Slashdot Mirror


Rand Paul Has a Quick Fix For TSA: Pull the Plug

suraj.sun quotes from Politico: "Rand Paul has a reform plan for the Transportation Security Administration: Scrap the whole thing. A personal message from Paul (R-Ky.) came atop emails this week from the Campaign for Liberty Vice President Matt Hawes, asking for readers to sign a petition in support of Paul's 'End the TSA' bill. A Paul spokeswoman said that legislation is being finalized next week. 'Every inch of our person has become fair game for government thugs posing as "security" as we travel around the country. Senator Rand Paul has a plan to do away with the TSA for good, but he needs our help,' reads the petition, which also asks signers to 'chip in a contribution to help C4L mobilize liberty activists across America to turn the heat up on Congress and end the TSA's abuse of our rights.' 'The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I've vowed to lead the charge to fight back,' Paul wrote at the top of a C4L fundraising pitch, according to blogs that received the email. 'Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pressure Congress to act now and restore our liberty. It's time to END the TSA and get the government's hands back to only stealing our wallets instead of groping toddlers and grandmothers.'"

68 of 1,051 comments (clear)

  1. It's about damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sign me up. This security theater has got to stop.

    1. Re:It's about damn time by z4ce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlikely. The airlines know the security theatre is costing them big $$$. They will scale it back.

    2. Re:It's about damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A private company can be sued and charged with molestation / rape. When a government ententy does it, they make themselves above the law.

    3. Re:It's about damn time by shiftless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's suggesting that it be *privatized*, with no government oversight or accountability at all (even less than there already is)

      ....and no force of law behind their unlawful detentions? No more harassment that I have to put up with or be arrested? No more "VIPR" teams roaming the highways?

      GOOD.

    4. Re:It's about damn time by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is incorrect.

      By ending the TSA, airports will gain the flexibility to change their processes, and we will gain the ability to sue the shit out of said private companies when they grope us inappropriately.

      What is it about "privatized" that makes you think there would be "no government oversight or accountability". And on the ground, how much less could there possibly be than there is right now??

    5. Re:It's about damn time by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The airlines have a greater interest in ACTUAL security, as opposed to security theater though.

      The groping and pornoscanners are a huge waste to convince the public that the government is protecting them from these ever-present, super scary terrorists that we need to elect them to fight. The terrorists are actually quite stupid and would never be able to pull off another 9/11. The only reason they succeeded is because the passengers thought it was in their best interests to go along with the terrorists. They were convinced there was a bomb on board, and if they waited, the terrorists would let them go. Everyone knows that is not the case anymore, AND the doors to the cockpit are locked now.

      That is what has made us safer and only that. Everything else is just to convince the public that we're making progress, while preserving the fear-mongering that keeps certain politicians getting elected and keeps certain government organizations paid.

      The airlines have little interest in fear mongering: it hurts them. Most people still fly, but the thought of some high school dropout molesting their children and/or TSA acting like al quaeda is around every corner hurts their business. Put it on them, even if the government pays for it, and they'll get rid of a lot of the security theater.

      Not to say it would all be good. They'd no doubt use security as an excuse for their own purposes. Specifically, they'd raise the prices dramatically and start racial profiling like we haven't seen before.

    6. Re:It's about damn time by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would be true if they weren't liable for what happens. As long as the TSA does security they are are fault if something goes wrong. If the airport or airlines run security themselves they could be bankrupt from a single event. Not to mention the further damage that would be done from even a single incident of a half successful hijacking or the like.

      Right now the airlines can rely on 'we don't like it either, but if you want to fly, those are the rules with everyone so tough it out'. I'd much rather the government trying to figure out to grope my balls without groping them than an insurance company demanding the airline minimize its liability for terrorist acts.

      Security is a government problem. That doesn't mean the TSA, the US military or anyone else do a particularly good or bad job. But transferring security responsibility to private companies or individuals would make the problem worse, not better. If you don't want the TSA engaging in security theatre pass laws that prevent the theatre and demand actual security, which is what should have happened in the first place.

    7. Re:It's about damn time by djp928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, remember before 9/11, when airport security was the business of the airport and the airlines, not the government? And nobody grabbed your nads or took pictures of you naked or made you endure a pat down to get on a plane? I do. It was way, way better than what we have now.

      Then 19 assholes with box cutters fucked it all up, and the government jumped in and decided they needed to "make us safe." Fuck that, I'll go back to the box cutter risk, if it means I get to get on a plane without being molested.

    8. Re:It's about damn time by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There doesn't need to be a law - airlines are private businesses. If you don't agree to their policies, they do not have to serve you.

      But there is actually a law -
      "Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. Â 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. Â 1540.105(a)(2)."

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:It's about damn time by z4ce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 9/11 strategy will never work again due to 1. Fortified cockpit doors 2. Most importantly, hostile passengers. The best you will get now is to blow up an airplane with a bomb and not use it as missle. There a million other vectors that a terrorist could use to kill about 300 people, not sure why air travel should be made such a pain for that. It's just a risk we have to manage. Also, if you figure in the fact that people are less likely to travel due to the invasive procedures at airports, the TSA has undoubtedly caused more deaths indirectly than the 9/11 hijackers.

    10. Re:It's about damn time by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9/11 wouldn't happen today in a world where the assumption is that when a place is hijacked, everyone is going to die. At the time, the standard assumption was that the hijackers just wanted money and would land the plane somewhere, and everyone would go free after the negotiations, provided no one tried to act the hero.

      After 9/11, that's no longer the default assumption. When you add in the extra cockpit security, hijacking a plane to crash somewhere is no longer an easy way to do a lot of damage. Putting billions of dollars into protecting against one, very specific and unlikely to succeed, avenue of terror is a misuse of security funds. Given the ease of hundreds of other avenues of terror, we're far better off investing in intellegence.

    11. Re:It's about damn time by plazman30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before the TSA, most security at airports was private. The TSAs backscatter X-Ray machines have already been bypassed. Air Marshalls can be spotted a mile away on a plane. The "Freedom Gropes" we have to endure are completely insane.

      Watching TSA agents detaining a woman because because she wouldn't let them x-ray her daughters breast milk is insane.

      I will not walk through a backscatter x-ray machine for any reason. Personally, I'll not shower for a week and wear the same clothes. Then I'll pop 2 Viagra and request a freedom grope when I get to the TSA. Hopefully that will make the agent sexually assaulting me as uncomfortable as possible.

      I'm going in on the 21st for a hip replacement. After that, my life is pretty much f*cked at airports. I will never be allowed to go anywhere without some type of enhanced pat down.

      This insanity has to end.

    12. Re:It's about damn time by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's okay. Most of what they do is for show anyway. At least this way, they'll be doing nothing cheaper and less invasively.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:It's about damn time by DoctorFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fortified cockpit door doesn't help if the pilot or copilot employed by the airline is the terrorist. He kills the other occupant of the cockpit, if necessary, and flies the plane into the target. The passengers, even if they realize what's going on, can't do anything about it because they're locked out of the cockpit.

      The changes make it more difficult. They don't make it impossible.

  2. Even a broken clock by Fwipp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...gets it right twice a day.

    1. Re:Even a broken clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So lets have two lines at the airport: one going to planes where nobody has to pass through security. And one going to planes where there is security screening? I can tell you which line I am going into. Pat me down and ask me to stand on my head. Its not bothering me in the least to feel a little delayed if it keeps an explosive off my plane. I hope all you people complaining wind up in the plane with no security and six bombers on the same plane with you.

    2. Re:Even a broken clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which totally explains why he was against the TSA before that incident even happened!

      Wait, no it doesn't...

    3. Re:Even a broken clock by squidflakes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because all of those times that aircraft took off between 1931 and 2001 that resulted in them being blown up by terrorist actions.

    4. Re:Even a broken clock by DroolTwist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So lets have two lines at the airport: one going to planes where nobody has to pass through security. And one going to planes where there is security screening? I can tell you which line I am going into. Pat me down and ask me to stand on my head. Its not bothering me in the least to feel a little delayed if it keeps an explosive off my plane. I hope all you people complaining wind up in the plane with no security and six bombers on the same plane with you.

      I doubt anyone wants 'no' security. More like bring back the old security (metal detectors, dog sniffing, etc).

      Even if it was 'no' security, I'd still pick that line. If the plane goes down, at least I can say I died without getting felt up by a bunch of thugs.

    5. Re:Even a broken clock by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, when you stand for principle, and not some abstract premise like "helping the middle class" like most politicians do, even people that are opposed to you will eventually find things to agree with you on.

      In your case you want Liberty in certain instances. Where you think liberty should be doled out and that liberty doesn't offend your sensibilities. Rand Paul stands for liberty for all. Even if that liberty hurts. So you'll agree with Rand when the rights gained are your own, but when someone else gains liberty at the your financial, social, or ideological expense, you call him a fool. True Liberty is painful and ugly. But it is the only way. If you let the government impinge on the rights of others, no matter how despicable their beliefs are to you... eventually the government will use that power to restrict your own rights. The truth has been born out in history in nearly every society that's ever existed. Now it's happening here.

    6. Re:Even a broken clock by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the root of the Pauls' objection to the TSA isn't because of nude scans or genital gropes, but because they think the Federal Government should be shrunken to levels that would likely have shocked late 19th century Americans. Yes, I'm sure they're appalled by the nonsense that goes on, but even if the TSA was an effective and reasonable security agency, the Pauls would still want it gone.

      Er, what makes you think that the levels they'd like to shrink the Leviathan down to would shock 19th century Americans? I suspect they'd be far far more shocked by the run away fed.gov than they would by any attempt to shrink it.

      "You mean there are entire federal agencies devoted to nothing but saying what you can and cannot eat/drink/smoke?!"
      "What the hell do you mean you can't build a house on land you own because some bureaucrat in Washington has declared it a wetland?!"
      "The Federal government largely dictate what is taught in schools?! Where is that in the Constitution?!"

      I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let the boot get so heavy and just where all these powers fed.gov has came from.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    7. Re:Even a broken clock by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhhh, did it ever occur to you that he is going after the TSA FIRST, because of their nude scans and genital gropes in addition to their unconstitutionality?

      If we can get rid of the most egregious violations, then maybe this country will be worth living in again. If you are so very attracted to your own pet agency, then you can oppose him when he proposes their dismantlement.

      Not that you will have a choice, as the debt is on a course for total government collapse and replacement with God knows what horrible dystopian system.

    8. Re:Even a broken clock by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes politicians say stupid stuff. Like when Obama said there are 57 states.

      I don't agree either with Paul (slavery is too strong a word) or Obama (there are only 50 states), but I do think universal healthcare is theft. I don't have the right to visit a doctor, get handed a bill, and then go-round taking money from my neighbors' wallets to Force them to pay my bill. Neither does the government.

      Pay your own damn bills.
      And if you're poor, we'll help you out with Food Stamps, unemployment, medicare, and so on. But that's it. It's a *safety net* to catch you when you fall and help you get back on your feet, not an entitlement. A privilege not a right.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:Even a broken clock by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about we be fair to the other side and say that they'd like government restrictions to be effective, and that their position is equally self consistent. Unlimited liberty = anarchy. Not even the Paul's seem to be in favor of that. They want government restriction just like the rest of us, just less than the rest of us. It's all about defining just where the government needs to intervene to protect us from each other. Almost everyone, as one example, and one I assume the Rands would support, favor the government having laws and police to prevent murder.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Even a broken clock by colinnwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is we as a culture already treat universal healthcare as a universal right. If you walk into almost any hospital in the country without insurance or money with a critical health problem, you will be treated. Media circuses have gone crazy when this occasionally doesn't happen. In the end, most of the cost of your treatment will be paid for by taxpayers at public hospitals, or by writing off the bad debt and rolling it into everyone else's bills at private hospitals. Most of those critcal health problems could have been drastically reduced in severity and cost by half-decent early intervention and care.

      I think it is time to explicitly accept this fact, develop a universal health care program with decent basic preventative and interventional care and cost controls, and allow the private insurance market to provide coverage for the cadillac care that wealthy people want and can afford.

    11. Re:Even a broken clock by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The part of the analysis that is incorrect is the part where it assumes that the government will force people to provide the service rather than raising the amount that it will pay. Sure, the government does create such mandates for corporations (more precisely, that they must provide X service for Y cost or else they won't be able to provide any service for the government at all), but A. corporations are not people, and B. they always have the right to refuse to provide the service, so long as they are willing to give up all of their other government-paid-for patients.

      That second point is the most important one. Rights are, by definition, balanced against other rights. As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I have the right to free speech. That does not mean that you do not have the right to walk away and not listen to it. And so on. No right exists in a vacuum. The problem with the libertarian philosophy in general is that it tries to treat rights as though they did, which is a fundamentally flawed understanding of rights. Any argument starting from such a flawed premise is prima facie flawed.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Too bad his other ideas are bad by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we get a non-extremist pol who thinks TSA is a bad idea and has the power to do something about it?

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Too bad his other ideas are bad by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rand Paul and Ron Paul are not the same person.

    2. Re:Too bad his other ideas are bad by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue" (Cicero, used by Barry Goldwater in his '64 acceptance speech).

      Again, which of his positions do you find extreme? Protecting the Bill of Rights? Not bombing random countries willy-nilly? Supporting Internet freedom?

      Or are you conditioned to have a knee-jerk reaction that any pol with an (R) next to his name is too extreme?

      Paul B.

    3. Re:Too bad his other ideas are bad by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is wrong with repealing it?

      Plenty.

      It wouldn't be overnight, but Jim Crow would come right back.

      In before you claim that Jim Crow was *only* the government's doing. Without the backing of businesses and such, Jim Crow wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of lasting as long as it did. There are places in the country which would drift right back were it not for federal legislation.

      This is why Rand Paul's insistence that the Civil Rights act was bad is based on nonsense. He claims that a black person's dollar is the same as a white's and that businesses and such would see it that way in this "enlightened" era. To a lot of people, it's not. Even today.

      But whatever, go back to Stormfront.

      --
      BMO

  4. Sad Day by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a sad day indeed when common sense is considered "extreme".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sad Day by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's extreme about this? Every external inch of you is scanned by the TSA. And once al-Qaeda deploys their 'ass-bomber', the TSA will be obliged to anal-probe everyone...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Sad Day by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He thinks the Civil Rights Act was federal overreach -- because the Fed has no business telling private enterprise that they must serve black people.

      Still think that way?

    3. Re:Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. If you're stupid enough to refuse to do business with someone, your competitors will get the business you refused.
      A truly free market would stop that kind of discrimination faster than all the civil rights legislation ever proposed.

    4. Re:Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He was against the civil rights act because if you give the government the power to restrict liberty and freedom it assumes the converse that liberty and freedom is granted by the government which it is not. It is inherent.

      So do you believe you were born a slave and the government granted you your basic rights and freedoms?

    5. Re:Sad Day by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's a sham of a libertarian. A libertarian believes the government should stay out of your personal business all the time, not just when it suits his own political and/or religious beliefs. Someone who opposes same sex marriage, legalization of drugs, racial integration/equality, and abortion (even in the case of rape or incest) is NOT a real libertarian.

    6. Re:Sad Day by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why didn't it solve the problem when it had a chance and before legislation had to be involved?

      If the free market can solve all problems why do so many go unsolved for so long?

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    7. Re:Sad Day by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what a lovely idea, until one sees how things worked in the South until civil rights legislation passed. Since virtually no white restaurant would serve a black person, this whole "competition will kill racism" line suddenly looks pretty fucking retarded, no?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Sad Day by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes! And his objection to it has nothing to do with racism as you like to think it does. The federal government certainly doesn't have that right. If you can find me the clause in the constitution that suggests that they do have that right to tell private businesses who they must serve, I would retract that statement.

      Understand that the Civil Rights Act was put in place in response to other government involvement in private enterprise which forced a lot of businesses to be segregated against their will (The transit system in Montgomery Alabama is a good example). All Dr. Paul said was that government should not be in the business of telling private enterprises which customers they need to or need not to serve. Let the free market prove to business owners that attempting segregation is a guaranteed loss.

      If you think the Federal Government SHOULD have that right, then you should favor a constitutional amendment to take care of that.

      This is why Ron/Rand Paul are difficult to connect with. Libertarianism requires greater intellectual vigour and deeper analysis to understand.

    9. Re:Sad Day by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I LOVE when people spout MSNBC or DNC talking points. It makes them as easy to "shoot down" as the FAUX News people.

      Answer: NO.

      Rachel Maddow in mid-2010: "Would you have voted for passage of the Civil Rights Acts?"

      Candidate Rand Paul: "Yes. Though I disagree with certain portions of it, I think overall the bill was a positive good, so I would have voted for passage of the bill."

      Note these are ot exact-quotes but quoting from memory. The video is on youtube if you need a cite. Being at work I cannot access youtube myself, but since you're an engineer I'm sure you can figure-out how to use their search engine. Peace. :-)

      P.S.

      Oh and while you're at it, you might want to search for videos from black people who AGREE the civil rights bill was over-reach. (Such as Dr. Thomas Sowell and Walter E.Williams.) Why? Because they don't want to serve white people in their private buildings, churches, or homes. As is their right as free individuals (even if I think it's wrong.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:Sad Day by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. If you're stupid enough to refuse to do business with someone, your competitors will get the business you refused.

      And if your competitor does business with that someone, they'd be called "nigger lovers" and run out of business, with everyone from the mayor and the sheriff down to the local Jaycees cheering them on. It's all a private transaction until you call the cops to throw a "trespasser" out of your lunch counter, or the cops refuse to arrest people who assault someone who dares sit at it.

      Regulating public accommodations in CRA '63 was a practical solution to the problem of collusion between the local government and private interests. It made frivolous, racial government prosecutions for "loitering" and "trespassing" impossible.

      Your theory works until people care more about being racist than making money, as if profits were able to buy off peoples prejudices. They don't.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    11. Re:Sad Day by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly this has nothing to do with the fact that 100 years after the end of slavery the "free market" had shown that it was perfectly willing to get together and conspire to keep black folks in abject poverty and deny them access to goods and services. When the Constitution was amended to give blacks equal rights the Southern Court's ruled that the clear and obvious interpretation of those new amendments was wrong -- that blacks didn't have the right to equal treatment, and if they did, they could at least be kept separate.

      Fantasies about the mythical market unicorn didn't solve the problem. Years of protests didn't solve the problem. LBJ solved the problem. And it has stayed solved. Show me one self-inflicted market reform that has ever worked as well.

    12. Re:Sad Day by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about that. Colloquially, "thug" can be used synonymously with "minion," "goon," etc... as a criminal in the service of powerful individual or organization ("The don sent his thugs..." etc...)

      Considering that we get more and more reports every month of the TSA doing things that would be explicitly illegal for the citizenry, it seems like a pretty fitting term to me. Though maybe "government" should have been "government's," but that's more of a semantic nitpick than "extremism."

    13. Re:Sad Day by Azghoul · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, you're right. Civil rights legislation completely blew away racism in this country, in just a matter of minutes!!

    14. Re:Sad Day by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Lies, damn lies and video tape: You say:

      Rachel Maddow in mid-2010: "Would you have voted for passage of the Civil Rights Acts?" Candidate Rand Paul: "Yes. Though I disagree with certain portions of it, I think overall the bill was a positive good, so I would have voted for passage of the bill." Note these are ot exact-quotes but quoting from memory. The video is on youtube if you need a cite. Being at work I cannot access youtube myself, but since you're an engineer I'm sure you can figure-out how to use their search engine. Peace. :-)

      The tape says:

      Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," he said.

      Where is that "I would have voted for it" part you claim was there? Oh wait, it isn't, because he didn't say that. He has in fact repeatedly come out against the provisions of the CRA that require business that are open to the public to serve all comers regardless of skin color.

      As for the rest of your noise, no I don't care that there are people that don't like white people and would please like to be able to keep them out of their churches. How is that relevant to your freedom to travel and live your life without being excluded from services made available to the public based upon the color of your skin? I thought you people were /for/ economic freedoms.

    15. Re:Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the most absurd white-washing I've ever heard. Who do you think composed the onerous state governments who were so tragically oppressing the free market? It was the very citizens who owned those businesses, frequented them, and otherwise populated those states. Those communities supported, elected and funded the politicians who enacted those ideas into law. Trying to retroactively give the racist attitudes of the Jim Crow era an out by suggesting the state government was forcing them against their will into segregation is not only embarrassing but offensive. You would do yourself and everyone you know a favor to recognize that governments and laws do not exist in a vacuum.

  5. Mainstream politicians by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the political mainstream in America does not give two hoots about civil rights, except when it comes to protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy Americans. We have gotten the point where the bill of rights is "extremist."

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  6. Re:Some people seem to forget... by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you missed the point.
    If I set up an organization to grope people in libraries people have the option not to use the library, but that doesn't make my groping legal.

  7. And this is news? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Pauls have a quick fix for everything, and it's usually some form of "pull the plug".

    • The Federal Reserve Bank's complex and lacks oversight? End the Fed!
    • Income tax is hard to understand? No more income taxes!
    • Mathematical models aren't perfect for predicting reality? Use psychology!
    • We've made a mess of another country, and cleanup's expensive? Exit Afghanistan!
    • Social Security commitments breaking your perfect budget? Opt out!
    • People think you're a crackpot who doesn't understand the modern world enough to support your campaign through traditional channels? Fly a blimp!

    Ron Paul 2012: because quick fixes haven't screwed up the world enough already.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. TSA does something very important by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well... for politicians. The problem they have is that if another terrorist attack gets through they don't want to be held accountable for it. So the TSA was created and the security was made as annoying as possible without actually making it so annoying that the TSA is scrapped. It's a balancing act.

    Anyway, if there is another attack they can point at the TSA and say " do you want it to be any more annoying then that?!" And if they've made it annoying enough everyone will agree it is almost unbearably annoying.

    So they'll say "well, you chose not to make it any more annoying so that's on the American people and not your entirely blameless elected official."

    And thus they can't be held accountable for anything that could go wrong.

    If you scrap the TSA and there is another attack, they'll get blamed for it. That's not acceptable.

    If they put in a better system that isn't annoying but is much more effective and there is an attack they could still get blamed even if they gave us a really good system. Why? Because unless it's really annoying someone somewhere will blame the system.

    So here we are... and in a lot of ways it's all our faults.

    I'm personally going through the pat down process every single time I travel. If more people were like me, the TSA would have disbanded about ten seconds after it stopped because logistically they can't pat everyone down.

    Many people have messaged me in the past on this very site to tell me that they shouldn't have to go through that process and so they go through the scanner instead. That's fine. You're making it easy for them and it is because of people like you that the TSA gets away with it.

    If you don't like the TSA then get a pat down or stfu.

    Ron Paul can't do anything about it. The man has no power. He has one isolated seat in congress. Who votes with him in a block? No one. He's all by himself out there. So whatever you think of his politics, he's not really an effective response to anything. He won't be president and he's isn't even a relevant force in the house.

    If you care about the TSA's abuse of the common traveler... never walk through the scanner. Always take the pat down alternative. If enough of us do it. We win.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. Re:Some people seem to forget... by mcelrath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is a stupid and ridiculous statement. This is the 21st century, and air travel is the most common form of transportation for nearly all people is by air, to exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that horse and buggy is still an option is simply stupid. The government must change with the times, and these times predominantly use air travel.

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  10. Re:If I can not sex assault you..... by LDAPMAN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By that logic because I can't imprison you or execute you the government can't either. Because I can't tax you, the government can't tax you...

    Thats starting to sound good to me..

  11. To avoid groping, travel by land. by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    High speed rail will get you to your destination faster than by air, curb to curb, up to about 400 miles. (Even bicycles are occasionally faster than flying.) And to date, no terrorist has ever steered a train into a building, so unless you're going through the tunnel under the English Channel, there will always be less groping to board a train than an airliner.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  12. Some Kudos Deserved by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Paul family has made the American public ponder deeper about certain topics than they normally would. I have to give them some kudos.

    Ron's comment about foreign policy versus the golden rule during the GOP debates was a key moment in political history. It put the Neocons' philosophy up to the public X-ray machine.

    I applaud them for making America think; something that is hard to do.

  13. Re:The Campaign for Liberty Platform by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair, the Federal Reserve deserves to be scrapped as much, if not more than, the TSA.

    Never jump on board a "do away with X" bandwagon until you know what they're planning to replace "X" with.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  14. Throw in "Homeland Security" (KGB for the new age) by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And you've got a deal!

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  15. Won't happen by slasho81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The TSA employs about 58,000 employees.

    The number one thing by far that voters in the US care about is jobs.

    This will never happen.

  16. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by cvtan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any place there is a security screening line is an effective site to set off a bomb. Lots of people standing around and no one has been screened yet. Why bother going through all the trouble to get a device on a plane? Wherever there is a chance that you might be discovered, set it off. You might take out a multi-million dollar scanner! I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet (or has it?).

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  17. Depends by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That depends on how their insurance think about the importance of passenger screening.

  18. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the main reason to go to the trouble of getting a device on a plane is so that you can repurpose the plane into a big missile filled with flammable material, and do a LOT more damage and kill a lot more people than you could with a bomb in a security line. However, the days of that happening are over now, and indeed were over on 9/11 as soon as the passengers on the fourth plane learned what happened on the other three, and now that planes have locked cabin doors, and passengers willing to fight to the death (as has been demonstrated several times, not only on 9/11 but in a couple other incidents when passengers beat the snot out of people with bombs, which of course made it right through the oh-so-effective TSA screening), it's all moot.

    However, I think terrorists could do a lot more damage copying the terrorists in Mumbai than bombing security lines. Imagine if terrorists came to shopping malls during the Christmas shopping season with AK47s; this scenario has been discussed many times before. The fact is, there's only so much security precautions will do for you; for all these other things, you just have to take the risk. Besides, it's much riskier driving your car to the mall, than the tiny risk of being shot by terrorists when you're there. Auto accidents kill 50,000 Americans every year (and 250,000 people worldwide). That's far more than have ever been killed by terrorists, but we do absolutely nothing about that.

  19. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any place there is a security screening line is an effective site to set off a bomb.

    Yet it doesn't really happen. Not even in Israel, let alone the U.S.

    There is NO threat from criminals that want to commit mass murder by hijacking planes.

    There is A GENUINE THREAT from heart disease, cancer (including that caused by ionising radiation), diabetes, driving a car.

    Hell, in america, more people died from hernias in the last 15 years than from plane hijackings.

  20. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by JDAustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine if terrorists came to shopping malls during the Christmas shopping season with AK47s;

    This would be less likely to happen in state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws. If one in twenty people are carrying a gun, your AK-47 rampage is ending very quickly.

  21. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course we do a lot about car safety. Are you kidding me? Traffic laws, speed limits, mandatory seatbelts laws, airbags, crumple zones, government mandated safety ratings, harsh DWI penalties, etc. But there's only so much you can reasonably do to protect people while still leaving that mode of transportation viable and cost-effective.

    Please tell me what we've done to improve driver training in this country.

  22. Liberty Theater vs. Security Theater by ukemike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The TSA is security theater, and Rand Paul's proposal is liberty theater.

    Sure the TSA sucks but this won't get rid of the FBI's national security letters, the PATRIOT Act, the indefinite detention provisions of the recent NDAA, torture, robo-bombing of other nations at will, extraordinary rendition, NSA snooping every email, NSA snooping in everything else, the looming legal lockdown on the internet, the elimination of the public domain culture in favor of permanent copyright, FBI infiltration and disruption of dissident organizations, or any of the other dozens of despicable BS our government has done recently.

    In fact Rand Paul would just privatize the TSA, because government tyranny sucks, but corporate tyranny is the Amuuurican way!

    --
    -- QED
  23. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the main reason to go to the trouble of getting a device on a plane is so that you can repurpose the plane into a big missile filled with flammable material, and do a LOT more damage and kill a lot more people than you could with a bomb in a security line.

    You're living in a dream world. The objective of terrorism isn't material damage, it's psychological/economic damage.

    --
    No sig today...
  24. Re:Toddler Groping is Better than Rand Paul by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My current best guess for who "they" may be is the U.S. government themselves. Our government has gone rogue. I wouldn't put it past them to run a false-flag operation to gain even more power over us and take away the rest of our freedoms.

    I don't trust either party. No matter who you vote for this November, the government wins.

    The so-called war on terror is an excuse. Any damned fool could tell you that if somebody is threatening us with "terror", the only way to win is to NOT be afraid. Ignore them. Take the hit. Then strike back harder AFTER you find out EXACTLY who did it.

  25. Groping Rand Paul by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be less likely to happen in state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws. If one in twenty people are carrying a gun, your AK-47 rampage is ending very quickly.

    Have you ever seen an assault rifle in action? They are built to put a lot of people in the ground, and fast. They have been refined to do this well for the past 60 years. If I had a 9mm Tupperware gun, and some guy opened up with an assault rifle, I would not be trying to take him out. I would be grabbing cover and running.

    The fact that Tx and Az have liberal gun laws isn't a solution to the problem, it feeds it by making it easier for dangerous people to get guns.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Groping Rand Paul by Lord+of+the+Fries · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why all of those gun packing Swiss have so many problems like you allude to. :) OTOH, I'm not naive enough to believe that simply legalizing all weapons would create a secure stalemate situation like Switzerland enjoys. The other half of the Swiss system, that never seems to get mentioned that much, is the mandatory conscription of all males. It would be like the NRA supporting not only the right to bear arms, but the obligation to bear arms, doing yearly duty similar to the National Guard.

      --
      One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.