Rand Paul detained by TSA

[Mr. Shaman]

Rand Paul detained by TSA - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Things about to get interesting.

ENEMY OF THE STATE

....Shoulda stayed a front-man, in the music business.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM]The B52's - Love Shack - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Paulie]

Civil disobedience only counts if you are a OWS, loony-toons moron. Decent working people are not permitted to use CD as a way to demonstrate they disagreement.

Article 15 and his ilk have been indoctrinated to accepting government supremacy and tyranny. They wonder why Sen Rand Paul hasn't.

.

I am not pro that law by any means...but I acept it...and fly as little as I need to.

But to ignore the valid reason for it is just plain old disingenuous.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

 

[Contumacious]

Civil disobedience only counts if you are a OWS, loony-toons moron. Decent working people are not permitted to use CD as a way to demonstrate they disagreement.

Article 15 and his ilk have been indoctrinated to accepting government supremacy and tyranny. They wonder why Sen Rand Paul hasn't.

.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Only if you are not familiar with Munchausen by proxy syndrome>

.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

According to this article, he wasn't detained, he was simply refused entry.

TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul at airport checkpoint - CNN.com

and he should have been refused entry. He did not follow the rules.

Buying a ticket means you accept the possibility of being groped.

You dont want to get groped, dont by a ticket.

 

[candycorn]

Nice!!! Someday we'll look back on the TSA as being the total waste that it is. He's a US Senator for God's sake; he's no more a danger to an aircraft than jet fuel.

 

[Avorysuds]

I guess Rand Paul thinks the rules don't apply to him

Too bad we have a President that does not think the constitution applies to them.

 

[Article 15]

Rand Paul detained by TSA - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

Things about to get interesting.

ENEMY OF THE STATE

....Shoulda stayed a front-man, in the music business.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM]The B52's - Love Shack - YouTube[/ame]​

That's some funny shit.

 

[G.T.]

According to this article, he wasn't detained, he was simply refused entry.

TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul at airport checkpoint - CNN.com

and he should have been refused entry. He did not follow the rules.

Buying a ticket means you accept the possibility of being groped.

You dont want to get groped, dont by a ticket.

Yea, they're checking people for weapons to board planes because they want to have thorough control of.............trafficing weapons on planes. oh noes.

 

[G.T.]

Article 15 and his ilk have been indoctrinated to accepting government supremacy and tyranny. They wonder why Sen Rand Paul hasn't.

.

I am not pro that law by any means...but I acept it...and fly as little as I need to.

But to ignore the valid reason for it is just plain old disingenuous.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

Your right to privacy is not being violated. Flying is a voluntary act, and if you decide to not be searched, you are not arrested. You can turn around and walk away and not fly as a result. Freedom reigns.

 

[Conservative]

I guess "freedom of movement" only applies to walking, horseback, stagecoach and schooner.

If I have to pay someone to transport me, then I should be subject to whatever restrictions, guidelines, etc., they choose to impose, unless said restrictions violate established law.

If I don't like said rules/regulations/guidelines, I am free to choose another mode of transport.

I do NOT have a constitutional right to travel with a particular company, or by a particular method.

What you describe here would be a free market system. This is not what we have. What we have is a government agency assuming they have probable cause to search every man, woman and child in america.

Incorrect... just the ones that want to get on a plane.

 

[Article 15]

**** airport security.
I got me a car, it seats about 20
So come on up and bring your jukebox money.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Right. What value do the lives of a plane load of people have compared to the horror of an inconvenienced politician?

 

[xotoxi]

I guess you think the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to Rand Paul?

Is that the Amendment that outlines our Right to Travel By Air?

I guess "freedom of movement" only applies to walking, horseback, stagecoach and schooner.

That clearly was the Founding Fathers' intention.

 

[HUGGY]

Civil disobedience is a way to change bad rules. Hopefully everyone refuses to submit to TSA nonsense.

Rand Paul wants to abolish the TSA, so what do you think?

The TSA has kept our airways safe for ten years

Rand Paul is just soft on terrorism

Meanwhile people are still getting on board airplanes with guns.

Really? So what's yur point? We do nothing about slowing it down to next to nothing and just bag security because it isn't 100%. That is pure stupidity.

 

[xotoxi]

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

The 21st Amendment gives you the right to drink, as long is done in the privacy of your own vehicle.

 

[MikeK]

Oh this is about to be an outstandingly messy year for the TSA. God help them if his dad gets elected or made VP. Regardless, this STINKS of union thuggery and bureaucracy run amok.

"Union thuggery?" What do unions have to do with the TSA's bureaucratic redundancy?

The unnecessary humiliation and abuse you must endure at American airports exists because of a silent collusion between Janet Napolitano and Michael Chertoff: You are given the choice of submitting to nakedness via the $million X-ray devices chertoff is selling to Napolitano (and you are paying for) or being groped by Napolitano's goons.

The Janet Napolitano freak is Obama's version of Janet Reno, who was Bill Clinton's freak. Reno was directly responsible for the Waco Massacre, which provoked the OKC bombing, so give Napolitano time and she will distinguish herself as well.

 

[Contumacious]

I am not pro that law by any means...but I acept it...and fly as little as I need to.

But to ignore the valid reason for it is just plain old disingenuous.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

Your right to privacy is not being violated. Flying is a voluntary act, and if you decide to not be searched, you are not arrested. You can turn around and walk away and not fly as a result. Freedom reigns.

Excuse me fucktard, people have a right to fly unmolested.Americans should not have to pay because of the warmongers crazy foreign policies.

.

 

[G.T.]

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

Your right to privacy is not being violated. Flying is a voluntary act, and if you decide to not be searched, you are not arrested. You can turn around and walk away and not fly as a result. Freedom reigns.

Excuse me fucktard, people have a right to fly unmolested.Americans should not have to pay because of the warmongers crazy foreign policies.

.

You do have the right to fly unmolested.

Buy a plane.

Rent a hangar.

Go for it.

 

[Missourian]

I am not pro that law by any means...but I acept it...and fly as little as I need to.

But to ignore the valid reason for it is just plain old disingenuous.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

Your right to privacy is not being violated. Flying is a voluntary act, and if you decide to not be searched, you are not arrested. You can turn around and walk away and not fly as a result. Freedom reigns.

What could that not be applied to?

Riding the subway or bus is a voluntary act.

Using the highway system is a voluntary act.

Walking on the sidewalk is a voluntary act.

If you don't want to be searched, just don't use them?

 

[Paulie]

I am not pro that law by any means...but I acept it...and fly as little as I need to.

But to ignore the valid reason for it is just plain old disingenuous.

I do not see it as tyrannical by any means. I see it sa government doing one of the things it is designed to do...protect the people...

Sometimes it is best to understand the sentiments of those you disagree with....not intentionally spin it so you can sound right and them sound completely wrong.

Government has a military to protect the nation. Otherwise, their sole job is to protect our rights. One of which being our right to privacy.

If government is going to overstep that boundary by attempting to keep us safe while flying, then maybe that is not a job they are best suited at compared to the private sector.

Your right to privacy is not being violated. Flying is a voluntary act, and if you decide to not be searched, you are not arrested. You can turn around and walk away and not fly as a result. Freedom reigns.

An 80 year old woman or a toddler's right to privacy isn't being violated when they get their lady parts felt up by some dude who's quite possibly using his authority to do so simply to cop a voyeuristic feel? When 80 year old ladies start bombing airplanes let me know.

But seriously though, the government may very well not be best suited to handle this aspect. It's ok when that happens. They aren't ALWAYS the answer.