This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Rand Paul Detained In Nashville For Refusing Full Body Pat Down
The political news on this slowish Monday morning comes courtesy of the TSA and those who object to their policies, such as in this case Senator Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who has just been detained for refusing a full body pat down. This should teach Rand Paul to not accept Wall Street (and/or Warren Buffett) donations of free NetJets hours.
Source: Ron Paul twitter account
Bloomberg has some more:
- Irregularities during screening must be resolved before passenger can proceed to secure area of airport, TSA says
- Paul underwent screening by millimeter wave imaging technology; targeted pat down is procedure for resolving alarms from scan, TSA says
- Paul tells AP he was “detained” in a small cubicle, missed his flight to Washington, situation reflects concern TSA shouldn’t be “spending so much time with people who wouldn’t attack us”
From Reuters:
Republican Senator Rand Paul, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul, was detained on Monday by security officials at an airport in Nashville, Tennessee, an aide said.
Press secretary Moira Bagley wrote in a Twitter message that the senator told her at 10 a.m. EST, that he was being "detained by TSA (Transportation Security Administration) in Nashville."
Ron Paul, a congressman and Republican presidential hopeful, tweeted that his son was being detained for refusing a full-body pat-down "after anomaly in body scanner."
Something tells us the TSA budget is about to be severely curtailed...
»
- 25754 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Hey, it could happen, right? I mean, as soon as security starts waving U.S. Senators and incontinent disabled elderly women through security, the jihadists will just start recruiting U.S. Senators and incontinent disabled elderly women, right?
But at least we can trust in our TSA officers! We've been reliably assured that they have all been pre-screened and do not pose a threat despite the fact that they are the most obvious threat vector in the airport, and that terrorists are otherwise respectable people who would agree to play our little security game and wouldn't dream of pulling a dirty trick like using a corrupt TSA agent to get a bomb into the airport for a small "handling fee".
you're only saying this because TSA breaks its back to hire black people at 5x their rate in the population. You're asking yourself that, given blacks have a ridiculously high crime rate, and that about half of black men are either in jail, on probation, or parole, and black levels of education average "abysmal" along with factors normally highly prejudicial to receipt of security clearance like bad FICOs and stuff, just how in the fuck TSA was able to find all of these squeaky clean blacks to serve as nearly 100% of the security personnel at major city airports.
It's almost as if they use racist hiring policies like affirmative action and are LOOKING THE OTHER WAY at people with disqualifying factors, due to their preference for that person's race.
I must agree with trav on this one.
There are too much Black people working in airports, and this seems to be a phenomenon reaching all Western countries.
I mean, in f***ing Roissy-CDG, 85/90% of the personnel is African. This is just too much. And that may explain why French airports are consistently the worst rated in international rankings.
White people aren't getting arrested and convicted for their crimes at the rate that black people are. When whites are apprehended as suspects, they have the resources to do plea bargains or get diversion where blacks more typically do not. Typically, whites are not apprehended for their crimes, the public is more likely to believe a black perp is guilty when accused, than a white perp. More likely to be persued and taken into custody.
Trav, here is a word for you-- Wallstreet. Come on man. Almost all white with a very lil bit o' color sprinkled in. Those are the master criminals, and they hire lawyers like you to get them out of their shit. If every black in the country was a fucking theif, they could not, collectively, steal the amount of shit that white people have stolen. I will not take that guilt for my whole race, it's those fuckers who did the stealing. If some black people are out stealing in dribs and drabs, I don't think all black folks should be forced to take on that identity.
I leave you messages here and there but you do not come back to debate very often. I keep after you because I respect your head and other things about you. I do find it interesting that you do not pick up on the hateful reactive way you deliver your brand of racial truth. If these were merely facts and nothing more than that, you would not need to deliver them with such venom. Lotta hate in you sweetheart.
I gotta question I am just itching to ask you.
Let's say you convinced me. Let's just say I believed you that, on average, blacks are inferior to whites. What should we be doing differently if we believe that?
If every black in the country was a fucking theif, they could not, collectively, steal the amount of shit that white people have stolen.
Amen, sister. Rob a corner quickmart of $100.00 with a gun and get ten years. Rob taxpayers of $Trillions with a suit and legion of lobbyists, and get a house in the Hamptons. If you measure this by number of lives destroyed, there's no comparions whatsoever.
How many lives have been destroyed by the theft of the financial system?
Point them out.
Violent crime is and always has been qualitatively different from theft or fraud. Ban usury.
And what happens when you refuse to leave your house that was fraudulently foreclosed on? What happens when you refuse to take fiat for real goods? What happens when you ignore a bullshit lawsuit or a regulation bought by a competitor? You get a visit from a bunch of stupid thugs who are mentally no different than the ones you love to hate. Sure, they are white, they wear uniforms, and they have clever weasel-word artists who pass laws claiming that robbery and violence are justified in the name of freedom, human rights, protecting the children, protecting the Constitution, protecting you, etc. That doesn't make what they do any different. In fact, it makes it worse, because the gangsters at the top are too cowardly to do their own dirty work.
At the bottom of every stack of papers, you will find a gun in your face. Hopefully someday soon, a few sheeple will realize this and defend themselves. Self defense is a natural right, even against one who has all pieces of paper in the world behind him.
HAHAHAHAHAHA...nothing you say in your first paragraph is true.
Black people COMMIT at 10x the rate of whites. THAT is why they get arrested more frequently. The notion that whites get let free is utter and complete bullshit...are you aware that blacks are more frequently caught by TRAFFIC CAMERAS as well? That their FICO scores (FICO does NOT know your race) are on average considerably lower than whites'? FICO is based upon how often you PAY YOUR BILLS.
Race of perpetrator is driven by EYEWITNESSES, including the victim! You actually seem to suggest that even BLACK victims are lying and covering for white people. Nevermind that white neighborhoods, white schools, etc., don't seem to have recurrent gunfire, burnt out houses, and blight everywhere, while blacks' do. There isn't a piece of evidence out there which tends to corroborate an assertion that white people are let go by the system. EVERY available piece of evidence suggests that they OFFEND LESS.
Wallstreet...mostly jews. Not whites.
If you want to debate, let's debate. On this topic. You will lose quite miserably but maybe that will be good for you? I see your messages sometimes, but after a topic goes off the main page, I rarely see it. Give me an email if you want to talk privately.
If we believed the thing in the last paragraph, we should be trying to fix it. Not pretending it doesn't exist.
Sorry I did not get back here sooner after my bitchin and moaning about you not getting back.
I have spent some time with the FBI, Uniform Crime Report. Where I can find race as a variable, it looks like on average blacks are apprehended for 21 to 24% of crimes, depending on the year, or looking at it cumulatively. That does not get at who "commits" but it does get at who is apprehended. They make up 13% of the population according to the census which means they are indeed over represented. But this is different than 10x what whites do. White crime, numerically is almost three times greater than blacks.
Maybe this is something in your city (the 10x number). It might be true in mine, but my city has a large black population to start with, so no surprise there (60%).
I am not surprised black FICO scores are lower. They have lower incomes on average thus they will have more problems paying their bills. I would too if my income were lower. I have great credit because I have a solid income and a great record, over the years of paying my bills. When I was a kid I had a shitty score because I had little credit history at all.
Black victims do not "lie" to protect whites. Black victims are more intimidated if the perp is white, and sometimes don't press charges because they don't feel they can win (or don't want the grief), other times the prosecutor will not press it because they do not feel they can sell it to a jury that a white did x to a black. Income and resources matter here too. Many times a victim will go get a lawyer, and not just depend on the criminal justice system to get the job done. Blacks have fewer resources on average to do this.
I don't have stats to prove one way or another that Wallstreet is more Jewish offenders or more white. I don't make the same distinction you do, but if I did, I don't think it is just Jewish bankers, it is the culture of finance. Blacks don't have access to this.
If you're saying that the TSA is a jobs program that would be otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, then I would agree with you. But then again, so is the military. The TSA was created because the privately-run airport screening companies did an even worse job dealing with the riff-raff they have to hire (because few intelligent, otherwise decent people want those jobs in the first place). It's a difficult situation--you can't even pay cop wages for airport screeners because the manpower needed is so large, so you end up with the bottom of the barrel. Then these people join the union and become a powerful voting bloc for big government (which had to at least been one of the reasons the TSA was created in the first place). Statists know how to sustain the system, it's job #1.
the Senate voted for NDAA and the indefinite detention of Americans. How do you define terrorism?
Think that's funny , A buddy of mine is a commercial airplane pilot , shortly after 9/11 - security made him give up a nail file - and he was the one piloting the plane.
maybe the weapon was going to take him over and cause him to do violence
This is EXACTLY the problem with increased regulation... the regulators haven't the wherewithal to implement and reasonably enforce the rules. Wait, this situation wasn't in our employee training? Oh, well, I guess um... err... you can't bring in the file, sir. The peter principle applies to all levels of government...
Thwarted again!
Dude's got a nail file? What a homo. Or did you mean a manly mill bastard for cutting into 16d's?
I like that idea a lot. Could you imagine a million peeps descending on that location to attempt to physically remove him ?
I would like to see a hanging mob hanging every TSA agent in sight.
TSA agents are red coats, they deserve what the red coats deserved.
Easy there. It wasn't the TSA agents who signed the legislation authorizing virtual strip-searches. They are - by and large - ordinary working people who are taking a job at the airport because the factories all moved overseas. It may not be clean work, but it's hard to criticize someone whose choice may be between running an airport scanner and going on government assistance.
Keep the focus on where it should be - the legislators and the executive who not just authorized but required all of this.
Yeah like the nazis just followed orders so it's alright? Sorry but following criminal orders makes you a criminal.
I disagree. The more you blame the soldiers, the more you let the politicians who started the war off the hook. When it comes to responsibility, start at the top and work your way down.
They could refuse to grope. Their bosses could allow them that right of refusal to grope.
TSA itself attracts, at least to some degree, workers who do not mind the control, the groping...
But, Mr. Poon you are right re the politicians. THEY set this all up. I would like to see some on the LEFT get their gropes too. Then maybe we might see some change.
They could grope Barney Frank... but then the only change would be his soiled silk bikini bottoms into leopard print boxer-briefs after clearing security a satisfied man.
Absolutely. If anyone hasn't noticed, the people at the top are never ever held responsible but the people at the bottom are every day.
No reason to not go at them both. The story that you tell is repeated often enough in an attempt to keep people docile. It works, mostly.
I will not take a job the purpose of which is to humiliate and in no way protect my fellow citizens. Will you?
I will not feed my family with money that comes from a job like that.
I haven't forgotten how guilty the politicians are. But those professional bullies are guilty too. They are in no way 'soldiers'.
Mr. Poon you have a point, except that for the most part these aren't ordinary working people but are semi-psychotic goons who enjoy their petty power. I think there's plenty of room to condemn the foot-soldiers for loving their job of making other people strip and cower and to also condemn the higher-ups who are full-blown psychotics who create laws designed to crush the Constitution and people's ability to resist enslavement. I do agree that we should keep the focus on the enablers, but that doesn't make the grinning TSA goons less obscene.
some day in another life you may attempt to understand humans , but so far on that post you get nothing.
Semantics. And actually, it is quite easy.
Exactly. This is a case where it actually IS Bush's fault.
I would like to see an airline (private fucking enterprise) tell the Fed Goons to fuck off. The Airline business if effectively nationalized at this point. I hope they all go bankrupt. On a side note one can fly privately and avoid the TSA altogether. I guess no one would ever use a Leer jet for an incendiary device though right? Right?
they all suck the government tit
They were regulated to death years ago. If you are not free to serve the public as per their demands for service, and have all sorts of extra costs imposed, there's not much chance of long-term survival, other than becoming a de facto organ of the state.
Just the way they like it.
The airlines LOVE the satus quo. They are immune to any liability.
Only the 1% (and those just a bit outside of it, perhaps) are flying private in Learjets. That's why the elite don't give a shit about TSA--they don't have to deal with it and they would prefer that the regular proles flying common carrier cattlecars not travel at all, anyways.
You do not have to deal with it either. Simply refuse to fly. Why don't you call, oh lets say Disney World. Tell them you were planning a family vacation there, but will be going to some Six Flags in driving distance instead, because you didn't want to subject your children to the whims of the TSA. If enough people do that, we would have a powerful lobbyest. Call a Chamber of Commerce for any major city in the US and tell them the same thing. Call the airlines and tell them you will be driving for your vacation this year because you were offended by the TSA. Take some action rather than just bitching about it.
Yeah, try telling that to those who live in Hawaii, and Alaska, and Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and who have a child's wedding to attend in the mainland USA, or who want to help their elderly mother move, or who want to see a dying parent or grandparent or child for one last time. "Just don't fly" does not cut in any of those cases, or for any of those people --- you are asking them to effectively remain prisoners of their own locality.
@ Fukushima
We could always start by collecting names and addresses. Then posting them on the internet. Same with bad cops, etc.
Shining the light, bitchez!
Too fucking disgusted to articulate a funny response.
Eat shit TSA. Fuck you. Fuck Chertoff and the other dual citizen assholes that have buttfucked our constitution and used our troops as cannon fodder.
9/11 was a zionist lie. Underpants bomber was a zionist lie. Fuck RapiScan and the millions you've made irradiating the occupied people of America.
dupe
I already signed up for a fema camp on the beach, tiki bar, the works.
It is the "Camp of Choice" program. Hurry, reserve your spot.
Abolish TSA now! It's an unnecessary evil and it symbolizes the victory for terrorism.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Wow they picked the wrong guy to grope today.
http://silverliberationarmy.blogspot.com/
Actually surprised that he goes through the full body scanner. I go for the TSA handjob, rather than microwave myself.
post under ur comment so all could b informed...
Corzine Sued for RICO Violation by MF Global CustomersJan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Jon Corzine, MF Global Holdings Ltd.’s former chief executive officer, was sued under U.S. racketeering law by commodity customers alleging he and other executives “unlawfully” took money from their accounts and failed to segregate their money as the law requires.
The suit alleges that hundreds of millions of dollars were transferred from customers’ accounts to other MF Global units, at a time when the company was short of cash and faced calls for collateral as its risky Eurobond and other investments fell in value.
Named in the suit, JPMorgan Chase & Co., the company’s banker, should have noticed the “depletion” of customer money, and should have investigated, according to the plaintiff. The customers are seeking unspecified restitution and damages.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-23/corzine-sued-for-rico-violat...
RICO suit? This could be fun.
and the 2016 gop race is under way, go rand paul
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=88760&p=irol-news
time for TSA to buy Implant Sciences' products!
>RADIOACTIVE SOURCE.....Implant Science's B220 product is the only product that does not have a radioactive source. Our competitors Morpho and Smiths Detection products contain a radioactive source. The European Union has banned products containing radiation. Considering the uproar in the US about the radiation in the scanners, it is very doubtful that the TDA would adopt another product for use that contained radiation.
>CLEAR DOWN TIME.....Implant Sciences B220 clears down in a matter of seconds. While Smith Detection's and Morpho"s ETD products seem to come close to the clear down time, this is just a small part of the entire picture.
>DECONTAMINATION.....The Implant Science's B220 is the ONLY product that decontaminates itself. Smiths Detection and Morpho do not have the proprietary technology to decontaminate itself. Their product can take hours or even days to do this. The TSA related this information to Glen. This is very important because unless the machine is decontaminated fully after each use, the next person in line to be checked will be shown to have the same results as the previous person. It is easy to see how there would be the possibility of false positives or false negatives. This is definitely not a good position to be in when using the competitors products.
>CALIBRATION.....The Implant Sciences B220 calibrates itself. The Morpho and Smith Detection products take human beings and machines to calibrate. This is a waste of man hours and could necessitate the hiring of more personnel. If you remember one of the RFP's that the Dept. of Homeland Security issued mentioned that the product would not require the hiring of additional TSA employees.
>LOW COST OF CONSUMABLES..... The average cost of consumables for each of our competitor's technology, per machine, is estimated to be $10,000 a year. Our cost of consumables for the B220 is estimated at less than $1,000 a year per machine. The calibration traps ,ALONE, for the Morpho product cost $1 each. Multiply that by each passenger that would be screened by the product in a years time and you can see why the cost of consumables using their product adds up fast. Considering the amount of waste that was documented by Congress, It would be an excellent bet that the TSA would not want Congress to report this waste in their next report.
Rand Paul needs to use the system against these criminals.
Clause 1: Compensation and legal protection
Main article: Speech or Debate Clause
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Senators and Representatives set their own compensation. Under the Twenty-seventh Amendment, any change in their compensation will not take effect until after the next congressional election.
Members of both Houses have certain privileges, based on those enjoyed by the members of the British Parliament. Members attending, going to or returning from either House are privileged from arrest, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace. One may not sue a Senator or Representative for slander occurring during Congressional debate, nor may speech by a member of Congress during a Congressional session be the basis for criminal prosecution. The latter was affirmed when Mike Gravel published over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers in the Congressional Record, which might have otherwise been a criminal offense. This clause has also been interpreted in Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) to provide protection to aides and staff of sitting members of Congress, so long as their activities relate to legislative matters.
The TSA is in clear violation of the Constitution of the United States and United States Law.
The TSA is why I no longer fly.
When I was 13, I bought a western saddle on the way to the West Palm Beach airport, and planned to have it boxed up at ticketing. We got stuck in traffic on I-95, and we were late for the flight.They held the plane for us, let me on with the saddle, strapped it into its own seat, and had a gate agent waiting in Atlanta to cart it through the airport for me.
Now I can't take mouthwash in a carry on.
TSA Bitchez!
TSA bitches....
In my experience, not a nice looking lot...
So they think he is Hayyading Da Salamay?
I still don't trust Rand, but good for him for making waves.
Hang all those TSA perverts.
As I mentioned above - TSA did not create this situation, the White House and Congress did. Put the responsibility where it belongs: at the feet of the elected politicians. I am confident that given the choice, TSA employees would be perfectly happy with significantly less invasive security.
Hmmm, now that I think about it. I'm not so sure about that last sentence.
Responsibility?
Yer funny.
Sorry, but the checkpoint goons don't get a pass. They're the ones who decided to take a job in which they infringe on our constitutional liberties. They knew what they were doing when they signed up, so fuc# 'em.
Sorry, Mr. Poon, but they will be among the first up against the wall when the r e volution comes. I'm sure you understand the concept of low-hanging fruit.
Interesting timing...This had been going on for years and he decides to arrange to be detained now?
Publicity stunt for Daddy's campaign?
(This is called "earned media" in the trade...I'm sure they thought long and hard about this.
If it were me, that's what I'd do.)
Rand had been speaking out against laws that violates constitutions. I expect one way or the other, he will be targetted.
Paul refused to have his pole groped.
He vaulted?
any citizens in the land of the free and the home of the brave who still don't realise they live in a fascist police state?
There are plenty...
...and they love Tom Brady.
And like to listen to Warren Buffet play his ukele and sing "I've been working on the Railroad" to Chinese TV stations.
Holy shit I couldn't make that up!
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/warr...
When Ferdinand Marcos was still dictator he had a daily TV slot on the Philippine state television channel. He often sang and sometimes performed duets with the lovely Imelda.
Wish they had dug up their corpses and had them sing The Star Spangled Banner yesterday instead of Steven Tyler.
I'm sure they would have been equally charming.
300 million... give or take.
Damn that's a lot of people.
Some might say, "too many". They're working on a plan.
Jeffrey
You know what crazy is? Crazy is majority rules. Take germs, for example.
James
Germs?
Jeffrey
Uh-huh. In the eighteenth century, no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person, anyway. Ah! Ah! Along comes this doctor, uh, uh, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He's trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the 20th century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right? See?
Ah! Ah! There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion. You... you... you believe in germs, right?
Why does Brad Pitt get to play all of the best characters? Great dialogue.
Brad is a good actor, but his greatest strength is that he knows how to pick a script better than anyone.
having first pick certainly helps (and he deserves it, IMO). Matt Damon also chooses well.
Eugenics is an interesting topic. I live in a state that was basically ground zero in the US. The history is fascinating. I went to see Edwin Black speak on the subject. He wrote the book about IBM and the holocaust... also wrote a book (lesser known) about Eugenics. He was providing testimony on reparations over forced sterilization. It very much falls into the "there's not right or wrong, just popular opinion" category... though clearly there is a right or wrong (at least from where I sit).
Eugeneics has been the backbone of the Illuminatti thinktank (along with alchemy) for centuries. Luckily for us they went down the wrong path for hundreds of years and intermarried believing this would keep their genes strong. I believe our greatest strength is that we are dealing with inbreds running the system. Look at "Plastic Jesus" Rothchild- dude is an idiot.
Of course, due to monkey see monkey do human nature, along the way the status quo became fixated on its "masters" and began to imitate them. Now we have fat and slovish CEOs, and so the status quo thinks that a successful person is fat and slovish. It would be mildly entertaining if the whole world wasn't being drug around by the balls of this weird relationship of Stockholm Syndrome.
Mr Lennon Hendrix
Damn that's a lot of people.
This is where it gets fun, the SWHTF on this one. Ever tried to grope a Muslim woman going to Krogers?.
I've never groped a Muslim women. I wanted to once, but then she started talking.
Yes those who do refuse to fly, the others act like good little slaves and even find it funny to be groped.
Next time I get on an airplane I will be in a pine box with Fed Ex stamped on it.
pods
Take a blanket with you, and it would be more comfortable than the seats.
I quit back in '99. My last flight was the Sunday morning special out of Dallas, over-booked, and full of families trying to fly on the cheap (so no one was sitting together). The attendants are trying to get everyone sat down so we could leave the gate, but everyone was trying to get better seats, making it impossible. Finally, an attendant snapped, and just started screaming at everyone to sit in their own seats until we were airborne.
That's when I decided I really didn't need this hassle in my life. I can drive overnight and be practically anywhere I want to go, or most of the way there for the trips out west.
Ironic his liberties are subverted while on his way to an event, the March for Life in DC, who's stated goal is to subvert the liberties of other law abiding Americans.
Wow.
who's stated goal is to subvert the liberties of other law abiding Americans.
What a shill you are. He's against abortion because he has seen first hand what it is. But he doesn't want to ban it.
Didn't know Rand Paul was an abortion doctor. I thought he was a toof doctor.
Amazing Mr. Rand Paul wants to use the boot heel of government and cram it on the throat of young woman to suit his own religious ideological goals, completely irrelevant of the Constitution.
Amazing Mr. Rand Paul wants to use the boot heel of government and cram it on the throat of young woman to suit his own religious ideological goals
And wrong again. Did I mention he didn't want to ban abortions?
Edited to Add: This is a response to Capt. Fuffle pants.
Amen, brother! Despite agreeing with 99% of what he stands for, because I disagree with his position on one of the hot-button issues that have been used to divide us, I support whomever's running against him!
/s
Tool.
what about the murdered babies?
I don't see Rand Paul putting his boot on any woman.
Our constitution guarantees "life"
Using the term murdered babies is a religious term, not a scientific term, and it also is not a term used by those who follow the US Constitution.
If you call abortions murder, then you deny the legitimacy of the US Constitution.
You liberty freaks have some problems with liberty derived from the Constitution when it doesn't suit your own barbaric religious ideology.
You are arguing to subvert the liberties of a law abiding US citizen. You are the barbarian and dictator!
As an atheist I'd just like to say that you're a baby killing pig. Fuck off.
>>>You liberty freaks have some problems with liberty derived from the Constitution when it doesn't suit your own barbaric religious ideology.<<<
Yes. Zygotes are babies.
Some libertarians, no? Many are Christian Reconstructionist nutballs at worst...Chrisitan Constitutionalists at best. Attempting to erode your civil rights one bible quote at a time.
I like my goverment--state and federal--secular and want to keep it that way.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
obama says that by murdering their babies, women can fulfill their dreams
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-defends-roe-v-wade-way-our-daughte...
They must have very bad dreams.
What about the human rights of the unborn baby?
They have a right to life, but that is overrided by the mother's right to her own body.
This is the distinction that everyone in this argument seems to miss.
Think of the case of siamese twins. One twin has an organ that both twins rely on. It is within his rights to sever the connection with his twin against his will. That might seem like murder, but it isn't, any more than cutting off a good or service provided for free is theft.
However, if someone ELSE shot and killed the dependent twin, it is still murder.
As such, someone who murders a pregnant woman should be charged with two counts of murder, whereas a woman aborting a fetus is not committing murder, but simply exercising her right to self ownership of her body.
So according to your logic, it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable to say that a pregnant woman (regardless of the age of the unborn baby) can poison her body and her baby by using drugs.
Yes. It is her body. That may not be socially acceptable, but there is no law against a pregnant woman drinking alcohol, nor should their be.
Once again your logic is baseless.
So a woman killing her unborn baby cannot be charged for murder but someone that murders that same woman can be charged for TWO counts of murder? Didn't you just say that the baby is a part of the woman's body, hence, not a life?
You're basically saying that if I chop someone's arm off and they bleed to death, that I am guilty of two counts of murder...One for the arm and one for the person.
Classic double-think. Makes zero sense. If a baby is essentially a body part in your view, one person can't be guilty of murder while the other isn't.
Good job on not reading the logical justification, and attacking a strawman instead.
Post another reply when you have read MY argument.
Your argument appears to be based on the flawed idea that dependent humans can and perhaps should be killed. But that's obviously not true. The very fact that some humans are dependent on others for food or shelter simply confirms that they are living human beings. And human being have a right to life.
Nice, so now you are claiming that I, a person who personally has a great DIStaste for abortion, thinks that babies should be killed for no reason, rather than the position I actually espouse, that governments have NO right to interfere with a person's sovereignty over their own body.
And those who are supplying the food and shelter have the right to deny it to them if they choose to. Especially if those people are vampires who have inserted themselves, or been inserted into that person whether or not they consented to the procedure at the time.
Those who have are not slaves to those who have not. A person knows what is best for their own self. Sovereignty over one's own body is the absolute highest principle of natural law. Period. This is why violent rape and dismemberment are so repulsive to most people, even more so than murder (think about what can be shown on television, and what can not, if you doubt that there is a bias against such crimes).
Sovereignty over one's own body does not preclude one from recognizing that by engaging in a procreative act one may very well create a new human life possessed of its own inalienable rights.
you are correct.
Abortion is unethical due to the doctrine of detrimental reliance.
In effect, a reasonably foreseeable outcome of sex is pregnancy. This creates a life in being who is dependent upon you. In reliance doctrine, you are estopped from taking measures detrimental to those who reasonably "rely" on your actions or words, even if they have no explicitly contracted right to this reliance.
Pregnancy due to unforseeable circumstances would be abortable. Abortion would only be permissible AFTER the fetus acquires viability, e.g., after it is no longer reliant. However, the mother would be liable in tort for any damages the fetus accrued as a result of this action.
This notion of "human" and all the rest of the moral issue...these all become irrelevant as the principles I have outlined are logically consistent without resort to appeal to undefinable subjectives.
Hmmm, so if the parents had sex with the intention of having a child to offer as sacrifice to some evil deity, the child could be held to that contract by act of its coming into being?
Or, for a less strange situation, a company which sells software can hold that by opening or installing some software, that the user agrees to terms and conditions which can include anything said comapny wants to claim?
Since you actually seem to be using terms of art for law at a fairly high level, I can guess that you actually are a lawyer, and can answer this. Though I doubt you can do it without being a condescending asshole, then use my admission of ignorance in this field as an admission of ignorance in all fields, and then twist my words to use against me in future attacks. But what the hell, let's give it a try.
People also have the right to change their minds. If we don't have the right to change our minds, then we are slaves.
I watched Escape from New York the other day on TV and there's a scene where the President's dismembered finger is displayed in bloody handkerchief.
You're saying that a person should be forced to provide food or shelter for another against their will?
By engaging in a procreative act one agrees not to violate the inalienable rights of any human life created by that act. It's a contract.
No, it is not a contract. I don't agree to any such thing. Where do you get this contract nonsene from?
Taking responsibility for one's actions is hardly nonsense. Mixing sperm with an ovum creates a human life. Having taken that step one commits to dealing with that new life justly and humanely.
Why do I have to advocate the idea that parents should love their own children? The world has surely turned upside down.
So if I'm just having fun, I accept your imagined contract somehow? If a woman says that she is using contraception and isn't (not that the contraceptive failed), the man is still responsible? This has nothing to do with parents loving their children. You would force parents that cannot provide for a child from giving it up for adopiton. Good luck forcing all the child abusers to love their children. It's really strange, how people appear to advocate freedom until it conflicts with some other belief.
Of course. You are responsible for your actions no matter what your motive was in taking those actions.
A living human fetus has the same individual human rights as a human infant or a human toddler or a human pre-teen or a human teen or a human adult. All living human beings have their own inalienable rights. You are the one who is constrained by your irrational belief that some humans aren't quite human enough to deserve their rights.
How are you going to force people to love their children? Some people don't for whatever reason. You'll make a good little dictator.
Advocacy is not force. Why do you think it is?
Because you're saying there is a contract. A contract implies implies some kind of enforcement, commonly by a government. Nice try.
But I'm an anarchist. I want NO government. I am using my freedom of speech to advocate for human life. For some reason you feel threatened by this. You believe my words constitute force.
Perhaps my argument is too forceful for you to ignore and you're feeling a little sick at your own advocacy for child killing. But that's your conscience. Use of force on my part has nothing to do with it.
Wow. a) not a child killer b) don't advocate child killing c) your arguments are pittifully lame, not forceful d) That free speech you speak of, some think we need limited government to ensure it, not anarchy ... "That to secure these rigths, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." e) not feeling sick f) you insist there is a contract (when there isn't) g) your words advocate forcing others to do what you feel is right h) if you can't win the argument, you should stop playing.
But you are advocating for the killing of children. That's what this discussion is about. How could you have missed it?
That's what you believe, which is far removed from the truth.
I believe in the freedom to choose. The baby should be old enough to decide if he or she wants to blow his or her own brains out.
>>>Once again your logic is baseless.<<<
I'm sure the so-called "logic" of women's right to control their own body would be much clearer to many on ZH if men could get knocked-up too.
Men do not have right to do anything they want with their own bodies.
Yes, the draft...blah, blah Of course women could be drafted too if necessary.
Pregnancy is different and unique to women.
There aren't any parallels. Stop trying to fabricate them to justify state enforced pregnancy.
Actually, that is a very good parallel. The draft is also an abomination.
They should post your picture next to the dictionary entry for non sequitur. The draft (which doesn't even exist) is not an issue, why do you think it is?
A man's right to control his own body ends where his actions threaten another human being. A woman has no greater right than any man to cause injury to another human life.
>>>A woman has no greater right than any man to cause injury to another human life.<<<
So says your religion. Not mine.
I'm an atheist. The recognition of individual rights is not dependent on theology.
Well, your secular defintion of zygotes as "human" is truly odd...and is a relgious "tell."
A human zygote gestating inside a human female grows into a human being. It is not a monkey zygote or a dog zygote. It is human and it is alive.
Religion has nothing to do with it. It's ironic that you are the one who is trapped in a religiously informed interpetation of this issue rather than being able to deal directly with the imatter of the individual's right to life.
I don't recognize a zygote as an "individual," hence our debate. I deal with it directly just fine.
You can't kill people based on your misinterpretation of reality. When a human life is conceived its humanity and vitality are confirmed. The act of creating a human life creates a human life. It's that simple.
I believe in the right to life. A woman can have as many abortions as she wants so she can live it up.
Besides we need the stem cells.
a zygote with human DNA is human. This is by DEFINITION; you cannot DISPUTE it.
The world is upside down!
He takes the opposite of me on any argument. He doesn't have any positons of his own.
religion is irrelevant. His statement was axiomatic.
State enforced pregnancy? It's not as if the state is getting anyone pregnant...tends to require some volition on the part of the man an d woman who's doing it. Leaving off, for the moment, the rape issue. I find it incredible that pro-abortion/pro-"choice" people tend to dance around the issue of individual responsibility when it comes to having sex, especially unprotected sex, an act which by it's very nature has the possibility of leading to pregnancy! This is part and parcel with the act itself! People don't just get pregnant and have no "choice" in the matter, and then need to "choose" whether or not to "keep it." (Illadmit that rape is another story as far as this line of argument goes, but rape hardly accounts for a majority of abortions. )
>>>state is getting anyone pregnant<<<
No recourse to a legal abortion with criminal penalites for obtaining an illegal abortion is state enforced pregnancy. If you can't force women to carry a pregnancy to term, why bother to outlaw abortion at all?...what would be the point? ..without the state enforcement element?
>>>people tend to dance around the issue of individual responsibility when it comes to having sex,<<<
They are choosing repsonsibility by not become parents when they didn't intend to in the first place.
It's just not the kind of "responsibility" you want to see them exhibit.
Babies are a possible consequence (I find it distasteful to say "risk," but in some situations, perhaps it's better put as such) of sex. When you choose to do X, and X has the potential to cause Y, you ought to be OK with the possibility of experiencing Y.
look, the doctrine of negligence already covers these aspects of liability far better than ZH laypeople can. Read a tort treatise on this and detrimental reliance.
If you injure someone ACCIDENTALLY but as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of your actions, you are liable to them in tort for whatever damages they suffer as a result. And the state will (and should) make you a "SLAVE" to do so.
creative. I don't think it would pass muster in a court room but I get where you're going with this and appreciate it. Basically the core of libertarian values is about freedom AND personal responsibility, and this applies to sexuality too. for instance while I may not personally be overly fond of homosexuality, I don't consider it my business, much less the state's, if people want to engage in that sort of behavior, but as far as the abortion issue goes, I really strongly believe there is only one issue, which is that of when life begins, and my position on that has been made clear; after which, you have your freedom to have sex, and you have your personal responsibility to deal with the consequences. our culture, however, is heavy on sexual freedoms (yet not so much on other types of freedom ... think on that one ... while distracting people with the abortion issue & similar, I'd include gay marriage, how much overtly fascistic policies have "liberals" foisted on "liberal" true believers who would never vote for someone like Paul because he is pro-life?) and light on personal responsibility, generally. It is truly a disgusting thing. for the record I can imagine situations where abortion might be an ethical outcome, but it would be very rare circumstances, and to get an abortion had ought not to be a light and easy thing. again, you are dealing with another life; if you believe this, then you will have to agree with me, otherwise, your fundamental preconceptions are totally different. I believe that the evidence weighs out on my side, not to mention 2 millenia of western (yes, Christian) culture which had ought not to be so lightly discarded.
I'm new by the way. long time lurker etc. recently registered an account. am enjoying participating in the discourses so far.
TM
but simply exercising her right to self ownership of her body.
Should have thought abought that before she became the HOST to a 100% new human,like none other EVER born,
The baby is an individual if left alone to term, and has a totally different DNA and Chronosonal makeup.
She does not have the right to take the life of an totally separate INDIVIDUAL simply because she's carrying it.
Inconvienence , or a broken rubber,missed a pill, is no excuse for murder.(Rape/Incest/and Life of the Mother) are the only three reasons I can buy.
Sorry, you don't get to make that decision, any more than you can force someone to continue to give you free beer.
No human being is beholden to another. Period. Reference the siamese twin metaphore if you are having trouble with the logic.
I'm pretty sure that the order of the 3 matter:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The woman's liberty to do whatever she wants with her body is secondary to the life of the baby, just as her life and liberty supercede another's pursuit of happiness.
Edit:
And IF you disagree with this line of reasoning, that the order DOESN'T matter, then you hearby have ZERO credibility in arguing against the indignities you feel you are suffering due to the "Elite"
If the order of the 3 don't matter to you, then the pursuit of happiness by TPTB absolutely can infringe on YOUR LIBERTIES.
You can't have it both ways: either your liberites supercede the pursuit of happiness by TPTB regardless of their methods, or they don't.
And if your liberties supercede their pursuit of happiness, then the child's life supercedes the woman's liberty with her body.