard to go back once the erosion starts...it keeps going downhill as lawmakers are more and more willing to sell out the peoples' liberty in the same of security.
I suppose in all reality one man's mongering is another man's truth, but if what a politician talks about is really happens, is it still fear mongering?
I don't think I'm demeaning anyone's intelligence or saying they're absent minded. I was making observations on people's comments in this thread as well as Ron Paul's. In the thread, if anyone referenced that pat downs weren't a big deal or noted that flying is a choice, or suggested that the whole thing was set up by Rand, they were assumed to then be the polar opposite, i.e. willing to give up freedoms for false security, unaware of the Patriot Act, and apathetic sheep. Polarized responses come from people who follow polarizing leaders. The enemy Ron Paul has created is the Federal Government. If Ron Paul wants to talk about indefinite detainment, by all means, I think he should. Pat downs from the TSA is a different issue. I didn't say he just started because a white guy got detained (sic). I'm saying his followers are taking notice because a white guy couldn't fly, and Ron and Rand saw this as an opportunity.
Sometimes Ron makes good points about what is happening, and other times he runs with it to confirm his agenda that the federal government is the enemy. You see it in the inflammatory language used. "Sexual abuse"? That's just offensive and Ron and Rand are intelligent enough to know this, but they also know that it elicits a stronger emotional response. When I see manipulation, I like to point it out.
You're calling it "government irrational fear of terrorism", but recall that it's reflecting the citizen's irrational fear of terrorism.
I have read some of your prior posts and know that you didn't like the legislation. This latest one just came off to me as a bit different than what you have stated in the past and I still think you are a bit misguided if you truly feel that this legislation conflicts with the Constitution. Of course congress passed this legislation, but to assume that all of congress agrees with it is folly on your part. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul wasn't a part of Congress when this legislation was being written and voted on and I'm even more certain that Ron Paul voted against it. So, I fail to see how you feel you have any justification as to why members of Congress can't be critical of what past bodies have done if they don't agree with it. Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you automatically support every bill that has been passed. Rand Paul doesn't speak for all of Congress and all of Congress doesn't speak for Rand Paul. They are entitled to be upset with these practices especially since, to my knowledge, they have never condoned them. If you can show me where they have stated they still want the scanners and pat downs, I'll stand corrected. I just haven't seen it in any of the hearings they have been a part of.
Am I missing something -The search by the TSA was the bases for this whole Rand Paul dog and pony show – was it not?
I realize that it brought another TSA incident of what the public feels is an inept practice; but, what it also brought to light, because of Rand Paul’s job was that the legislation that gives the Department of Homeland Security the right to conduct such searches IS IN VIOLATION OF the CONSTITUTION for all citizens.
Herein lays the major issue that the Rand Paul incident has raised - Does National Security trump the Constitution?
I think what you are missing is that I am taking issue with your representation based on what I perceive to be faulty information of how Rand and Ron have no right to state their distaste for these procedures. See, I agree with what you are saying in this last post of yours but prior to this you were stating that Ron and Rand both support these procedures but just want them more restricted as to who has to undergo them when, to my knowledge, this is contrary to everything they’ve said on the topic.
They don’t want these procedures at all. From my understanding they don’t think this legislation should exist. They do not in any form want the scanners, searches, and pat downs to happen to people simply because they are going to travel. Instead, they want good investigatory work to take place before anyone with terroristic tendencies even steps foot in an airport.
We had the ability to investigate potential terrorist threats prior to the Patriot Act, the problem wasn’t with our detective agencies not having enough tools at their disposal, but more with certain higher ups not listening to the agents that were actually doing a good job of outing terrorists and that has been Ron and Rand’s message.
I don’t know, maybe I’m the misinformed one here. If so, I’d appreciate you showing me where you have seen them state that they would like searches to continue to occur but on a more restricted basis.
To answer your last question, no, I do not think national security trumps the Constitution.
I don't think I'm demeaning anyone's intelligence or saying they're absent minded. I was making observations on people's comments in this thread as well as Ron Paul's. In the thread, if anyone referenced that pat downs weren't a big deal or noted that flying is a choice, or suggested that the whole thing was set up by Rand, they were assumed to then be the polar opposite, i.e. willing to give up freedoms for false security, unaware of the Patriot Act, and apathetic sheep. Polarized responses come from people who follow polarizing leaders. The enemy Ron Paul has created is the Federal Government. If Ron Paul wants to talk about indefinite detainment, by all means, I think he should. Pat downs from the TSA is a different issue. I didn't say he just started because a white guy got detained (sic). I'm saying his followers are taking notice because a white guy couldn't fly, and Ron and Rand saw this as an opportunity.
Sometimes Ron makes good points about what is happening, and other times he runs with it to confirm his agenda that the federal government is the enemy. You see it in the inflammatory language used. "Sexual abuse"? That's just offensive and Ron and Rand are intelligent enough to know this, but they also know that it elicits a stronger emotional response. When I see manipulation, I like to point it out.
You're calling it "government irrational fear of terrorism", but recall that it's reflecting the citizen's irrational fear of terrorism.
It has nothing to do with race. NOTHING. why even bring it up?
the "followers" ...you could just say supporters couldn't you?...none of them like the TSA...it didn't take anything special for them not to like it...it took something special for the media to cover it...that is very different...I agree, that calling it sexual abuse is highly uncalled for...but the words are used to make a point, not manipulate. they are two very different things.
as to the part in bold, who has whipped that up? it certainly isn't Ron Paul.
regarding the first paragraph...I believe the (para) phrase "keep eating it up guys" kind of proves my point. You think it is just manipulation. And you don't call it as you see it, You attack Ron Paul and most things conservative. That is where my comments came from, your previous comments only further everything I have read from you on the board. You were not just "pointing out manipulation", you were looking for the angle that best serves your bias against Paul...and saying it was set up and pure manipulation is ridiculous. This will not garner one more vote for the campaign on its own. not one.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think I'm demeaning anyone's intelligence or saying they're absent minded. I was making observations on people's comments in this thread as well as Ron Paul's. In the thread, if anyone referenced that pat downs weren't a big deal or noted that flying is a choice, or suggested that the whole thing was set up by Rand, they were assumed to then be the polar opposite, i.e. willing to give up freedoms for false security, unaware of the Patriot Act, and apathetic sheep. Polarized responses come from people who follow polarizing leaders. The enemy Ron Paul has created is the Federal Government. If Ron Paul wants to talk about indefinite detainment, by all means, I think he should. Pat downs from the TSA is a different issue. I didn't say he just started because a white guy got detained (sic). I'm saying his followers are taking notice because a white guy couldn't fly, and Ron and Rand saw this as an opportunity.
Sometimes Ron makes good points about what is happening, and other times he runs with it to confirm his agenda that the federal government is the enemy. You see it in the inflammatory language used. "Sexual abuse"? That's just offensive and Ron and Rand are intelligent enough to know this, but they also know that it elicits a stronger emotional response. When I see manipulation, I like to point it out.
You're calling it "government irrational fear of terrorism", but recall that it's reflecting the citizen's irrational fear of terrorism.
It has nothing to do with race. NOTHING. why even bring it up?
the "followers" ...you could just say supporters couldn't you?...none of them like the TSA...it didn't take anything special for them not to like it...it took something special for the media to cover it...that is very different...I agree, that calling it sexual abuse is highly uncalled for...but the words are used to make a point, not manipulate. they are two very different things.
as to the part in bold, who has whipped that up? it certainly isn't Ron Paul.
regarding the first paragraph...I believe the (para) phrase "keep eating it up guys" kind of proves my point. You think it is just manipulation. And you don't call it as you see it, You attack Ron Paul and most things conservative. That is where my comments came from, your previous comments only further everything I have read from you on the board. You were not just "pointing out manipulation", you were looking for the angle that best serves your bias against Paul...and saying it was set up and pure manipulation is ridiculous. This will not garner one more vote for the campaign on its own. not one.
I have a bias against people who create a false enemy, whether it's the federal government, the Soviet Union, welfare moms, or illegal immigrants.
Race is intertwined with politics, whether someone wants it to be or not. If 40% of Ron Paul's supporters were minorities, it would come across as rather ridiculous to most of them to have Rand and Ron complain about a pat down at the airport when more severe violations happen to people in their community. Ron supporters are mostly white guys, they're drawn to him. I ask why are Ron's supporters mostly white guys. Why are there so few black Republicans? Why do more women vote Democrat? These are things I think about and observe.
Comments
He is 100% right, anyone that thinks we should be subject to a sexual assault is wrong. The Constitution was made to protect the People from the government, do we need another Civics lesson?
I'm amazed what people will give up for pseudo-security, I laugh at those that think we should just "take your pat down and move on," no I really don't I feel sorry for you. I'm embarrassed and amazed that people would vote for someone like Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, etc...
Nobody cares that we lost habeas corpus with the recent Obama signing of NDAA and Congress approving it, nobody cares that we get our genitals groped in a "pat-down".
Jingle the shiny keys, Jersey Shore is on. Some people make me fucking sick.
I just posted a quote about him preaching fear, and I have in other threads, too. Law enforcement has been miguided and overstepping bounds for many years. But now we're going to lose all our freedoms in 10 years because a white guy can't get on a plane? I'm pretty aware of the patriot act, and I'm also aware of when someone is attempting to manipulate others. Indefinate detainment is much more of a concernt than the TSA, or what Ron calls one of the "ultimate imbodiments" of the American police state.
Obviously you're much higher evolved than anyone who can see through this. You calling it a "sexual assault" for dramatic purposes shows you've lost your context. The black and white responses to people who said anything contrary to the OP reflects a group succeptable to manipulation.
And how many news articles were written and how much camera time did Rand get?
A fn men.
First and foremost you need to read my posts a little more carefully before making assumptions. I argued against the legislation that allowed these type of incidents to occur because I believe they are unconstitutional as they supersede the authority of the Constitution. I only started discussing Rand Paul's reaction to incident because of Like's post, then seeing all the media attention with that 'poor Rand Paul' factor and Dad's lets get rid of the TSA it all became petty and self-centered.
I standby the fact that as a seasoned traveler we all know what to expect when we enter an airport facility and he was no different. Your right there have been several incidents brought to light of people being search that made people think WTF. CONGRESS passed this legislation, now they want to cry foul when it's practices don't suit them. Well guess what, things changed when the problems were being caused by domestics and good ole CONGRESS passed more legislation in conflict of the Constitution.
So excuse me if I'm not comforting the Pauls for being upset over TSA's practices because, they want the searches, the scanners and, yes even the pat downs, they just want it restricted. Even if you get the TSA reduced or privatized, nothing changes if they don't go after the legislation they enacted that allows the laws of the Constitution to be superseded.
detained
sexual assault
aggresively
"The Kentucky Republican said in an interview that the agency spends too much time conducting invasive searches of people who are not threats instead of devoting resources to identifying people who are."
Every TSA agent should know who the great Rand Paul is and let him pass. Watch out for the brown skinned people, not Mr. Paul.
Imagine if Rand was brown skinned and went to a Mosque? Add on top of it that he wants to chop the Homeland Security budget. He'd be on the no fly list, driving his car to D.C. with a tracking device on it!
sexual assault...???? a bit dramatic and sadly, typical fear mongering...
anyhoo...how does the constitution address Air Travel Safety...? I missed that section...
this drama over the TSA is a manufactured outrage...I have a simple solution for those who don't like the TSA rules... don't fly on a airplane...
you're welcome...
I have read some of your prior posts and know that you didn't like the legislation. This latest one just came off to me as a bit different than what you have stated in the past and I still think you are a bit misguided if you truly feel that this legislation conflicts with the Constitution. Of course congress passed this legislation, but to assume that all of congress agrees with it is folly on your part. I'm pretty sure Rand Paul wasn't a part of Congress when this legislation was being written and voted on and I'm even more certain that Ron Paul voted against it. So, I fail to see how you feel you have any justification as to why members of Congress can't be critical of what past bodies have done if they don't agree with it. Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you automatically support every bill that has been passed. Rand Paul doesn't speak for all of Congress and all of Congress doesn't speak for Rand Paul. They are entitled to be upset with these practices especially since, to my knowledge, they have never condoned them. If you can show me where they have stated they still want the scanners and pat downs, I'll stand corrected. I just haven't seen it in any of the hearings they have been a part of.
Am I missing something -The search by the TSA was the bases for this whole Rand Paul dog and pony show – was it not?
I realize that it brought another TSA incident of what the public feels is an inept practice; but, what it also brought to light, because of Rand Paul’s job was that the legislation that gives the Department of Homeland Security the right to conduct such searches IS IN VIOLATION OF the CONSTITUTION for all citizens.
Herein lays the major issue that the Rand Paul incident has raised - Does National Security trump the Constitution?
Honestly i don't know what to say. You so far have demeaned the intelligence of a few, specifically by likening some of us to absent minded folks who are white and angry that a white man was stopped and that we are easily manipulated.
seriously...he has been preaching civil liberty for about 30+ years, it isn't suddenly...he has talked about the police state, and the vast racial discrepancy in the justice system for years. In fact, a quote of his that talked sarcastically about the percentage of african americans that are criminals was used against him trying to paint him a racist...But apparently he just started now because a white guy got detained...bullshit...Explain to me how saying when the government takes an inch (patriot act) it goes a mile (NDAA) is preaching fear if it is actually happening? I guess if it is, I would rather here fears of tangible, real events rather than what might happen if iran gets the bomb, or we sell a few goods to cuba, or WMD's in Iraq...that is preaching fear.
Ron Paul was right in his characterization of the TSA, it is an embodiment of the police state...it is both ineffective and costly...It wasn't a fear based comment. No one is afraid of the TSA taking you to secret camps...
I would say preaching against things like the TSA is doing the exact opposite of preaching fear...it is showing how the collective, irrational government fear of terrorism has allowed that government to erode civil liberties in the name of safety and security...
How long before the first American citizen involved with green peace, peta, militias, the communist party, the Black Panthers, gang members, or the gay rights movement is indefinitely detained as a terrorist because of NDAA...seriously...at least we have promises they won't use it unless they absolutely have to right...yep nothing at all to be afraid of there...
Keep in mind, I don't think anyone who proposes these laws and rules are evil, I don't think their main goal is to relegate the american people to autocratic control...but it is very hard to go back once the erosion starts...it keeps going downhill as lawmakers are more and more willing to sell out the peoples' liberty in the same of security.
I suppose in all reality one man's mongering is another man's truth, but if what a politician talks about is really happens, is it still fear mongering?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think the most partisan cross-section of the people need to realize that federal law is unlikely to change once enacted. Both laws and agencies are rarely ever chartered anymore, giving the Congress a chance to NOT renew a bad agency or policy.
Recently on Bill Maher's show, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz was talking about the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. She didn't sound thrilled about it, but she was confident to boast that President Obama would never use it against American citizens. Even if this is true, is Obama going to be president forever? What about the next guy? What if Rick Perry had that power at his fingertips? Who's to say Newt, Mitt, or Santorum wouldn't use it? These laws don't just have effect for the length of "my guy's" presidency-- they are forever. People need to stop looking at the law as being enforced by someone with their values and beliefs exclusively and realize that someone with very opposite beliefs can use some very vague language to force us all into situations in which the government was supposed to protect us against-- not impose on us. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but when it comes to legislation like the Patriot Act, he has always gone to bat for the people.
As for the amount of attention that this story has gotten-- I think that the NDAA is a bigger issue. The Patriot Act is a bigger issue. It's odd how the media picks and chooses it's stories about what is outrageous. Take the example of 500 million in lost money to Solyndra-- wasteful and horrible, for sure. But in the meantime, banks and corporations all over the world actually received 16 trillion dollars in secret loans at a rate of damn near zero, and not a peep.
I think what you are missing is that I am taking issue with your representation based on what I perceive to be faulty information of how Rand and Ron have no right to state their distaste for these procedures. See, I agree with what you are saying in this last post of yours but prior to this you were stating that Ron and Rand both support these procedures but just want them more restricted as to who has to undergo them when, to my knowledge, this is contrary to everything they’ve said on the topic.
They don’t want these procedures at all. From my understanding they don’t think this legislation should exist. They do not in any form want the scanners, searches, and pat downs to happen to people simply because they are going to travel. Instead, they want good investigatory work to take place before anyone with terroristic tendencies even steps foot in an airport.
We had the ability to investigate potential terrorist threats prior to the Patriot Act, the problem wasn’t with our detective agencies not having enough tools at their disposal, but more with certain higher ups not listening to the agents that were actually doing a good job of outing terrorists and that has been Ron and Rand’s message.
I don’t know, maybe I’m the misinformed one here. If so, I’d appreciate you showing me where you have seen them state that they would like searches to continue to occur but on a more restricted basis.
To answer your last question, no, I do not think national security trumps the Constitution.
I don't think I'm demeaning anyone's intelligence or saying they're absent minded. I was making observations on people's comments in this thread as well as Ron Paul's. In the thread, if anyone referenced that pat downs weren't a big deal or noted that flying is a choice, or suggested that the whole thing was set up by Rand, they were assumed to then be the polar opposite, i.e. willing to give up freedoms for false security, unaware of the Patriot Act, and apathetic sheep. Polarized responses come from people who follow polarizing leaders. The enemy Ron Paul has created is the Federal Government. If Ron Paul wants to talk about indefinite detainment, by all means, I think he should. Pat downs from the TSA is a different issue. I didn't say he just started because a white guy got detained (sic). I'm saying his followers are taking notice because a white guy couldn't fly, and Ron and Rand saw this as an opportunity.
Sometimes Ron makes good points about what is happening, and other times he runs with it to confirm his agenda that the federal government is the enemy. You see it in the inflammatory language used. "Sexual abuse"? That's just offensive and Ron and Rand are intelligent enough to know this, but they also know that it elicits a stronger emotional response. When I see manipulation, I like to point it out.
You're calling it "government irrational fear of terrorism", but recall that it's reflecting the citizen's irrational fear of terrorism.
Really? Then they just aren't very smart
It has nothing to do with race. NOTHING. why even bring it up?
the "followers" ...you could just say supporters couldn't you?...none of them like the TSA...it didn't take anything special for them not to like it...it took something special for the media to cover it...that is very different...I agree, that calling it sexual abuse is highly uncalled for...but the words are used to make a point, not manipulate. they are two very different things.
as to the part in bold, who has whipped that up? it certainly isn't Ron Paul.
regarding the first paragraph...I believe the (para) phrase "keep eating it up guys" kind of proves my point. You think it is just manipulation. And you don't call it as you see it, You attack Ron Paul and most things conservative. That is where my comments came from, your previous comments only further everything I have read from you on the board. You were not just "pointing out manipulation", you were looking for the angle that best serves your bias against Paul...and saying it was set up and pure manipulation is ridiculous. This will not garner one more vote for the campaign on its own. not one.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You will have to forgive me. I didn't realize you were the authority on others' intelligence and what is actually effective security. :roll:
here's the video of the egregious detainment of Raud Paul...
poor guy.
I have a bias against people who create a false enemy, whether it's the federal government, the Soviet Union, welfare moms, or illegal immigrants.
Race is intertwined with politics, whether someone wants it to be or not. If 40% of Ron Paul's supporters were minorities, it would come across as rather ridiculous to most of them to have Rand and Ron complain about a pat down at the airport when more severe violations happen to people in their community. Ron supporters are mostly white guys, they're drawn to him. I ask why are Ron's supporters mostly white guys. Why are there so few black Republicans? Why do more women vote Democrat? These are things I think about and observe.