Video surfaces of Rand Paul's violent detention at tairport
Comments
-
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:mikepegg44 wrote:also, link to info on him setting off the metal detector twice? I thought it was the full body scanner once and they wouldn't let him go through twice?
I'm actually seeing a few different versions of the story, one was setting off the metal detector and one was a body scan that didn't work.
Either way... those are the rules. They're not taking away your "rights," there is no "right to take an airplane ride" in the constitution.
No, but there is the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. :roll: Point being, that everyone is being treated as if they were a criminal the instant they show up at an airport and want to board a plane. This is not right.
I would think you would be against having to follow all of the "rules". Some "rules" say it isn't okay to be gay.0 -
MookiesLaw wrote:When you are finished with the hysterics
Oh honey, no.
You're not allowed to post something like...MookiesLaw wrote:The idiocy of TSA knows no bounds. Further proof of that (not that anyone should need further proof), is that TSA security now looks at people who complain about.......TSA security. Didn't the gestapo think it was a good idea to place people under observation if a person complained about them?
... and then accuse me of "hysterics."
If you want to have a reasonable conversation, fine. When you start comparing security searches at the airport to Nazi secret police, you have lost the argument before it's even begun.0 -
Sludge Factory wrote:Some "rules" say it isn't okay to be gay.
What? That makes no sense at all.
What does my sexual orientation have to do with this? (For the record, most people who meet me don't know that so if you're saying that's why I'm getting searched... we probably haven't met.)
(I would like the record to show that I didn't bring this topic up, so when inlet/Waverider/anyone else throws a tantrum about how I bring it up in every thread, we can point to this one as more evidence that it's usually other people who bring it up.)0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:Some "rules" say it isn't okay to be gay.
What? That makes no sense at all.
What does my sexual orientation have to do with this? (For the record, most people who meet me don't know that so if you're saying that's why I'm getting searched... we probably haven't met.)
(I would like the record to show that I didn't bring this topic up, so when inlet/Waverider/anyone else throws a tantrum about how I bring it up in every thread, we can point to this one as more evidence that it's usually other people who bring it up.)
His point was that "rules are rules" is a dumb argument, and cited some very dumb rules, ie "it isn't okay to be gay" to prove it.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:Some "rules" say it isn't okay to be gay.
What? That makes no sense at all.
What does my sexual orientation have to do with this? (For the record, most people who meet me don't know that so if you're saying that's why I'm getting searched... we probably haven't met.)
(I would like the record to show that I didn't bring this topic up, so when inlet/Waverider/anyone else throws a tantrum about how I bring it up in every thread, we can point to this one as more evidence that it's usually other people who bring it up.)
Vinny pretty much answered this spot on already for me. I wasn't trying to infer that this was why you were being searched, but simply pointing out, as Vinnie said, that the "rules are rules" isn't a very good argument. This argument usually serves as nothing more than to set yourself up to look like a hypocrite.
Let the record stand that you weren't the first to bring up your orientation in this thread
Post edited by Sludge Factory on0 -
Sludge Factory wrote:No, but there is the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. :roll: Point being, that everyone is being treated as if they were a criminal the instant they show up at an airport and want to board a plane. This is not right.
^This.
Speaking of "rules are rules," how about we start re-applying it to the Bill of Rights?0 -
VINNY GOOMBA wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:No, but there is the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. :roll: Point being, that everyone is being treated as if they were a criminal the instant they show up at an airport and want to board a plane. This is not right.
^This.
Speaking of "rules are rules," how about we start re-applying it to the Bill of Rights?
What?! No, that's crazy talk. We should only apply the ones that "I" agree with because "I" should be the authority on how people go about their lives. After all, I may not know how to live my own life, but I bet I can tell others how to best live theirs for them!
0 -
mikepegg44 wrote:honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...0 -
Just wait til the TSA starts doing border control on highways. Which I believe is already happening in a southern state.0
-
mikepegg44 wrote:honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
although the TSA is a gov't agency ... much like everything else - the actual task of screening is contracted out to private vendors ...0 -
inmytree wrote:and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
Not yet, anyway...0 -
Sludge Factory wrote:inmytree wrote:and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
Not yet, anyway...
so you agree the current structure of the pat downs are not random...thanks...0 -
SweetChildofMine wrote:Just wait til the TSA starts doing border control on highways. Which I believe is already happening in a southern state.
since you don't even know if the TSA is conducting border patrol, I'll hold my fear in my back pocket...0 -
inmytree wrote:SweetChildofMine wrote:Just wait til the TSA starts doing border control on highways. Which I believe is already happening in a southern state.
since you don't even know if the TSA is conducting border patrol, I'll hold my fear in my back pocket...
Oh in Tennessee they say.0 -
inmytree wrote:mikepegg44 wrote:honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
^excellent point.
It's not that I'd be supportive of the patdowns. I wouldn't, or at least not the "enhanced" variety by private business either-- unless of course, I'm getting felt up by hot chicks
-- a solution, that technically only the private sector could offer in a society that values property rights! But all half-joking aside, if the TSA were to disappear tomorrow, I don't know for certain whether the airlines would abandon all current forms of "abusive" security, but I think most of them, given the level of dissatisfaction with the current procedures would find other ways of doing things-- but, ultimately it is a job for the airlines, and not the government, since it is illegal for good reason that the government cannot simply decide to search our persons for no good reason. Some might tout the fact that they offer the greatest security possible by checking every person thoroughly with enhanced pat-downs. Others might not. Some might use the scanners, others might not. Some might settle for metal detectors. Some might come up with different options for trusted frequent fliers that always gives them a pass-- maybe a customer card with biometric data on it? Maybe some would profile, something the government is prohibited from doing, and has NOT openly done since 9/11, but owners of private property and enterprise, should, in theory, be allowed to do. And by profile, I do not necessarily mean focus on a specific subset of people, although that is certainly possible, but rather leaving babies and grandma alone. Some airlines may be actually motivated by the fact that many people at present are NOT happy with the level of security, and use that motivation to create a method that far surpasses anything that has been discussed so far. The TSA mandates stifle any real creativity to make this system better and more efficient. The fact is, I'm not an airline professional, and neither is the government. None of the airlines want problems on their flights, terrorism or other-- why WOULDN'T they want to provide their passengers with a safe flight and compete to guarantee that their customers are afforded exactly that? To say that airline security would disappear without the TSA would be way off. Passengers value security, and as entities ultimately liable for the security of their passengers, the airlines are should be responsible, and will act accordingly, even if and only if their only motivation was simply to profit.
The libertarian position is always one that gets pigeonholed as disregarding the law, and mistrusting of government. I see it as having the highest respect for the highest law, the Constitution, which protects us from having government search us any way that they see fit.0 -
inmytree wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:inmytree wrote:and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
Not yet, anyway...
so you agree the current structure of the pat downs are not random...thanks...
No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street0 -
Sludge Factory wrote:No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?0 -
VINNY GOOMBA wrote:inmytree wrote:mikepegg44 wrote:honestly, I hear "if you don't like it don't fly" all the time. that would be fine, if the airport security was private. this is a government agency that is doing it. I am sure we all wouldn't feel the same way if police officers were aloud to search you without probably cause...oh wait...I am remembering some people having problems with a certain Arizona law about this very thing...
look...you guys can hate it all you want, but when that shit starts happening (NDAA) then I guess we are supposed to just grin and bear it then too right...I mean if you aren't doing anything wrong than I guess you have nothing to worry about
POD, that isn't right that you get pulled aside that often. I realize you haven't yet complained about it and are ok with it in the name of safety. My whole argument, and the argument made by many, is that this is a government agency who has the right to pat you down randomly, and yes they do it randomly...if it is ok at the airport, why isn't it ok in high crime areas? there is the same risk...in fact I would argue that the high crime areas pose more of a risk to public safety than terrorists do on an airplane...
so...if the TSA were a private for-profit entity, you'd be supportive of the pat downs...? wow, that's really interesting...
and the pat downs are not "random"...they happen when someone enters airport security...a person walking down the street does not get randomly patted down by the TSA...
^excellent point.
It's not that I'd be supportive of the patdowns. I wouldn't, or at least not the "enhanced" variety by private business either-- unless of course, I'm getting felt up by hot chicks -- a solution, that technically only the private sector could offer in a society that values property rights! But all half-joking aside, if the TSA were to disappear tomorrow, I don't know for certain whether the airlines would abandon all current forms of "abusive" security, but I think most of them, given the level of dissatisfaction with the current procedures would find other ways of doing things-- but, ultimately it is a job for the airlines, and not the government, since it is illegal for good reason that the government cannot simply decide to search our persons for no good reason. Some might tout the fact that they offer the greatest security possible by checking every person thoroughly with enhanced pat-downs. Others might not. Some might use the scanners, others might not. Some might settle for metal detectors. Some might come up with different options for trusted frequent fliers that always gives them a pass-- maybe a customer card with biometric data on it? Maybe some would profile, something the government is prohibited from doing, and has NOT openly done since 9/11, but owners of private property and enterprise, should, in theory, be allowed to do. And by profile, I do not necessarily mean focus on a specific subset of people, although that is certainly possible, but rather leaving babies and grandma alone. Some airlines may be actually motivated by the fact that many people at present are NOT happy with the level of security, and use that motivation to create a method that far surpasses anything that has been discussed so far. The TSA mandates stifle any real creativity to make this system better and more efficient. The fact is, I'm not an airline professional, and neither is the government. None of the airlines want problems on their flights, terrorism or other-- why WOULDN'T they want to provide their passengers with a safe flight and compete to guarantee that their customers are afforded exactly that? To say that airline security would disappear without the TSA would be way off. Passengers value security, and as entities ultimately liable for the security of their passengers, the airlines are should be responsible, and will act accordingly, even if and only if their only motivation was simply to profit.
The libertarian position is always one that gets pigeonholed as disregarding the law, and mistrusting of government. I see it as having the highest respect for the highest law, the Constitution, which protects us from having government search us any way that they see fit.
I just have to say that your explanation here is pretty impressive. I like it.0 -
VINNY GOOMBA wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
Right, and if we go there, why wouldn't we set up random TSA checkpoints along highways and randomly inspect car travelers? It's a slipperly slope once you start trading in your freedom in the name of security. Heck, why stop there? Let's expand the TSA to have major checkpoints that cover the walking populace in bigger metropolitan areas like New York City.0 -
Sludge Factory wrote:VINNY GOOMBA wrote:Sludge Factory wrote:No, you are putting words into my mouth. I am stating that they aren't currently randomly patting down people walking down the street
Right, and that's probably not likely to happen-- but buses, subways, trains-- why wouldn't they fall under the protection of TSA? Apparently, some people must want it that way?
Right, and if we go there, why wouldn't we set up random TSA checkpoints along highways and randomly inspect car travelers? It's a slipperly slope once you start trading in your freedom in the name of security. Heck, why stop there? Let's expand the TSA to have major checkpoints that cover the walking populace in bigger metropolitan areas like New York City.
Walking IS transportation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help