This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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...
»
- 25755 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You are making stupid arguments. Stop it.
The declaration of independence does not have the force of law, nor does it describe natural law accurately.
There's nothing natural about killing one's own child for the sake of convenience.
There are many reasons that people choose not to keep their babies. Nice job pretending like there is only one trivial one, and attempting to use that to force all women to be slaves to the state.
I do not advocate for governmental control of abortion. You are confused.
you really aren't any good at this arguing thing and should really just stop.
You're just a tour de force of logical fallacies
Clearly I am TOO good at making arguments, as you fail to address some 95% of mine, and instead take 5% out of context and try to beat me over the head with them.
Here's a hint, just because you used the latin word for some logical fallacy over and over doesn't mean that I used that logical fallacy.
If your law says one can't punish murder, there is no point to your law. If life isn't worth defending, what is? Your twin metaphor is stupid. Baby and mother do not recognize each other as self as the twins do.
lolwat? Twins can't tell each other apart? Is that really your argument?
Your argument is that the woman has a right to her body. My point is that the baby is not her body and her body knows this more than your retarded siamese twin bs.
"No human being is beholden to another. Period. "
You stupid fuck, cliff...in ALL KINDS of cases are humans LIABLE to other humans. STFU already.
The siamese twin analogy was baseless.
>>>Should have thought abought that before she became the HOST to a 100% new human,like none other EVER born,<<<
Because it's really about punishing women for the self-righteous.
>>>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.<<<
Ron Paul's legislation doesn't allow any exceptions.
A true civil libertarain, no?
Again, the abortion debate boils down to the question of when life begins. IF at conception, then abortion is an infringement of the most fundamental right of all, the right to exist, of the BABY; if at birth, restriction on abortion is an infringement of the right to self-determination of the mother; if sometime in between (as I find most convincing) then you've got to set some kind of boundary (for me, it is quite early).
This is and will ever be the only relevant question in this debate.
But the baby is not recognized as self by the woman's body. Your logic is extremely tortured.
So? Neither is the siamese twin. Both siamese twins are individual people by EVERY definition. But they are not bound together by law. One need not live for the sake of the other. Same thing here.
Whether the baby is the same person as the woman is moot. I am saying the woman's right to bodily integrety overrides the baby's right to life, just like with the siamese twins..
Uh, the siamese twins are identical and they do recoginize each other as self. Go read a biology book because you are talking like a retard.
Who cares? That isn't even my argument. It doesn't matter WHO is inside the woman. I don't care if it is an adult human being, Jesus, the Pope, or the entire human race, the woman has a right to her own body, and that comes FIRST.
Here you are making the claim that two seperate brains==same person, which is just dumb. Why don't you argue based on the argument presented rather than tearing down strawmen?
When a man and a woman engage in a procreative act they enter into a contract with any life which may be created by that act.
Contracts can be cancelled. If they couldn't, then slavery would be legal.
Besides, a contract isn't signed just because you say it is.
I don't think anyone is going to argue with you. I like this idea really. Just let the mother file a cease and desist order to the baby instead of butchering it. Then we can send the kid to jail for theft when it is born.
this is utter nonsense.
The baby is in the position of dependence BECAUSE OF THE MOTHER.
The mother is ESTOPPED.
All of you laypeople just please STFU.
For the record, I was joking.
>>>All of you laypeople just please STFU.<<<
OMFG!!! You're an attorney??? Really???
In the land of mythical contracts???
Or the real world that most of us inhabit?
>>>The mother is ESTOPPED.
All of you laypeople just please STFU.<<<
Only in your world of mythical contracts, Counselor.
Lay people??? Are you really an attorney???
Please tell us.
I can already conclude that you are not.
If you WERE, you would recognize reliance as a term of art. Contracts are routinely IMPLIED.
Yes, I am an attorney.
Now, STFU.
lol, first he's a computer technician, then an expert on nuclear science, and now he's an attorney.
What an amazing resume you have.
Oh, yeah, I forgot...the reactors SCRAMMED...no meltdowns...no explosions.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
I don't think so asshole. This is Fight Club.
trav7777, Esq.
Counselor to the reality challenged. Specializing in mythical contract law.
Well said.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/detrimental-reliance/
No contract, as there was no counterparty at the time of the action, and there is NOT a reasonable assumption that that act would create a person, as contraception may have been used, one or both of the parties involved may have thought themselves infertile, and even barring that, women don't get pregnant every time they have sex. There is a reason they are called "accidental pregnancies".
Trav is arguing from a Western Common Law perspective, whereas I am arguing from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, with rights derived from first principles.
Good job. Well reasoned from your perspective.
Though I would correct it to:
>>>No contract, as there was no counterparty, as zygotes are not individuals...<<<
>>>...and there is NOT a reasonable assumption that that act would create a zygote,...<<<,
because I do not recognize that a collection of cells is anything but that.
I wonder which trav7777 will come out and play tomorrow? Three "personalities" and counting.
tmosely,
There's something fundamentally wrong with your thinking. Engaging in a procreative act is the most basic contract extant. When a man and a woman act procreatively they enter into a contract with each other and with any potential child. This is not because I say so. It's simply a function of being a healthy human being. This is the core of our humanity.
>>>Engaging in a procreative act is the most basic contract extant. When a man and a woman act procreatively they enter into a contract with each other and with any potential child.<<<
What sentimental, pseudo-religious drivel.
You've never heard of fucking for pleasure? Is this news to you?
Humans do that, you know...No procreation intended...It's one of the most "human" acts.
Pleasure doesn't trump personal responsibility or the right to life.
And religion has nothing to do with it. Why does my position as a pro-life atheist frighten you so much?
The baby didn't sign any contract. The baby did not get inside the woman by any nefarious means. What a total joke of an argument. Want to kill someone? Just surround them with your fat and then shoot them. You're just cancelling a contract. After all this time, you turn out to be a total moron? Really?
The baby's right to life is supordinate to the morther's right to self-ownership. To beleive otherwise is to beleive that individuals have no rights in the fact of others, meaning the society is all, and individual is none. You really want to go down that road?
When a woman invites new life into her body she is exercising her right to self ownership. When a human life with all its inalienable rights is created by her willful act she has no right to destroy it.
It is you who wants society to encourage women to kill their own children. Why do you rail against the very force you employ to defend the murder of immature individual human beings?
Can you expand on this a little? Because it currently makes no fucking sense whatsoever. What the hell does right to self-ownership mean? The baby has a right to its life but doesn't have the right to self-ownership? It seems you've been reduced to writing retarded gibberish. Who the fuck up voted that shit? You?
The baby is innocent. The right to life is the most important. How can an innocent's right to life be subordinate to any other right? It can't be. The law would make no fucking sense. You can just kill random innocent people if they violate your right to self-ownership. Hey, I burned your house down, if you ask for me to pay for it with work from my body then I'll kill you. My right to self-ownership trumps your innocent right to life, regardless of liablity enforced by force from the state. You are a total fucking retard. You think you are a libertarian? No, you are a fucking retard that read some libertarian words once in a magazine.
Huh? Ever had a little instant roll around without any thought to procreate? Think you better rethink your contract theory. Milestones
Ever just blown through a stopsign just for the thrill of it?
You're LIABLE for the damages you cause. Not liable to the dead, but the living INCLUDING in tort for causing the death of the unborn!
So the repercussions of any act I undertake in an effort to have fun are not my responsibility? You can't seriously believe that.
You brought up the siamese twin stuff. Anywho, I've reread your ramblings and you do say the woman is just issuing a denial of service to the baby. I don't think that is how it works. I think the answer is simply: you are a retard. What a hypocrite you are for making a big fuss about trav being racist and for eugenics.
Nice, you can't make any arguments against me, so you resort to ad hominem.
Weak.
And yes, I did bring up the twin stuff. And you showed yourself inept because you claim that siamese twins are the same person, which is asinine, and further WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I don't care if they are the same person or not. I don't care if the woman is carrying the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the whole human race. The right of the individual to own their own body is ABSOLUTE.
It might be MORALLY reprehensible for a woman to abort Jesus, or to abort humanity as a whole, but it is her right to do so.
That is the difference between Trav and I. He thinks it is fine for FORCE sterility on people. I think that it is fine for people to choose for themselves.
Christ.
"Nice, you can't make any arguments against me..."
I responded above before you posted this. Talk about inept. The evidence that the above quoted statement is completely false is right in front of your face. What is the point with arguing with someone like that?
This whole abortion issue is a divide and conquer strategy.
It is a privet matter that has to be dealt with ones own morals.
A mother has an instinctive drive to protect her offspring
and passing a law may make it seem more allowable to abort a pregnancy.
Government should stay out of such privet matters!
Ron Paul for pres and Rand Paul for vice.
It may be a divide and conquer strategy to get some people to think that abortion is a okay under the law. It does not negate the fact that it is pointless to unite for the cause of liberty with morons who do not understand the first thing about liberty. I would unite with freaking trav before tmosley. In my opinion, trav has done a good job demonstrating how abortion is not compatible with anyone agreeing under a contract like the original Constitution where a right to life is assumed. If the primary assumption of the contract is not agreed by everyone, there is no point in uniting with them.
no, people do not have inalienable right to own their own body. Ceteris paribus, perhaps, but that is not the case here.
If they SELL their body, sign a contract, then fail to deliver, they don't own it. Specific performance. As a matter of public policy we can declare such contracts void ab initio, but the fetus has its OWN life and its OWN interests.
You need to stop stating your brain farts as axioms. EVICTION of the fetus should be permitted at the point of viability, but subject to liability for damages as a result.
People ROUTINELY are estopped from acting in manners detrimental to those who have relied on them. Reliance is a WELL-established point of common law, as are all these other artifacts of tort.
I would FORCE nobody to be sterilie. I would offer them money to do it.
Don't let anyone tell you I never admit when I'm wrong. I apologize about the whole trav is gay thing. It has been deleted.
siamese twins are inanalogous because one twin isn't in the situation he's in AS A RESULT OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONDUCT of the other!
There IS no right to bodily integrity. If you promise me a kidney and I reasonably rely on that, you OWE ME a fucking kidney or the damages consequent to breach of the implied contract.
Uhhh, no, you don't. No court will uphold such a contract anywhere in the world.
You can't sell body parts (unfortunately--I think you should be able to), and you can't sell yourself into slavery (slavery is illegal). You can sign a contract saying you will do a certain amount of labor for certain compensation, but you can walk away from it, just like you can any other contract. Breach of contract is not generally remedied by enforcement of the terms, but rather by assigning of monetary damages.
Further, there is no contract between mother and child. Period. You might as well claim that eating an apple gives you the right to sterilize someone.
I was unaware that ophthamologists operated on teeth (presumably what you meant), or performed abortions.
Being against abortion doesn't mean you advocate the use of Federal law to suppress it. I don't know much about Rand Paul, but if he is anything like his father, he doesn't want the Feds to be in charge of such things. He wants the states to take care of it, as is their place.
The whole abortion argument just leads back to defining when life actually begins. Liberals say it isn't until the baby is delivered...Conservatives say at conception.
I just have a question for liberals. How can you stand by aborting one baby but saving a pre-mature birth, both of which happened to be the same age of development?
I don't buy the whole "it's a woman's body" argument. Simple argument. If it's a woman's body, why isn't it socially acceptable for a pregnant woman to go binge drinking at bars every weekend, shoot up with heroin, snort coke, smoke crystal meth, etc?
So it's not okay for a woman to "exercise freedom of her own body" while simultaneously harming her unborn baby using drugs, but it's perfectly acceptable for her to consent to the death of her baby?
You miss the difference between "socially acceptable" and "illegal". Abortions need not be socially acceptable, but you can't use force to stop someone from having one.
Why can't we have post birth abortions then?
We need them, Precious. Yes we do.
Because the baby's life is no longer maintained by the woman's body. She is free to give the baby up, but not to kill it.
This isn't difficult logic, guys.
You were on the right track one post up but then you lost it. Abortion should be neither legal nor illegal. Doctors should be familiar with the procedure for use in those very rare cases where a woman's life would be jeopardized by pregnancy. The procedure could then be privately employed in cases of rape or incest. No one but the doctor and patient need know.
You are correct to suggest that the real solution for the abortion problem is not legal but social. People must come to understand that killing your own kid for conveinience is a sick act and that anyone who does such a thing can hardly be considered human themselves. Abortion is one of the most heinous acts possible.
The thing I don't like about the "pro-choice" argument is that it portrays abortion as a celebrated right which somehow confirms a woman's personhood. Only a twisted culture can produce people who would fight for the right to kill their own children with the same ferocity with which a mother bear defends her cubs. Such a perverse irony.
It is not the right to kill one's own child that makes a woman a woman. On the contrary. A woman is a woman because she possesses the gift of being able to bring life into the world.
Rights are only solidified at the margins. Just as I stand for the right for mass murderers and child rapists to have trials and not be lynched, and for the rights of heretics and racists to speak their minds, no matter how repugnant I find their ideas, and no matter how strongly I argue against them or lobby for them to be excluded from private property, I stand for the rights of EVERYONE, because if those marginal or reprehensible people lose their rights, it is a straight line to the loss of all rights for everyone.
Do you stand for the rights of the unborn -- the most marginalized humans in America? Needful abortion is extremely rare and can be dealt with privately between a woman and her physician. Public advocacy of a "woman's right" to abortion on demand based on the denigration of the rights of the unborn ennobles none of us.
words are important. If its unborn its not human as we understand it. Its a grey area, so lets say it belongs to the woman whose body it belongs to. No doubt about that. Whoever provided the semen is not the issue...
You're wrong. An unborn human child is a human. It has all the inalienable rights of any human being. Nothing gray about it. It's a common tactic of those who enjoy killing to dehumanize their victims.
Sorry, I didn't know God Himself came and discussed his decisions here on ZH forum, my bad!
"Inalienable rights..." of a foetus ...now even the Quran and the Bible ...let alone the Torah and Talmud...Let alone Isis and Orisis. This is novel divine law...Unless it was engonced into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence... thanks for the update, All Mighty...we are privileged.
That is fine by me, but if you want to enact such a system, you would have to get the government to agree to it. That means striking all anti-abortion language from the books, which is the same as, and exactly what is meant by "legalization".
You can make all the moral arguments you want, and try to convince people not to abort their children. This is good. But you can't make it illegal without introducing a dangerous precedent.
Voluntary systems always produce better results than government does. Why have you suddenly forgotten that?
Yes, they do. But you can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It must either be caged or killed. I prefer killed.
I don't follow.
The government exists, and regulates abortion. You must either force it to stop regulating abortion, or get rid of it entirely if your (excellent) system is to be instituted.
I advocate for no system other than open discussion and voluntary agreement. You used to think that those were good things.
No, those are good things. But the government stands squarly in the way of that. The two ways forward are to either dramatically shrink the government, and the domain of government, or to abolish it altogether.
You advocate for morality. This is good. I agree that abortion should be minimized, but it must NOT be done by force.
When talking with most people who are against abortion, they tend to imply that the government is the one who should stop it, or they advocate direct use of force, and that is what I originally thought you were doing. My apologies.
Thanks, tmosely. Glad we got to the point where we can actually hear each other.
So if the Sheriff sees your house being robbed can he use force to stop it or apprehend the offenders? The government is never allowed to use force?
>>>It is not the right to kill one's own child that makes a woman a woman. On the contrary. A woman is a woman because she possesses the gift of being able to bring life into the world.<<<
Good stab at it with that sentimental drivel...but, it's hogwash.
The question is: "Is a woman a "person" with control over her body?"
Clearly your answer is, "No. She is subject to state enforced pregnancy...a form of slavery."
A baby is not "her body". This is biology 101. Most abortions involve going in and destroying the baby.
Clearly you are an idiot. I do not advocate for state control of abortion.
this type of statement is an abomination.
The State enforces "slavery" for ALL KINDS OF ACTS. Murder someone, see how free you are.
Your entire line of reasoning is specious and sophistic.
People do not always control their own bodies. If I promise to hold you up, and then I walk off and let you fall, I AM LIABLE. This means that I DID NOT exercise plenary control of my own body after you RELIED on me! I am ESTOPPED from taking certain actions that are harmful to you.
People OWE others a duty of care in certain circumstances. Rock climbers...can they simply walk off and let the fucker on the rope die? NO. They are LIABLE. They cannot act however they want, including but not limited to being bound TO THAT SPOT until the guy they are belaying is safe!
This is how reliance works! If I am on the rope pursuant to our agreement and you let me fall, YOU are liable. You even have liability to people you do not even know! This notion of duty of care supersedes (with an S, not C, cretins) your "right" or whatever you think you have to do what you want with your own body!
And tell me Trav, what do I think of the state? When have I EVER supported the state as it pertains to enslavement? I'm a fucking anarchocapitalist, for fucks sake.
By the way, this is a good argument against abortion, ad hominem aside.
"A woman is a woman because she possesses the gift of being able to bring life into the world."
Your definition of what a women is like saying the only thing that make a man a man is his dick.....
I choose what to do with my body!!! No one else, not the government not my husband.!
If I get pregnant and am not in the position to deal with said pregnancy FOR WHAT EVER REASON!!!! It is solely my decision to end that pregnancy. That is my right!
Oh and your comment regarding mother bears defending her cubs... in nature if a mother bear is starving she will eat her cubs... in the hopes that she will survive so she can successful rear other cubs.
IF you don't believe in abortion than don't have one.. oh wait your male... than shut the fuck up.
A baby is not your body. Where did you go to school? This is biology 101. Not even that, this is 3rd grade biology.
Few men would suggest that their sovereignty is based on denying the function of their penis and testicles. Why should women be encouraged to believe that their uteruses are a liability and that carrying a healthy child is a burden? It's as if you want women to hate themselves for being women.
"If I get pregnant and am not in the position to deal with said pregnancy FOR WHAT EVER REASON!!!! It is solely my decision to end that pregnancy. That is my right!"
If, for whatever reason, you are not in a postion to deal with pregancy , then entering into a contract of "mutual assured pleasure at the risk of unwanted pregnancy" is a bad idea...
Nevertheless, once you crash into the car in front of you in traffic- you are liable for whatever injuries you cause to the occupants of that vehicle.
Likewise- as soon as you let a man ejaculate inside your vagina (whether in "protected" fashion or not) you are LIABLE for the outcome of your actions.
Yes, you have the right to choose not to be pregnant, but that choice is to be made by rationally choosing to gratify yourself with a finger, a fist, or a 15 inch latex reproduction of John Holmes schlong... ANYTHING that does not propel sperm cells out of it at 200 mph.
Abortion is simply the diseased mindset that results from people believing that if they choose to ignore responsibility, accountability, and culpability, then these things won't affect them adversely.
Smart decisions yield positive benefits. Poor decisions yield adverse consequences. It only takes an IQ of about 40 to understand this most simple premise.
Rights are rights, and yes, you can kill your unborn fetus just as easily as you can slash your neighbor's throat with a steak knife. You have the right to choose to deny other people of their right to life....
However, in so doing you had best just be prepared for the old addage that what goes around, comes around
There are cases where the baby can be saved when it is born at about 24-26 weeks. The baby survives completely free of its mother. So would you say that if a woman is 26 weeks pregnant and doesn't want the baby, doctors could induce her and care for the child? Or does the denial of service have to include cutting the baby up?
talking to me? YES, fetal EVICTION should be permissible at viability, subject to liability in tort for damages consequent thereto.
Once detrimental reliance is extinguished, the mother again controls her own body.
But to those who say you own your body...don't start CPR on someone. Don't hold anyone's baby or anything of value. Because you will NOT be entitled to simply let go of it and watch it drop. Ooops, my body, I can do with it as I see fit.
WRONG. You are STILL LIABLE for the DAMAGES you inflict on others.
No, I was talking to tmosley. But your comment is appreciated.
That is fine, so long as the mother consents.
But the thing is, not all mothers would consent. If they are of a self serving variety, they might not want to "mess up their vagina" or have scars from a c-section, in which case they might demand that it be cut up. The thing is that either way, it is a medical procedure, and it is up to her whether she wants to have it or not.
That is probably an extreme rarity, and eviction would fix the vast majority of the problem. I do appreciate a good idea, even if it comes from Trav.
No, it is not an extreme rarity. Are you intentionally lying or are you just clueless?
the fetus RELIES on the mother. This is a LEGAL term. Stop babbling and just go educate yourself.
At the point the fetus need no longer RELY on the mother, aka "viability," EVICTION of the fetus should be permissible, subject to damages as a consequence of this measure!
YES, Trav just said ABORTION is illegal, but EVICTION of the fetus when it can survive on its own IS permissible!
This is a matter of basic logic and ethics, reflected in hellatiously well-established common law doctrine.
The mother DOES own her own body, but she is ESTOPPED from harming lives-in-being that are RELIANT on her as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of her action (yes, this is slightly redundant as reliance requires reasonability).
All of this morality crap, the "liberal conservative" bs...it's all irrelevant.
I think the biological argument that the mother and baby do not recognize each other as self is needed since some people seem confused on what is their body and what is a new individual.
huh?
I'm not sure that was ever in dispute. The fetus has different DNA and is a severable organism. How do we know this? Because severance happens all the time; it's called birth.
To those who think they have plenary rights over their own body, try this. Tell someone you will hold the ladder while they climb on it. Then just control your body and walk away. Person falls. You get sued. You lose. The person relies on you. Shit like this happens all the time, where promises are made, a person puts themself into an adverse position and the other person renegs. There's an entire doctrine of implied contract about this and it is 1st year contract law (and 1L torts)
Duty of Care. There are these terms of art and very useful things to discover with a legal education about how things work, tracing the arc from ancient philosophy to modern blackletter law.
So Trav, I gotta ask.... Why is Roe v. Wade upheld to this day?
Have we arrived at the point where our Supreme Court has insufficient IQ to understand the imperative nature of thier job?
"Why is Roe v. Wade upheld to this day?"
I'll bite. Not on it's legal merits, but simply because it's become a political shibboleth. And as such it is very useful to control both the left and the right by hyping up the possibility of it being threatened or overturned.
Ok, now walk up to the ladder that no-one is on without saying a word. A week later, a fetus starts slowly climbing down. He won't reach the bottom for nine months.
What are the implications of this?
Honestly? The implication of your statement is that you are fucking retarded.
Right on! Murdering your unborn kid & liberty go together like peanut butter and jelly. Those hatemongers are trying to steal our freedom to kill those clumps of cells. They should be taught a lesson. Maybe they should grope the entire parade to make sure they don't blow up any abortion clinics. In fact, how did those religious wackos even get a right to free speech! It's ridiculous. CaptFufflePants should get to decide what liberties we have liberties and those we don't. More FufflePants!
So since you deny the legitimacy of SCOTUS then you deny the legitimacy of the US Constitution, therefore you deny the liberties granted in the Constitution, and therefor Rand Paul is a religious crackpot doing the bidding of 1st century barbaric ideology, and has no respect for liberty in the first place.
Thanks for your input kid.
Your world view is synonymous with North Korea's.
Yes, as we all know, SCOTUS is all wise. Just see Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, Chevron v. NRDC, Buck v. Bell, just to name a few. I guess we should all put our faith in SCOTUS, and agree with them that blacks should be slaves, the government should be able to force American citizens into indefinite detention, any government agency should be able to determine for itself if its acts are constitutional, and the government should be allowed to sterilize those whom it determines to be unsuitable for reproduction. Just bend over for them and take it as they see fit.
I don't think anyone is denying the legitimacy of SCOTUS, but merely acknowledging that SCOTUS eff's up big time...A LOT
Your hierarchy wrong. The Constituion trumps SCOTUS.
What a bunch of phucktards debating abortion. Its a personal right!
And I can see you are all worried and upset about the millions of innocent lives that have been killed since the Iraqi invasion, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Tunisia, Gaza, Syria, Egypt.....
Should we call that murder or just abortion because they were brown people.
You people are bunch of hypocrites!
Eh? Many of us were in here screaming and shouting about those to.
Don't presume that because something is going on when you got here that that is all that ever goes on here. That is a form of normalcy bias.
I junked you simply for the use of the term "law-abiding."
Stop thinking in their terms. There are no laws anymore, only statutes and codes. And even with that, no man could "abide" by them all.
pods
The only law is natural law. All else is pretention and institutional corruption.
This from the guy who just demonstrated his ignorance of nature.
Ad hominem from a guy who uses strawmen.
EXPECTED.
The strawman that you presented? Good grief. How is "you just demonstrated your ignorance of nature" an ad hominem? Might want to look that one up. When I called you a retard, that was an ad hominem.
is this the title of your autobiography, Cliff?
You are the KING of strawmen.
You argue like a schoolboy.
Since that is the level of debate you understand, I'm rubber, and you are glue.
When ALL the kids with no parent on the state welfare roles are taken off those roles by the Christian(?) abortion foes then I will listen to their complaints.
Until then anyone that wants to force to term using force of the state to birth better be standing there to catch the little monster and raise it as their own.
Until then you are just like alll the rest, all talk no CAtTLE.
Just another set of elitist punks reading from your approved text but with nothing of substance to back it up.
...and just another divide and conquer tactic working splendidly.
You cannot unite under liberty when people do not agree on the first right to life.
Exactly my point.
No. People do not have to agree about racism, sexism, partyism, whateverism when it comes to being united under liberty. On a question of the most fundamental right to life, you absolutely have to be united otherwise, it won't work.
Cry me a fucking river.
If you don't want to submit yourself to TSA security imperatives, what prevents you from getting your dimwit ass out of airports??? Traveling internationally is a luxury, not a need.
I mean, is this so hard to understand? Libertarian lunatics don't seem to have the I.Q. points necessary, unfortunately...
You like it when the TSA goons touch your kids?
Surely that'd just mean they have similar interests?
Ohh, SNAP!
he's having trouble finding a woman. He goes to the airport for stimulation
What a good Soviet Union slave you would have made.
So in other words, consent to molestation or radiation or bye bye freedom of movement?
Give me a fucking break.
Uh Hamy? Janet Nazipolitano has announced they're coming to trains, busses, sports games, malls, supermarkets near you. Is going to the store a luxury for you?
Being patted down by civil agents and/or being submitted to cavity searches is NOT pleasant, I admit it, especially for the most prudish among us.
But the ends justify the means, i.e., securing our territory against those who hate us for our freedom.
So your ok with your young children being touched by strangers. Gotcha.
Tyler - anyway to block other posters? Cause this pervert offends me as a parent.
Tyler knows a lively thread when he writes it, then he trots out Hamy and MDB to keep it going. Tyler's your not just economists you also teach human behaviour and crowd manipulation techniques, bravo..
You have GOT to be a troll. Nobody is that stupid.
You misspelled freedoms.
Bullshit. The foundation of our legal system is that the ends NEVER justify using extra-legal or unconstituional means. Or at least that's how our legal system is SUPPOSED to work.
Plus, I'd love to know when the last time the TSA actually stopped any threats. The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber....all made it past the TSA without a peep.
The TSA is both unconstitutional AND incompetent.
I thought both these men came from abroad. The shoe bomber was subduded by passengers/crew prior to landing.
Some level of security is needed but I think we need a new system. All TSA employees should be required to read and write proficiently in english. Many high school grads cannot read or write beyond an 8th grade level. All screeners who wish to be supervisors should have at least 4 yr. degree or equivelant military experience.
Actually Hamy the ones who hate us for are freedom are called Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch, along with corporate and banker cartels. We have met the enemy and he is us - Pogo.
Since this is so incredibly obvious Hamy, one has to assume that you are either a complete fool or a paid disinformation agent who is not very good at his job.
"securing our territory against those who hate us for our freedom."
Still buying this line of bullshit are you? Your alarm clock is going off, time to wake up and drive to reality. Make sure you leave early though, because you have to allow time for your groping on the way in.
Hammy I won't bash you for your opinion, but do you really think these security measures protect you? They don't at all. It's hard to stop the so called terrorists when its our own government drawing up the plays. Think 9-11. Those security measures is nothing more than removing your liberties. If some organization wants to hijack a plane or blow something up they will likely accomplish that goal. If you still don't believe me then why is our country flooded with heroin,coke,etc,etc. They are still getting in. You have to understand who is your real enemy before you can fight back.
And yet, DC is still standing...
Hamy
jeez son, you killed your own in one and the same post.
classic.
Put "TSA VIPR teams" into your favorite search engine.
Hamy - then you won't mind bending over so we can make sure you don't have a Swastika up your ass, right?
He has constitutional immunity from arrest and detention when traveling in the performance of his duties.
I wonder if this will be the begininngs of a lawsuit?
Looks like Hamy got beat up in high school along with all those other TSA nitwits.
Poor Hamy doesn't know how to sail : (
International travel is available pat-down-free to those with know-how and means. No airports for some - so how about we get some of those tax dollars back that go to funding and "protecting" said airports and airlines seeing as those taxes were not spent in our common interests...?
You'll cry a fucking river when they break your door down at three in the morning.
"Come with us, Mr. HamyWanger", the black-suited thugs will say.
Later, as you squint in the glare of the quarrtz lamp aimed directly at your eyes, your HS interrogator will ask, "Give me the names of those in your terror cell!"
"But I'm not involved in a terror cell!" you shriek.
"What's this?!" the interrogator demands. He waves a printout in your face. It is a log of your internet activity.
"You seem to vacillate between gay porn and Zerohedge!", he says with a thin smile. "Didn't you know that Zerohedge, because it contains allusions to a certain movie, has been declared a terrorist organization? Who do you talk to? Who is with you in your terror cell? Tell me now, or I will have to use this barbed tazer!"
That's when you'll cry a fucking river, you stupid MF'er.
The whole 'War on Terror' is one giant fat lie. At least twice now I have heard experts say there are few actual 'Al CIAdu' in Afghanistan or whatever the f**k the Pentagon calls them. First it was 100 and the other day it was 50.
It's a big country, Hamy. And many of us must travel for work & family. The only luxuries associated with my travels are food on the table; a roof over my head; and relations with my extended, nuclear family.
Sooner American will only be able to travel overseas in C-130
Why was he even pulled for the TSA check?
What's the likliehood a Senator is going to hijack a plane?
Even if you pretend the TSA does something useful, you have to admit that there's finite TSA resources... why aren't they using them wisely?
Although the TSA is an abomination, I for one am glad that it's stopping Senators and Reps. They're the ones who enabled it, so let them be subjected to the same indignities as their subjects.
They are using them wisely CJ, they just used them to show you and the rest of the country who is boss.. The history of Hitlers rise particularly the early years with the Brownshirts after the Beer hall putsch and his release from prison is very instructive.
Maybe Rand Paul was pulled for a TSA check because he was one of only 14 Senators that voted against the NDAA. During the bill's debate, he tried to get an amendment inserted that would kill the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military. Here's a clip of his speech:
http://bit.ly/ynaBs7
Alternatively, maybe it had something to do with his father, Ron Paul. I guess anything is possible. Perhaps the TSA agent is not a fan.
Hey Hamy you troll... 63 junks and counting, I think that might be a record, and you did it in less than 2 hours! I think you have beaten Robo and Trav....
nah, not even close...I had a post 50-junked off in the old days in like under 5 minutes.
I can't remember who holds the 100-junk threshold record, probably JohnnyBravo IIRC, he hit that in maybe 10 minutes-ish
Cannot remember think it was johnny with his $5.00 silver post.. Good times, good times..
A; RAnd was not traveling internationally
B; Our rights are not based on needs.
C;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Send that evil terrorist to Guantanamo.
A martyr would be good right about now.
The TSA scum needs to DIAF.
At least he fly's commercial...I'm sure Sen. Wellstone wishes he had. Shit, what am i thinking...The Gov't would take down a commercial airliner as well to silence someone...
HA, Wellstone the truth talker, starts in a school bus, after ONE TERM he is a multimillionaire, hmm how he do that, all star wrastling in his off time?