Another egregious breach of the Constitution

inmytree

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/video ... detainment

here's the video of the egregious detainment of Raud Paul...

Smellyman

inmytree wrote:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/video-rand-pauls-relaxed-tsa-detainment

here's the video of the egregious detainment of Raud Paul...

poor guy.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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.