NationStates

Aquophia wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:Ok, I really didn't mean to derail this thread like this. Can we get back on topic before a mod comes by and yells at me?

What topic?

Crazy old men with crazier, older political ideas.

One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him, this reminds me of the one ring in lord of the rings: the ring of power. lol.

The Time Lords wrote:One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him, this reminds me of the one ring in lord of the rings: the ring of power. lol.

Really? I .. I never thought of that.

The Time Lords wrote:One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him, this reminds me of the one ring in lord of the rings: the ring of power. lol.

duly noted

United Dependencies wrote:One Thread to bring them all and in the darkness Bind them!
In the land of NSG, where the shadows lie...

62 pages and no one has said it. come on.

*glares at Farn*

The Time Lords wrote:One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him, this reminds me of the one ring in lord of the rings: the ring of power. lol.

So...Ron Paul is Gollum?

Coccygia wrote:

The Time Lords wrote:One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him, this reminds me of the one ring in lord of the rings: the ring of power. lol.

So...Ron Paul is Gollum?

Well, he is obsessed with a shiny precious.

Edit: Typo

So Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA and refused to be patted down.

This of course, means Paulites are losing their proverbial shit because teh TSAs are teh evils.

What they refuse to realize (other than Ron Paul had a hand in all this happening), is that airlines are corporations, and airports are run by the government.

Why is that important?

Well, in a government building you are always subject to search. And a corporation is allowed to refuse service to those who refuse to cooperate with their procedures.

And while a senator has some protection from common law by the Constitution, this does NOT apply to potential treason. Terrorist activities on your own soil counts as treason.

Death Metal wrote:So Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA and refused to be patted down.

This of course, means Paulites are losing their proverbial shit because teh TSAs are teh evils.

What they refuse to realize (other than Ron Paul had a hand in all this happening), is that airlines are corporations, and airports are run by the government.

Why is that important?

Well, in a government building you are always subject to search. And a corporation is allowed to refuse service to those who refuse to cooperate with their procedures.

And while a senator has some protection from common law by the Constitution, this does NOT apply to potential treason. Terrorist activities on your own soil counts as treason.

I'm a little surprised that Rand Paul's terrible ordeal didn't get it's own discussion thread. I guess it's because he doesn't matter.

The story is pretty obviously purely contrived - Rand Paul's knee (apparently) set off some alarm, and he refused a pat-down and wasn't allowed to board. First - that's not even a fucking story - if you don't pass security to get on a plane, you don't get on. It's no different than trying to board a flight without a ticket and then pitching a fit because you weren't allowed. Come back when you have a legitimate complaint, Rand.

Second - in order to know that it was his 'knee' (allegedly) that triggered the alarm, Rand must have had not only the standard walk-through monitoring, but also the use of an investigative detector (wand) to pinpoint the trouble area. So his complaint that he wasn't allowed to be scanned again simply isn't true.

Third - he was given the option to fly. He wasn't detained without recourse. He could simply have had a non-invasive pat of his knee (or dropped his pants, I suppose, but that would arguably have been MORE 'invasive'), and would have been allowed to fly once it was clear he didn't have a gun strapped to his leg or something.

It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

They do have the right to bitch and moan about it.

But we also have the right to call them idiots for not understanding that they're bitching and moaning for the wrong reasons.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Death Metal wrote:So Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA and refused to be patted down.

This of course, means Paulites are losing their proverbial shit because teh TSAs are teh evils.

What they refuse to realize (other than Ron Paul had a hand in all this happening), is that airlines are corporations, and airports are run by the government.

Why is that important?

Well, in a government building you are always subject to search. And a corporation is allowed to refuse service to those who refuse to cooperate with their procedures.

And while a senator has some protection from common law by the Constitution, this does NOT apply to potential treason. Terrorist activities on your own soil counts as treason.

I'm a little surprised that Rand Paul's terrible ordeal didn't get it's own discussion thread. I guess it's because he doesn't matter.

The story is pretty obviously purely contrived - Rand Paul's knee (apparently) set off some alarm, and he refused a pat-down and wasn't allowed to board. First - that's not even a fucking story - if you don't pass security to get on a plane, you don't get on. It's no different than trying to board a flight without a ticket and then pitching a fit because you weren't allowed. Come back when you have a legitimate complaint, Rand.

Second - in order to know that it was his 'knee' (allegedly) that triggered the alarm, Rand must have had not only the standard walk-through monitoring, but also the use of an investigative detector (wand) to pinpoint the trouble area. So his complaint that he wasn't allowed to be scanned again simply isn't true.

Third - he was given the option to fly. He wasn't detained without recourse. He could simply have had a non-invasive pat of his knee (or dropped his pants, I suppose, but that would arguably have been MORE 'invasive'), and would have been allowed to fly once it was clear he didn't have a gun strapped to his leg or something.

It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

I'm from the state in question, and happened to see it on my local news while eating dinner.

The story they ran said it was an uncertain part of his leg, and had him claiming that he pulled up his pant leg and offered to let them scan the leg again which was what was turned down. Which makes sense to me from a security perspective: anything genuinely shady would more likely be in the pants rather than his leg. The story also said the he claimed to have been detained, but that the security officers or airport (don't remember which) said he was simply prevented from going further than the checkpoint.

They then went on to give his Dad free publicity by airing a rant he launched about how evil the TSA is.

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I'm a little surprised that Rand Paul's terrible ordeal didn't get it's own discussion thread. I guess it's because he doesn't matter.

The story is pretty obviously purely contrived - Rand Paul's knee (apparently) set off some alarm, and he refused a pat-down and wasn't allowed to board. First - that's not even a fucking story - if you don't pass security to get on a plane, you don't get on. It's no different than trying to board a flight without a ticket and then pitching a fit because you weren't allowed. Come back when you have a legitimate complaint, Rand.

Second - in order to know that it was his 'knee' (allegedly) that triggered the alarm, Rand must have had not only the standard walk-through monitoring, but also the use of an investigative detector (wand) to pinpoint the trouble area. So his complaint that he wasn't allowed to be scanned again simply isn't true.

Third - he was given the option to fly. He wasn't detained without recourse. He could simply have had a non-invasive pat of his knee (or dropped his pants, I suppose, but that would arguably have been MORE 'invasive'), and would have been allowed to fly once it was clear he didn't have a gun strapped to his leg or something.

It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

I'm from the state in question, and happened to see it on my local news while eating dinner.

The story they ran said it was an uncertain part of his leg, and had him claiming that he pulled up his pant leg and offered to let them scan the leg again which was what was turned down. Which makes sense to me from a security perspective: anything genuinely shady would more likely be in the pants rather than his leg. The story also said the he claimed to have been detained, but that the security officers or airport (don't remember which) said he was simply prevented from going further than the checkpoint.

They then went on to give his Dad free publicity by airing a rant he launched about how evil the TSA is.

The version I heard earlier had him claiming that his knee tripped the alarm. The idea that his pants might have tripped the alarm makes more sense, since he's claimed he doesn't have any surgical metal in his leg, etc.

The source I heard also supported what you're saying - the 'official' story has him being told he couldn't fly, and left to his own devices - while Rand claims to have been 'detained'.

Personally, the minute I heard the story, I found myself wondering if it was deliberately staged to give his dad a bump in the polls. The story is so insignificant, contrived and inconsistent... and yet seems tailor-made to appeal to the Ron Paul demographic.

Death Metal wrote:They do have the right to bitch and moan about it.

But we also have the right to call them idiots for not understanding that they're bitching and moaning for the wrong reasons.

He does indeed have a right to bitch and moan. The Constitution protects a man's right to be stupid.

Rand Paul is perhaps attempting to see just how far that right can be pushed.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:I'm from the state in question, and happened to see it on my local news while eating dinner.

The story they ran said it was an uncertain part of his leg, and had him claiming that he pulled up his pant leg and offered to let them scan the leg again which was what was turned down. Which makes sense to me from a security perspective: anything genuinely shady would more likely be in the pants rather than his leg. The story also said the he claimed to have been detained, but that the security officers or airport (don't remember which) said he was simply prevented from going further than the checkpoint.

They then went on to give his Dad free publicity by airing a rant he launched about how evil the TSA is.

The version I heard earlier had him claiming that his knee tripped the alarm. The idea that his pants might have tripped the alarm makes more sense, since he's claimed he doesn't have any surgical metal in his leg, etc.

The source I heard also supported what you're saying - the 'official' story has him being told he couldn't fly, and left to his own devices - while Rand claims to have been 'detained'.

Personally, the minute I heard the story, I found myself wondering if it was deliberately staged to give his dad a bump in the polls. The story is so insignificant, contrived and inconsistent... and yet seems tailor-made to appeal to the Ron Paul demographic.

I don't necessarily think his pants tripped the alarm. I'm just saying that if my job was security screening, and, if after a detector went off, the person being scanned at the time responded by moving some of their clothes and offering a rescan of their bare flesh, my first instinct would be "Misdirection, check those clothes!".

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
The version I heard earlier had him claiming that his knee tripped the alarm. The idea that his pants might have tripped the alarm makes more sense, since he's claimed he doesn't have any surgical metal in his leg, etc.

The source I heard also supported what you're saying - the 'official' story has him being told he couldn't fly, and left to his own devices - while Rand claims to have been 'detained'.

Personally, the minute I heard the story, I found myself wondering if it was deliberately staged to give his dad a bump in the polls. The story is so insignificant, contrived and inconsistent... and yet seems tailor-made to appeal to the Ron Paul demographic.

I don't necessarily think his pants tripped the alarm. I'm just saying that if my job was security screening, and, if after a detector went off, the person being scanned at the time responded by moving some of their clothes and offering a rescan of their bare flesh, my first instinct would be "Misdirection, check those clothes!".

... or just ask him to walk through the detector again.

Which, purportedly, is what Rand asked for: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:I'm from the state in question, and happened to see it on my local news while eating dinner.

The story they ran said it was an uncertain part of his leg, and had him claiming that he pulled up his pant leg and offered to let them scan the leg again which was what was turned down. Which makes sense to me from a security perspective: anything genuinely shady would more likely be in the pants rather than his leg. The story also said the he claimed to have been detained, but that the security officers or airport (don't remember which) said he was simply prevented from going further than the checkpoint.

They then went on to give his Dad free publicity by airing a rant he launched about how evil the TSA is.

The version I heard earlier had him claiming that his knee tripped the alarm. The idea that his pants might have tripped the alarm makes more sense, since he's claimed he doesn't have any surgical metal in his leg, etc.

The source I heard also supported what you're saying - the 'official' story has him being told he couldn't fly, and left to his own devices - while Rand claims to have been 'detained'.

Personally, the minute I heard the story, I found myself wondering if it was deliberately staged to give his dad a bump in the polls. The story is so insignificant, contrived and inconsistent... and yet seems tailor-made to appeal to the Ron Paul demographic.

Hey, they didn't really talk about him after the debate, so his camp figured they at least should do something to get the media to say something about him tonight.

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't necessarily think his pants tripped the alarm. I'm just saying that if my job was security screening, and, if after a detector went off, the person being scanned at the time responded by moving some of their clothes and offering a rescan of their bare flesh, my first instinct would be "Misdirection, check those clothes!".

... or just ask him to walk through the detector again.

Which, purportedly, is what Rand asked for: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Interesting, the source you present highlights how double-screening adults is also, coincidentally, a specific policy piece for Rand Paul.

This has publicity stunt written all over it.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:
... or just ask him to walk through the detector again.

Which, purportedly, is what Rand asked for: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Interesting, the source you present highlights how double-screening adults is also, coincidentally, a specific policy piece for Rand Paul.

This has publicity stunt written all over it.

Eh, considering he said it a couple of months ago, I'd hesitate to go that direction.

But, still, the only big deal here is that Rand was involved. It doesn't deserve more than a little blip on Your Preferred Social Media Outlet.

Farnhamia wrote:

Quelesh wrote:Yeah, I am disappointed that Paul voted for the 2001 AUMF. The reason I hope that Paul does at least relatively well in the Republican primaries, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with him on many issues, is that he generally opposes the so-called war on terror, and I cannot bring myself to support any candidate who does not oppose the endless war. This is one reason why I'll probably end up supporting the Green Party or Socialist Party USA candidate, and is the primary reason why I cannot support Obama.

There is an alternative Ron Paul campaign I could really get behind though, based on this t-shirt:

(Image)

Is that the endless war that the President has ended one part of? The endless war from which we're withdrawing troops, 10,000 last year, more this year, the last by 2014? That endless war?

When I said "endless war," I was referring to the so-called War on Terror as a whole (what the Bush administration called the "long war"), not specifically limited to the War in Afghanistan. They're talking about withdrawing troops (well, "combat troops" anyway) from Afghanistan, but they're not talking about ending unmanned drone operations, they're not talking about no longer bombing Pakistan and Yemen, they're not talking about closing Guantanamo, they're not talking about ending indefinite detention and they're not talking about repealing the Patriot Act.

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Coccygia wrote:So...Ron Paul is Gollum?

Well, his is obsessed with a shiny precious.

Yes he is gollum. just look at his face.

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't necessarily think his pants tripped the alarm. I'm just saying that if my job was security screening, and, if after a detector went off, the person being scanned at the time responded by moving some of their clothes and offering a rescan of their bare flesh, my first instinct would be "Misdirection, check those clothes!".

... or just ask him to walk through the detector again.

Which, purportedly, is what Rand asked for: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

I'm just going by what I saw in his interview on my local news. He demonstrated his offer by placing his foot on a low counter and hitching up the pant leg to bare his entire shin, as if offering it up for one of those handheld detectors.

Quelesh wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Is that the endless war that the President has ended one part of? The endless war from which we're withdrawing troops, 10,000 last year, more this year, the last by 2014? That endless war?

When I said "endless war," I was referring to the so-called War on Terror as a whole (what the Bush administration called the "long war"), not specifically limited to the War in Afghanistan. They're talking about withdrawing troops (well, "combat troops" anyway) from Afghanistan, but they're not talking about ending unmanned drone operations, they're not talking about no longer bombing Pakistan and Yemen, they're not talking about closing Guantanamo, they're not talking about ending indefinite detention and they're not talking about repealing the Patriot Act.

Because it won't matter how the war is going if we don't have a country left when it's over.

And we're still at war with the Taliban, for now anyway.

Grave_n_idle wrote:It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

My favorite part is that he was on his way to argue for government control of every woman's uterus, but ask him to go through routine screening procedures and have a pat down after setting off the detector? What a horrible invasive government!

Dempublicents1 wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

My favorite part is that he was on his way to argue for government control of every woman's uterus, but ask him to go through routine screening procedures and have a pat down after setting off the detector? What a horrible invasive government!

Indeed.... what was his claim? That it was not 'appropriate' for security officials to pat him down? The mere suggestion of contact near his body is inappropriate and an overstretch of government intrusion - but determining who can do what the other side of a woman's cervix is entirely appropriate.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Dempublicents1 wrote:
My favorite part is that he was on his way to argue for government control of every woman's uterus, but ask him to go through routine screening procedures and have a pat down after setting off the detector? What a horrible invasive government!

Indeed.... what was his claim? That it was not 'appropriate' for security officials to pat him down? The mere suggestion of contact near his body is inappropriate and an overstretch of government intrusion - but determining who can do what the other side of a woman's cervix is entirely appropriate.

Don't you understand he disagrees with the TSA thus he should be immune to their actions, as civilized and mature adult. However, women are all silly and cannot be trusted to know what is best for their bodies. Thus, why he has every right to legislate what they can or cannot do with them.

Dempublicents1 wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:It's this kind of stupidity that really causes the problems at airports - and I say this as someone who has arguably made more than my fair share of international and national flights. The sense of entitlement that people like Rand Paul have sickens me. Security is actually doing it's job, without abuse... and that's a controversy. You do NOT have a 'right' to get on a plane without monitoring.

My favorite part is that he was on his way to argue for government control of every woman's uterus, but ask him to go through routine screening procedures and have a pat down after setting off the detector? What a horrible invasive government!

There's a reason why it's called a uterUS, not a uterYOU.

>.>